How On Earth Can We Be Free?

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

psycho
Posts: 182
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:49 pm

Re: How On Earth Can We Be Free?

Post by psycho »

bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 10:58 pm Yes, Then we go one step back and decide whether we consider options (drinking or not) or not. There are two options here too, consider options or not. They are both possible.
You should be able to show (given your conviction) that you are aware of all the factors that influenced your decision.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 10:58 pm That is due to the nature of free will. Free will is about the unconditional situation when there are options. Free will is what you need to produce perfect noise.
Science does not have a formed opinion about free will.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 10:58 pm Formation exist in a substance and propagate as the Schordinger equation predicts.
I mean, it has no cause?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 10:58 pm I think that randomness comes from the decisions of individuals.
Your answer is not related to my question.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 10:58 pm What I am describing is a situation that your mind cannot decide conditionally. What is left is a free decision.
But the example and its description don't prove your point.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Can We Be Free?

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:40 am Do you find some of your remarks and comments condescending and/or arrogant?

Also. I did NOT find what you ALLEGE/IMPLY was in there. So, are you EVEN ABLE to direct 'us', readers, to the EXACT WORDS that CLAIM that "robots REALLY do have the ability to choose"?

If no, then maybe YOUR ARROGANCE is partly due to YOUR IGNORANCE.

But, if you are ABLE to SHOW us those words, then WILL YOU?
Ok, let me make your life simple.
Okay. Thank you.

But WHY do 'you' PRESUME 'my life' is NOT as SIMPLE as it could be NOW?
Because you didn't understand the relationship between a condition command and algorithmic programing and decision making.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm Think of the situation that you are offered an orange and an apple (you offered options). You however can only pick up one fruit.
WHY can I, supposedly, ONLY pick up ONE fruit?
You can pick up both fruit too but that makes the situation more complex since you have three options instead of two options.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm This means that you have to make a choice if you want fruit. This means that you need to make a decision.
Yes, the words 'have to' MEANS and INFERS that I 'need to'.
Yes.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm You then refer to yourself to see how do you feel about the fruits or which one is better for you.
Who and/or what is the 'you', which you CLAIM " refers to "yourself" "? And, who and/or what could be and/or is "yourself" here?
I mean you look at your feeling and thoughts to see which fruit is better for you.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm Also, when 'i' referred to "my" Self I do NOT 'feel' ANY thing about the fruits. Also, emotions do NOT come into play in regards to "which one is better for me". In fact, thinking, itself, does not even come into play about "which one is better for me".
Good for you. But you still have two options here, one is very useful and another one is less.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm See, the thoughts and emotions that arise within that body are NOT necessarily the thoughts and emotions that arise within this body.

But if you ALREADY understood who and what the 'you' IS and who and what thee 'I' AM and how the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY work, then 'you' would ALREADY KNOW ALL-OF-THIS.
Yes.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm This defines the situation that that allows you to decide ( that is true since options are possible).
What do 'you' now mean by, " 'allows' you to decide "? Previously you stated that I 'have to', and that I 'need to', decide.
I simply mean that options are possible to you so you can consider them.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm 'Allowing' one to make a decision FREELY is VERY DIFFERENT from 'making' one make a decision.
Yes. But you cannot force people to make decisions if they don't want to. That is true because they are free.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm You for example see that you like the orange much more than apple in spite of apple be a more useful fruit for you at that moment.
'What' EXACTLY would 'make' an apple "be a MORE USEFUL fruit for me at that moment"? Besides YOUR OWN DISTORTED THINKING?
Just think that that is true for sake of discussion.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm What are 'you' DECIDING 'more useful' on EXACTLY? And what is YOUR 'more useful' thinking in 'relation to' here, EXACTLY?

As I have previously stated, 'you', human beings, will try and say just absolutely ANY thing in order to back up and support your currently held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS. And this can be CLEARLY SEEN in the way you write and speak.
So you cannot choose? You cannot even imagine the situation that I am describing?
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm This is called comparing. The decision is made if what you want is what the comparing tells you. The decision, in this case, is biased. You can even also make unconditional/free decisions and say that you want an apple.
LOL You are joking here right?

Now, tell 'us', readers, HOW EXACTLY is 'me' choosing the apple here now instead of the orange some supposed and alleged "unconditional/free decision"?
Because you can go against what your feeling and thought ask you.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm And WHY if I chose the orange, then that would NOT be a supposed and alleged "unconditional/ free decision"?

WHY, to you, is one decision BIASED and the other one is NOT?
That is matter thinking and reading what I wrote again.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm The above example was a situation that you could make decision (biased) or a free decision (unbiased). The example of trail is a situation that you could only make a free decision.
You REALLY WILL 'try' just about absolutely ANY thing, in the hope that 'it' will back up and support your ALREADY held and maintained BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS about what is true, right, and correct, correct?
Support? You are not serious. I am asking you to imagine yourself in a situation and you asked me a lot of nonsense questions.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm A robot can make decision but not free decision.
Okay. If you BELIEVE SO, then it MUST BE SO, correct?
Believing is not enough. It is what I said. You can say that you don't know the details though.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 9:28 am
Is that what I REALLY mean?

If yes, then 'what' are you basing that on, EXACTLY?

By the way, what I mean by 'free will' is NOT what you just CLAIMED here.
The keyword free is added to make distinction between decision or free decision. I already explained both to you.
What you have done here is just 'TRY TO' defend and "justify" your ALREADY held and well maintained BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, ONLY.
I am definint different situation for you first. It has nothing to do with the proof. I then explained other things like what free and non-free decisions are.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm But what you are REALLY doing is just SHOWING and EXPOSING just how DISTORTED that thinking is within that body.
It is how we decide in situations. Are you different from us?
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm By the way, the ONLY way 'you' are making 'my life' simple here is by providing the actual EVIDENCE and PROOF that I needed, in order to SHOW and REVEAL just how an adult brain can work just like a computer/robot does, without me being accused of influencing the test subjects. That is; you are SHOWING just how the adult human brain can be so inflicted, and so that it is so BIASED that it can then only work just like a computer/robot does.
You need to use imagination more if you want to understand what I am trying to say. You also need to study computer science more. Do you expect me to teach you everything while you laugh at me?
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 9:28 am
So what?

You appear to be going completely off-topic AGAIN.
That is how you decide. A computer decides in the same way. These decisions are not free though.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 9:28 am
And when EXACTLY are 'you' "independent of ANY bias"?
When I decide freely and meditate. When I am on the unknown trail and face a fork in the trail.
And we have an ACTUAL EXAMPLE of when 'you' were on an unknown, to you, trail and you were faced with a fork on that trail. So, now we have a PRIME EXAMPLE of which only 'you' can EXPLAIN of; Why did you take the path that you did?
I freely decide and turned it wrong. That was a gamble and I was able to do it since I was free.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm When, and IF, you answer Honestly, then 'we' can SEE if you were Truly 'free' or if you were being controlled by some 'thing'.
How I could be controlled by something else?
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 9:28 am How do 'you' make "your" 'self" "independent of ANY biases"?
Through a short meditation.
How 'long' is "a short meditation", and, how 'long' does that 'self' remain "independent of ANY biases" for?
A short period.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm It is just for the duration of the 'meditation' itself, or does it last past the meditation phase as well?
It remains after meditation too.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 9:28 am Is that the "mind" that 'you' HAVE, or the "mind" that 'you' ARE?



But there is ALREADY a FULLY EXPLANATION of how. But one has to be Truly and thus FULLY OPEN to UNDERSTANDING this EXPLANATION FULLY.

Also, because HOW the Mind ACTUALLY WORKS this is WHY a FULL EXPLANATION is ALREADY KNOWN and WELL UNDERSTOOD.
What is that explanation?
But you just SAID and BELIEVE that "there is NO explanation NOR theory for 'it', correct?

And, if you BELIEVE that is NONE, then I have found that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the Universe that could SHOW 'you' otherwise.

See, while a human being is BELIEVING some 'thing' is true, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, in the WHOLE of the Universe, that can PROVE to them otherwise.
I don't think that there is a theory for free will. You said there is. I asked what it is to challenge you.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 9:28 am
But 'you' can NOT even answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?', properly nor correctly.
I can even tell you what I am.
But will you tell 'us', readers, what 'I' am?

Saying, "you can even tell us some 'thing", does NOT necessarily mean that you REALLY can and thus WILL.
I am a free agent who has a body and a mind.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 9:28 am 'I' found that 'I' am MORE FREE with KNOWING the FULL EXPLANATION.

But 'you' are RIGHT in that 'you' are VERY DIFFERENT from 'I'.
Of course, you can not have any explanation for free decision but decision
And while 'you' BELIEVE this is 'absolutely and irrefutably true', which you do, there is absolutely NO use AT ALL SAYING nor SHOWING 'you' otherwise.
Suppose that there is a theory for free will. This means that you can predict the decision. You however cannot predict a free decision since it is not biased (there is no causal relation between free decision and one of the options so free decision cannot be predicted). Therefore, there is no theory for free will.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 9:28 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 9:28 am So, quite conveniently, you can make absolutely ANY thing fit in with absolutely ANY thing else here now, correct?

And thus you could NEVER be WRONG, also, correct?
That needed only an elaboration.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 9:28 am
What did you want 'me' to ask "myself"?

Also, 'you' BELIEVE that 'I' am wrong, so 'I' MUST BE WRONG, correct?
Sure your definition is wrong that is why you cannot get what I am saying. I am talking about free decision you are talking about decision.
But I have GOT what 'you' are saying. This can be PROVEN just by HOW I have been CHALLENGING you through and by asking you some CLARIFYING questions, which you have FAILED to answer sufficiently.
Did you understand the difference between decision and free decision as I described and defined?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: How On Earth Can We Be Free?

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:11 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 10:58 pm That is due to the nature of free will. Free will is about the unconditional situation when there are options. Free will is what you need to produce perfect noise.
What, EXACTLY, is 'perfect noise', to you?
Something which is unconditioned perfectly.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: How On Earth Can We Be Free?

Post by bahman »

psycho wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:15 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 10:58 pm Yes, Then we go one step back and decide whether we consider options (drinking or not) or not. There are two options here too, consider options or not. They are both possible.
You should be able to show (given your conviction) that you are aware of all the factors that influenced your decision.
All factors that affect my decisions are those that I am aware of them. There is a fantastic correlation between what I decide and what happens. That could not be a coincidence which is due to a factor that I am not aware of it.
psycho wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:15 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 10:58 pm That is due to the nature of free will. Free will is about the unconditional situation when there are options. Free will is what you need to produce perfect noise.
Science does not have a formed opinion about free will.
Of course not. They think that they can have a theory of everything. We still don't have a theory of everything.
psycho wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:15 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 10:58 pm Formation exist in a substance and propagate as the Schordinger equation predicts.
I mean, it has no cause?
Mind causes it.
psycho wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:15 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 10:58 pm I think that randomness comes from the decisions of individuals.
Your answer is not related to my question.
Mathematical models explain the data. There is noise in any data due to the mind.
psycho wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:15 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 10:58 pm What I am describing is a situation that your mind cannot decide conditionally. What is left is a free decision.
But the example and its description don't prove your point.
Of course, it does. I was in such a situation and I was able to decide. This means that I have a justification for what I think is true. You can imagine yourself in that situation too. Of course, you also can decide when there is no bias.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Can We Be Free?

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm
Ok, let me make your life simple.
Okay. Thank you.

But WHY do 'you' PRESUME 'my life' is NOT as SIMPLE as it could be NOW?
Because you didn't understand the relationship between a condition command and algorithmic programing and decision making.
What made you PRESUME this?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm Think of the situation that you are offered an orange and an apple (you offered options). You however can only pick up one fruit.
WHY can I, supposedly, ONLY pick up ONE fruit?
You can pick up both fruit too but that makes the situation more complex since you have three options instead of two options.
But I could pick up NO fruit, and so there is now four options. Or, I could just walk away, and so there is now five options. But, so what?

You did NOT answer the actual clarifying question I asked you. Have you forgotten ALREADY that you STIPULATED that I could ONLY pick up ONE fruit?

So, I would suggest that if you want to use examples like these to prove some point that you want to get across, then you STICK TO what you ACTUALLY SAY and STIPULATE in YOUR examples.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm This means that you have to make a choice if you want fruit. This means that you need to make a decision.
Yes, the words 'have to' MEANS and INFERS that I 'need to'.
Yes.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm You then refer to yourself to see how do you feel about the fruits or which one is better for you.
Who and/or what is the 'you', which you CLAIM " refers to "yourself" "? And, who and/or what could be and/or is "yourself" here?
I mean you look at your feeling and thoughts to see which fruit is better for you.
'Feeling' will NEVER tell 'me' which fruit is better for me.

In fact, 'feelings' can lead to the VERY OPPOSITE.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm Also, when 'i' referred to "my" Self I do NOT 'feel' ANY thing about the fruits. Also, emotions do NOT come into play in regards to "which one is better for me". In fact, thinking, itself, does not even come into play about "which one is better for me".
Good for you. But you still have two options here, one is very useful and another one is less.
LOL WHY is one, supposedly and allegedly, "very useful" and the other one, supposedly and allegedly, "less useful"?

In fact, HOW and WHY is choosing between two pieces of fruit (of all things) going to be "useful"? And, more importantly "more or less useful" in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm See, the thoughts and emotions that arise within that body are NOT necessarily the thoughts and emotions that arise within this body.

But if you ALREADY understood who and what the 'you' IS and who and what thee 'I' AM and how the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY work, then 'you' would ALREADY KNOW ALL-OF-THIS.
Yes.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm This defines the situation that that allows you to decide ( that is true since options are possible).
What do 'you' now mean by, " 'allows' you to decide "? Previously you stated that I 'have to', and that I 'need to', decide.
I simply mean that options are possible to you so you can consider them.
But when someone TELLS you that you 'have to' and/or 'need' to 'make' a decision, but you, however, can ONLY pick ONE fruit, then this does NOT sound very much like there is much ALLOWING going on here nor that many OPTIONS are REALLY possible, in this example of YOURS.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm 'Allowing' one to make a decision FREELY is VERY DIFFERENT from 'making' one make a decision.
Yes. But you cannot force people to make decisions if they don't want to. That is true because they are free.
This may be True in the Truest sense, but I think you are still a LONG WAY from this and that you have NOT arrived at that sense FULLY, YET.

But anyway, if one is being threatened with death, then there is a sense of 'more force' being felt by that one, correct?

Or, do you still BELIEVE that a person can NOT be 'forced' to make decisions if they do not want to? For example, if someone put a gun to your head and told you that if you do not make a decision, then they will blow your head off, are you saying that you would NOT feel forced into making a decision if you did not want to make a decision?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm You for example see that you like the orange much more than apple in spite of apple be a more useful fruit for you at that moment.
'What' EXACTLY would 'make' an apple "be a MORE USEFUL fruit for me at that moment"? Besides YOUR OWN DISTORTED THINKING?
Just think that that is true for sake of discussion.
But making up ABSOLUTELY DECEIVING LIES, in the hope that that will somehow CONVINCE the "other" to SEE 'things' "my way", does NOT work on 'me'. Is this UNDERSTOOD by 'you'?

If you WANT 'me' to think some 'thing' is TRUE, then you have to MAKE SURE that that 'thing' IS TRUE, FIRST, as well as be ABLE TO IRREFUTABLY PROVE that that 'thing' IS TRUE. You will HAVE TO DO THIS BEFORE I even consider to think about that 'thing' BEING TRUE. Is this WELL and Truly UNDERSTOOD, by 'you'?

And if you ever 'TRY TO' be this DECEITFUL AGAIN, I will bring that to the FOREFRONT and HIGHLIGHT it and SHOW it AGAIN, okay?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm What are 'you' DECIDING 'more useful' on EXACTLY? And what is YOUR 'more useful' thinking in 'relation to' here, EXACTLY?

As I have previously stated, 'you', human beings, will try and say just absolutely ANY thing in order to back up and support your currently held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS. And this can be CLEARLY SEEN in the way you write and speak.
So you cannot choose? You cannot even imagine the situation that I am describing?
How about YOU bringing some ACTUAL Truth and Honesty into YOUR EXAMPLES?

If you do, then I will NOT just 'try' but I WILL ACTUALLY DO. Is this UNDERSTOOD, by 'you'?

Also, NO I can NOT imagine how "an apple" is LOL "more useful" than "an orange" is.

I can OBVIOUSLY SEE and KNOW that you ARE 'trying' absolutely ANY 'thing' to "justify" and support YOUR ALREADY HELD DISTORTED BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, but I can NOT imagine 'things' that are SO BLATANTLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm This is called comparing. The decision is made if what you want is what the comparing tells you. The decision, in this case, is biased. You can even also make unconditional/free decisions and say that you want an apple.
LOL You are joking here right?

Now, tell 'us', readers, HOW EXACTLY is 'me' choosing the apple here now instead of the orange some supposed and alleged "unconditional/free decision"?
Because you can go against what your feeling and thought ask you.
Saying, "what your feeling and thought ask you", IS PURE and TOTAL NONSENSICAL.

Now, even if you were 'trying to' say something like, " Because you can go against "what you were feeling and thinking" ", then this STILL in ABSOLUTELY NO WAY AT ALL answers my CLARIFYING QUESTION about, HOW choosing the apple instead of the orange, in YOUR EXAMPLE, MEANS that that was some, so called, "unconditional/free decision".

You, are again, just getting FURTHER AWAY from what you start wanting to "convince" "others' of, in the threads you start up.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm And WHY if I chose the orange, then that would NOT be a supposed and alleged "unconditional/ free decision"?

WHY, to you, is one decision BIASED and the other one is NOT?
That is matter thinking and reading what I wrote again.
LOL But it does NOT matter how many times I read what you wrote. What you wrote REMAINS PURE NONSENSICAL.

And YOUR INABILITY to CLARIFY NOR to be ABLE TO justify what you write PROVES that what you wrote is even MORE NONSENSICAL on FURTHER READINGS to other readers.

If you can NOT back up and support what you wrote the FIRST TIME, then you probably can NOT and WILL NOT ANY other time, correct?

If you CAN NOT and WILL NOT inform 'us', readers, the FIRST TIME of WHY EXACTLY is 'me' choosing "an orange", in YOUR EXAMPLE, BIASED but if 'I' chose "the apple", then that would NOT be BIASED but would, in fact, be an "unconditional/free decision", then that IMPLIES that you are TOTALLY and UTTERLY INCAPABLE to back up and support YOUR CLAIM/S here.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm

You REALLY WILL 'try' just about absolutely ANY thing, in the hope that 'it' will back up and support your ALREADY held and maintained BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS about what is true, right, and correct, correct?
Support? You are not serious. I am asking you to imagine yourself in a situation and you asked me a lot of nonsense questions.
And you are ONLY calling those questions, "nonsense questions" BECAUSE you are TOTALLY INCAPABLE of being able to answer them, Honestly.

Because if you did, then you would DEFEAT your OWN position, view, "argument", and BELIEF.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
Okay. If you BELIEVE SO, then it MUST BE SO, correct?
Believing is not enough. It is what I said.
Okay. So, if you just say 'it', then 'it' MUST BE TRUE, correct?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm You can say that you don't know the details though.
But WHY can I say this?

You can say that you do NOT know the details also, correct?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm
The keyword free is added to make distinction between decision or free decision. I already explained both to you.
What you have done here is just 'TRY TO' defend and "justify" your ALREADY held and well maintained BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, ONLY.
I am definint different situation for you first. It has nothing to do with the proof. I then explained other things like what free and non-free decisions are.
But you are ONLY explaining 'things' from YOUR PERSPECTIVE ONLY.

You are obviously NOT necessarily explaining 'things' from thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' PERSPECTIVE.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm But what you are REALLY doing is just SHOWING and EXPOSING just how DISTORTED that thinking is within that body.
It is how we decide in situations.
'you' make decisions. Just how 'free' or 'not' they are is UP FOR DISCUSSION. Although you ALREADY BELIEVE that there is NO 'need' FOR DISCUSSION because you BELIEVE that you ALREADY KNOW what the ACTUAL TRUTH IS, correct?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm Are you different from us?
LOL If ONLY thee ACTUAL Truth was ALREADY KNOWN, by 'you'?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm By the way, the ONLY way 'you' are making 'my life' simple here is by providing the actual EVIDENCE and PROOF that I needed, in order to SHOW and REVEAL just how an adult brain can work just like a computer/robot does, without me being accused of influencing the test subjects. That is; you are SHOWING just how the adult human brain can be so inflicted, and so that it is so BIASED that it can then only work just like a computer/robot does.
You need to use imagination more if you want to understand what I am trying to say.
But even with IMAGINATION, YOUR EXAMPLES DO NOT WORK.

When, and IF, 'you' ever learn how the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORK, then 'you' WILL UNDERSTAND FULLY WHY YOUR EXAMPLES DO NOT WORK.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm You also need to study computer science more. Do you expect me to teach you everything while you laugh at me?
The CONDESCENDING TONE in here is amusing to SEE and OBSERVE.

Will "studying computer science" teach/tell me WHY if I choose "an orange" then that is BIASED and WHY if I choose "an apple", then THAT IS an "unconditional/free decision"?

If no, then THAT is WHAT I expect 'you' to TEACH 'me', understood?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm
That is how you decide. A computer decides in the same way. These decisions are not free though.


When I decide freely and meditate. When I am on the unknown trail and face a fork in the trail.
And we have an ACTUAL EXAMPLE of when 'you' were on an unknown, to you, trail and you were faced with a fork on that trail. So, now we have a PRIME EXAMPLE of which only 'you' can EXPLAIN of; Why did you take the path that you did?
I freely decide and turned it wrong. That was a gamble and I was able to do it since I was free.
LOL The way to PROVE that YOUR DECISION was a Truly FREE decision is such a VERY SIMPLE and EASY thing to do. Yet here you are PROVING the EXACT OPPOSITE.

I will say and explain this again. If it your decision "turned out WRONG", then you were making a decision BASED on some 'thing', which is OBVIOUSLY a 'biased' decision. And, thus, according to your OWN definitions, was therefore NOT an "unconditional" NOR "free" decision AT ALL.

Besides all of this you said that it was a "wrong decision" because you did NOT get to WHERE you WANTED to go. Now, are you SURE you NEVER got to WHERE you WANTED to go, or did you just get THERE some time later?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm When, and IF, you answer Honestly, then 'we' can SEE if you were Truly 'free' or if you were being controlled by some 'thing'.
How I could be controlled by something else?
BECAUSE, as I have been SAYING and SHOWING, YOU WANTED TO GET SOMEWHERE.

Thus, you were CONTROLLED by WHERE you WANTED to GET TO. The 'things' that WERE CONTROLLING YOU, were your DESIRES, and the PLACE that you WANTED to GET TO.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm
Through a short meditation.
How 'long' is "a short meditation", and, how 'long' does that 'self' remain "independent of ANY biases" for?
A short period.
So, WHY AGAIN did you pick the trail that YOU DID?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm It is just for the duration of the 'meditation' itself, or does it last past the meditation phase as well?
It remains after meditation too.
And for HOW LONG, EXACTLY?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm
What is that explanation?
But you just SAID and BELIEVE that "there is NO explanation NOR theory for 'it', correct?

And, if you BELIEVE that is NONE, then I have found that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the Universe that could SHOW 'you' otherwise.

See, while a human being is BELIEVING some 'thing' is true, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, in the WHOLE of the Universe, that can PROVE to them otherwise.
I don't think that there is a theory for free will. You said there is. I asked what it is to challenge you.
Did I EVER say that there is a theory for 'FREE WILL'?

If yes, then WHERE EXACTLY? But if no, then WHY say I DID?

Also, when did you ask me, "What 'it' is?" And, if you EVER did, then my FIRST response would have been, 'What is 'it', which you are referring to here, EXACTLY?

From what I can ascertain, what ACTUALLY took place, WAS:
I asked you; Do you follow a chain of causality?, and then I said and asked; If no, then WHEN and HOW?

To which you replied; It is an ability of the mind. and, So asking how is meaningless since there is no explanation or theory for it.

SO, this is what ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVEN by OUR written words.

Now, you can keep 'TRYING TO' LIE and DECEIVE your way through our discussions OR you can just be completely Truthful and Honest. Personally, I find the latter FAR MORE IN-SIGHT-FULL and thus VERY REWARDING.

If you WANT to continue this DISCUSSION, then PLEASE DO.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm
I can even tell you what I am.
But will you tell 'us', readers, what 'I' am?

Saying, "you can even tell us some 'thing", does NOT necessarily mean that you REALLY can and thus WILL.
I am a free agent who has a body and a mind.
Okay. Although this CONTRADICTS COMPLETELY when you say, that "you ARE a mind", this will have to do, for now.

By the way, 'you', "bahman", are a LOT CLOSER to thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' here than a LOT of 'you', other human beings, are and have been for thousands upon thousands of years.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm
Of course, you can not have any explanation for free decision but decision
And while 'you' BELIEVE this is 'absolutely and irrefutably true', which you do, there is absolutely NO use AT ALL SAYING nor SHOWING 'you' otherwise.
Suppose that there is a theory for free will. This means that you can predict the decision.
But a "theory" is NEVER necessarily even close to be accurate EVER, let alone actually being accurate at all.

"Theories" are nothing more than just a guess or an assumption about what is true, right, and/or correct. I MUCH PREFER to just LOOK AT and DISCUSS ONLY 'that' what IS ACTUALLY True, Right, and/or Correct, instead. Is this UNDERSTOOD by you?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm You however cannot predict a free decision since it is not biased (there is no causal relation between free decision and one of the options so free decision cannot be predicted). Therefore, there is no theory for free will.
I NEVER said there was. NEVER even imagined there was. And, NEVER even thought that was, BEFORE, you STARTED talking about this here in this response of yours now.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 9:28 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:56 pm
That needed only an elaboration.


Sure your definition is wrong that is why you cannot get what I am saying. I am talking about free decision you are talking about decision.
But I have GOT what 'you' are saying. This can be PROVEN just by HOW I have been CHALLENGING you through and by asking you some CLARIFYING questions, which you have FAILED to answer sufficiently.
Did you understand the difference between decision and free decision as I described and defined?
YES.

But what you described and defined is ONLY YOUR VIEWS and/or BELIEFS ONLY.

What you describe and define does NOT necessarily match in with what is ACTUALLY True, Right, and Correct. Or, do you ACTUALLY BELIEVE otherwise?
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How On Earth Can We Be Free?

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:11 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 10:58 pm That is due to the nature of free will. Free will is about the unconditional situation when there are options. Free will is what you need to produce perfect noise.
What, EXACTLY, is 'perfect noise', to you?
Something which is unconditioned perfectly.
So, to 'you', there is NO 'thing', which can be "unconditioned perfectly" until 'you' PRODUCE 'it', correct?

If no, then what are you actually SAYING and MEANING?

Also, can there be some 'thing', which 'unconditioned imperfectly', or 'conditioned perfectly'?

Furthermore, was thee One and ONLY Universe, Itself, ALREADY 'unconditionally perfect', BEFORE 'you', "bahman", came along?
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How On Earth Can We Be Free?

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 12:08 am
psycho wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:15 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 10:58 pm Yes, Then we go one step back and decide whether we consider options (drinking or not) or not. There are two options here too, consider options or not. They are both possible.
You should be able to show (given your conviction) that you are aware of all the factors that influenced your decision.
All factors that affect my decisions are those that I am aware of them. There is a fantastic correlation between what I decide and what happens. That could not be a coincidence which is due to a factor that I am not aware of it.
psycho wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:15 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 10:58 pm That is due to the nature of free will. Free will is about the unconditional situation when there are options. Free will is what you need to produce perfect noise.
Science does not have a formed opinion about free will.
Of course not. They think that they can have a theory of everything. We still don't have a theory of everything.
Who EXACTLY are the 'we', which 'you', "bahman", are referring to here?
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 12:08 am
psycho wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:15 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 10:58 pm Formation exist in a substance and propagate as the Schordinger equation predicts.
I mean, it has no cause?
Mind causes it.
psycho wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:15 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 10:58 pm I think that randomness comes from the decisions of individuals.
Your answer is not related to my question.
Mathematical models explain the data. There is noise in any data due to the mind.
psycho wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:15 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 10:58 pm What I am describing is a situation that your mind cannot decide conditionally. What is left is a free decision.
But the example and its description don't prove your point.
Of course, it does. I was in such a situation and I was able to decide. This means that I have a justification for what I think is true. You can imagine yourself in that situation too. Of course, you also can decide when there is no bias.
psycho
Posts: 182
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:49 pm

Re: How On Earth Can We Be Free?

Post by psycho »

bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 12:08 am All factors that affect my decisions are those that I am aware of them. There is a fantastic correlation between what I decide and what happens. That could not be a coincidence which is due to a factor that I am not aware of it.
To affirm that one consciously knows all the factors that influence a decision is to contradict the existence of unconscious factors in human behavior. Is that your position? That such factors do not exist?
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 12:08 am Mind causes it.
Does the mind cause forms in a force field?

Is the mind a form in that field or is it independent of it?
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 12:08 am Mathematical models explain the data. There is noise in any data due to the mind.
I wouldn't bet that it's clear to me. I sense that you suppose that considering the mind a source of randomness, it would rescue the possibility of free will.

But if the mind generates random decisions that would imply that our decisions are not coherent choices with our convenience.

That is, before each action humans decide their future course based on randomity?
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 12:08 am Of course, it does. I was in such a situation and I was able to decide. This means that I have a justification for what I think is true. You can imagine yourself in that situation too. Of course, you also can decide when there is no bias.
Repeating an assertion does not make it an argument.

Saying that you were in a situation and then decided and that decision was true for you does not clarify that humans are free will agents.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Can We Be Free?

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:36 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm

Okay. Thank you.

But WHY do 'you' PRESUME 'my life' is NOT as SIMPLE as it could be NOW?
Because you didn't understand the relationship between a condition command and algorithmic programing and decision making.
What made you PRESUME this?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
WHY can I, supposedly, ONLY pick up ONE fruit?
You can pick up both fruit too but that makes the situation more complex since you have three options instead of two options.
But I could pick up NO fruit, and so there is now four options. Or, I could just walk away, and so there is now five options. But, so what?

You did NOT answer the actual clarifying question I asked you. Have you forgotten ALREADY that you STIPULATED that I could ONLY pick up ONE fruit?

So, I would suggest that if you want to use examples like these to prove some point that you want to get across, then you STICK TO what you ACTUALLY SAY and STIPULATE in YOUR examples.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
Yes, the words 'have to' MEANS and INFERS that I 'need to'.
Yes.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
Who and/or what is the 'you', which you CLAIM " refers to "yourself" "? And, who and/or what could be and/or is "yourself" here?
I mean you look at your feeling and thoughts to see which fruit is better for you.
'Feeling' will NEVER tell 'me' which fruit is better for me.

In fact, 'feelings' can lead to the VERY OPPOSITE.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm Also, when 'i' referred to "my" Self I do NOT 'feel' ANY thing about the fruits. Also, emotions do NOT come into play in regards to "which one is better for me". In fact, thinking, itself, does not even come into play about "which one is better for me".
Good for you. But you still have two options here, one is very useful and another one is less.
LOL WHY is one, supposedly and allegedly, "very useful" and the other one, supposedly and allegedly, "less useful"?

In fact, HOW and WHY is choosing between two pieces of fruit (of all things) going to be "useful"? And, more importantly "more or less useful" in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm See, the thoughts and emotions that arise within that body are NOT necessarily the thoughts and emotions that arise within this body.

But if you ALREADY understood who and what the 'you' IS and who and what thee 'I' AM and how the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY work, then 'you' would ALREADY KNOW ALL-OF-THIS.
Yes.
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
What do 'you' now mean by, " 'allows' you to decide "? Previously you stated that I 'have to', and that I 'need to', decide.
I simply mean that options are possible to you so you can consider them.
But when someone TELLS you that you 'have to' and/or 'need' to 'make' a decision, but you, however, can ONLY pick ONE fruit, then this does NOT sound very much like there is much ALLOWING going on here nor that many OPTIONS are REALLY possible, in this example of YOURS.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm 'Allowing' one to make a decision FREELY is VERY DIFFERENT from 'making' one make a decision.
Yes. But you cannot force people to make decisions if they don't want to. That is true because they are free.
This may be True in the Truest sense, but I think you are still a LONG WAY from this and that you have NOT arrived at that sense FULLY, YET.

But anyway, if one is being threatened with death, then there is a sense of 'more force' being felt by that one, correct?

Or, do you still BELIEVE that a person can NOT be 'forced' to make decisions if they do not want to? For example, if someone put a gun to your head and told you that if you do not make a decision, then they will blow your head off, are you saying that you would NOT feel forced into making a decision if you did not want to make a decision?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
'What' EXACTLY would 'make' an apple "be a MORE USEFUL fruit for me at that moment"? Besides YOUR OWN DISTORTED THINKING?
Just think that that is true for sake of discussion.
But making up ABSOLUTELY DECEIVING LIES, in the hope that that will somehow CONVINCE the "other" to SEE 'things' "my way", does NOT work on 'me'. Is this UNDERSTOOD by 'you'?

If you WANT 'me' to think some 'thing' is TRUE, then you have to MAKE SURE that that 'thing' IS TRUE, FIRST, as well as be ABLE TO IRREFUTABLY PROVE that that 'thing' IS TRUE. You will HAVE TO DO THIS BEFORE I even consider to think about that 'thing' BEING TRUE. Is this WELL and Truly UNDERSTOOD, by 'you'?

And if you ever 'TRY TO' be this DECEITFUL AGAIN, I will bring that to the FOREFRONT and HIGHLIGHT it and SHOW it AGAIN, okay?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm What are 'you' DECIDING 'more useful' on EXACTLY? And what is YOUR 'more useful' thinking in 'relation to' here, EXACTLY?

As I have previously stated, 'you', human beings, will try and say just absolutely ANY thing in order to back up and support your currently held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS. And this can be CLEARLY SEEN in the way you write and speak.
So you cannot choose? You cannot even imagine the situation that I am describing?
How about YOU bringing some ACTUAL Truth and Honesty into YOUR EXAMPLES?

If you do, then I will NOT just 'try' but I WILL ACTUALLY DO. Is this UNDERSTOOD, by 'you'?

Also, NO I can NOT imagine how "an apple" is LOL "more useful" than "an orange" is.

I can OBVIOUSLY SEE and KNOW that you ARE 'trying' absolutely ANY 'thing' to "justify" and support YOUR ALREADY HELD DISTORTED BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, but I can NOT imagine 'things' that are SO BLATANTLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
LOL You are joking here right?

Now, tell 'us', readers, HOW EXACTLY is 'me' choosing the apple here now instead of the orange some supposed and alleged "unconditional/free decision"?
Because you can go against what your feeling and thought ask you.
Saying, "what your feeling and thought ask you", IS PURE and TOTAL NONSENSICAL.

Now, even if you were 'trying to' say something like, " Because you can go against "what you were feeling and thinking" ", then this STILL in ABSOLUTELY NO WAY AT ALL answers my CLARIFYING QUESTION about, HOW choosing the apple instead of the orange, in YOUR EXAMPLE, MEANS that that was some, so called, "unconditional/free decision".

You, are again, just getting FURTHER AWAY from what you start wanting to "convince" "others' of, in the threads you start up.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm And WHY if I chose the orange, then that would NOT be a supposed and alleged "unconditional/ free decision"?

WHY, to you, is one decision BIASED and the other one is NOT?
That is matter thinking and reading what I wrote again.
LOL But it does NOT matter how many times I read what you wrote. What you wrote REMAINS PURE NONSENSICAL.

And YOUR INABILITY to CLARIFY NOR to be ABLE TO justify what you write PROVES that what you wrote is even MORE NONSENSICAL on FURTHER READINGS to other readers.

If you can NOT back up and support what you wrote the FIRST TIME, then you probably can NOT and WILL NOT ANY other time, correct?

If you CAN NOT and WILL NOT inform 'us', readers, the FIRST TIME of WHY EXACTLY is 'me' choosing "an orange", in YOUR EXAMPLE, BIASED but if 'I' chose "the apple", then that would NOT be BIASED but would, in fact, be an "unconditional/free decision", then that IMPLIES that you are TOTALLY and UTTERLY INCAPABLE to back up and support YOUR CLAIM/S here.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm

You REALLY WILL 'try' just about absolutely ANY thing, in the hope that 'it' will back up and support your ALREADY held and maintained BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS about what is true, right, and correct, correct?
Support? You are not serious. I am asking you to imagine yourself in a situation and you asked me a lot of nonsense questions.
And you are ONLY calling those questions, "nonsense questions" BECAUSE you are TOTALLY INCAPABLE of being able to answer them, Honestly.

Because if you did, then you would DEFEAT your OWN position, view, "argument", and BELIEF.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
Okay. If you BELIEVE SO, then it MUST BE SO, correct?
Believing is not enough. It is what I said.
Okay. So, if you just say 'it', then 'it' MUST BE TRUE, correct?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm You can say that you don't know the details though.
But WHY can I say this?

You can say that you do NOT know the details also, correct?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
What you have done here is just 'TRY TO' defend and "justify" your ALREADY held and well maintained BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, ONLY.
I am definint different situation for you first. It has nothing to do with the proof. I then explained other things like what free and non-free decisions are.
But you are ONLY explaining 'things' from YOUR PERSPECTIVE ONLY.

You are obviously NOT necessarily explaining 'things' from thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' PERSPECTIVE.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm But what you are REALLY doing is just SHOWING and EXPOSING just how DISTORTED that thinking is within that body.
It is how we decide in situations.
'you' make decisions. Just how 'free' or 'not' they are is UP FOR DISCUSSION. Although you ALREADY BELIEVE that there is NO 'need' FOR DISCUSSION because you BELIEVE that you ALREADY KNOW what the ACTUAL TRUTH IS, correct?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm Are you different from us?
LOL If ONLY thee ACTUAL Truth was ALREADY KNOWN, by 'you'?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm By the way, the ONLY way 'you' are making 'my life' simple here is by providing the actual EVIDENCE and PROOF that I needed, in order to SHOW and REVEAL just how an adult brain can work just like a computer/robot does, without me being accused of influencing the test subjects. That is; you are SHOWING just how the adult human brain can be so inflicted, and so that it is so BIASED that it can then only work just like a computer/robot does.
You need to use imagination more if you want to understand what I am trying to say.
But even with IMAGINATION, YOUR EXAMPLES DO NOT WORK.

When, and IF, 'you' ever learn how the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORK, then 'you' WILL UNDERSTAND FULLY WHY YOUR EXAMPLES DO NOT WORK.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm You also need to study computer science more. Do you expect me to teach you everything while you laugh at me?
The CONDESCENDING TONE in here is amusing to SEE and OBSERVE.

Will "studying computer science" teach/tell me WHY if I choose "an orange" then that is BIASED and WHY if I choose "an apple", then THAT IS an "unconditional/free decision"?

If no, then THAT is WHAT I expect 'you' to TEACH 'me', understood?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm

And we have an ACTUAL EXAMPLE of when 'you' were on an unknown, to you, trail and you were faced with a fork on that trail. So, now we have a PRIME EXAMPLE of which only 'you' can EXPLAIN of; Why did you take the path that you did?
I freely decide and turned it wrong. That was a gamble and I was able to do it since I was free.
LOL The way to PROVE that YOUR DECISION was a Truly FREE decision is such a VERY SIMPLE and EASY thing to do. Yet here you are PROVING the EXACT OPPOSITE.

I will say and explain this again. If it your decision "turned out WRONG", then you were making a decision BASED on some 'thing', which is OBVIOUSLY a 'biased' decision. And, thus, according to your OWN definitions, was therefore NOT an "unconditional" NOR "free" decision AT ALL.

Besides all of this you said that it was a "wrong decision" because you did NOT get to WHERE you WANTED to go. Now, are you SURE you NEVER got to WHERE you WANTED to go, or did you just get THERE some time later?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm When, and IF, you answer Honestly, then 'we' can SEE if you were Truly 'free' or if you were being controlled by some 'thing'.
How I could be controlled by something else?
BECAUSE, as I have been SAYING and SHOWING, YOU WANTED TO GET SOMEWHERE.

Thus, you were CONTROLLED by WHERE you WANTED to GET TO. The 'things' that WERE CONTROLLING YOU, were your DESIRES, and the PLACE that you WANTED to GET TO.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
How 'long' is "a short meditation", and, how 'long' does that 'self' remain "independent of ANY biases" for?
A short period.
So, WHY AGAIN did you pick the trail that YOU DID?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm It is just for the duration of the 'meditation' itself, or does it last past the meditation phase as well?
It remains after meditation too.
And for HOW LONG, EXACTLY?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
But you just SAID and BELIEVE that "there is NO explanation NOR theory for 'it', correct?

And, if you BELIEVE that is NONE, then I have found that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the Universe that could SHOW 'you' otherwise.

See, while a human being is BELIEVING some 'thing' is true, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, in the WHOLE of the Universe, that can PROVE to them otherwise.
I don't think that there is a theory for free will. You said there is. I asked what it is to challenge you.
Did I EVER say that there is a theory for 'FREE WILL'?

If yes, then WHERE EXACTLY? But if no, then WHY say I DID?

Also, when did you ask me, "What 'it' is?" And, if you EVER did, then my FIRST response would have been, 'What is 'it', which you are referring to here, EXACTLY?

From what I can ascertain, what ACTUALLY took place, WAS:
I asked you; Do you follow a chain of causality?, and then I said and asked; If no, then WHEN and HOW?

To which you replied; It is an ability of the mind. and, So asking how is meaningless since there is no explanation or theory for it.

SO, this is what ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVEN by OUR written words.

Now, you can keep 'TRYING TO' LIE and DECEIVE your way through our discussions OR you can just be completely Truthful and Honest. Personally, I find the latter FAR MORE IN-SIGHT-FULL and thus VERY REWARDING.

If you WANT to continue this DISCUSSION, then PLEASE DO.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm

But will you tell 'us', readers, what 'I' am?

Saying, "you can even tell us some 'thing", does NOT necessarily mean that you REALLY can and thus WILL.
I am a free agent who has a body and a mind.
Okay. Although this CONTRADICTS COMPLETELY when you say, that "you ARE a mind", this will have to do, for now.

By the way, 'you', "bahman", are a LOT CLOSER to thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' here than a LOT of 'you', other human beings, are and have been for thousands upon thousands of years.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 pm
And while 'you' BELIEVE this is 'absolutely and irrefutably true', which you do, there is absolutely NO use AT ALL SAYING nor SHOWING 'you' otherwise.
Suppose that there is a theory for free will. This means that you can predict the decision.
But a "theory" is NEVER necessarily even close to be accurate EVER, let alone actually being accurate at all.

"Theories" are nothing more than just a guess or an assumption about what is true, right, and/or correct. I MUCH PREFER to just LOOK AT and DISCUSS ONLY 'that' what IS ACTUALLY True, Right, and/or Correct, instead. Is this UNDERSTOOD by you?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm You however cannot predict a free decision since it is not biased (there is no causal relation between free decision and one of the options so free decision cannot be predicted). Therefore, there is no theory for free will.
I NEVER said there was. NEVER even imagined there was. And, NEVER even thought that was, BEFORE, you STARTED talking about this here in this response of yours now.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 9:28 am

But I have GOT what 'you' are saying. This can be PROVEN just by HOW I have been CHALLENGING you through and by asking you some CLARIFYING questions, which you have FAILED to answer sufficiently.
Did you understand the difference between decision and free decision as I described and defined?
YES.

But what you described and defined is ONLY YOUR VIEWS and/or BELIEFS ONLY.

What you describe and define does NOT necessarily match in with what is ACTUALLY True, Right, and Correct. Or, do you ACTUALLY BELIEVE otherwise?
I don't have time to go through all this. You need to contemplate to realize the relation between what I said. Otherwise, this conversation expands.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: How On Earth Can We Be Free?

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:44 am
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 12:08 am
psycho wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:15 pm
You should be able to show (given your conviction) that you are aware of all the factors that influenced your decision.
All factors that affect my decisions are those that I am aware of them. There is a fantastic correlation between what I decide and what happens. That could not be a coincidence which is due to a factor that I am not aware of it.
psycho wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:15 pm
Science does not have a formed opinion about free will.
Of course not. They think that they can have a theory of everything. We still don't have a theory of everything.
Who EXACTLY are the 'we', which 'you', "bahman", are referring to here?
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 12:08 am
psycho wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:15 pm
I mean, it has no cause?
Mind causes it.
psycho wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:15 pm
Your answer is not related to my question.
Mathematical models explain the data. There is noise in any data due to the mind.
psycho wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:15 pm
But the example and its description don't prove your point.
Of course, it does. I was in such a situation and I was able to decide. This means that I have a justification for what I think is true. You can imagine yourself in that situation too. Of course, you also can decide when there is no bias.
Scientis.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Can We Be Free?

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:29 pm
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:36 am
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Because you didn't understand the relationship between a condition command and algorithmic programing and decision making.
What made you PRESUME this?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
You can pick up both fruit too but that makes the situation more complex since you have three options instead of two options.
But I could pick up NO fruit, and so there is now four options. Or, I could just walk away, and so there is now five options. But, so what?

You did NOT answer the actual clarifying question I asked you. Have you forgotten ALREADY that you STIPULATED that I could ONLY pick up ONE fruit?

So, I would suggest that if you want to use examples like these to prove some point that you want to get across, then you STICK TO what you ACTUALLY SAY and STIPULATE in YOUR examples.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Yes.


I mean you look at your feeling and thoughts to see which fruit is better for you.
'Feeling' will NEVER tell 'me' which fruit is better for me.

In fact, 'feelings' can lead to the VERY OPPOSITE.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Good for you. But you still have two options here, one is very useful and another one is less.
LOL WHY is one, supposedly and allegedly, "very useful" and the other one, supposedly and allegedly, "less useful"?

In fact, HOW and WHY is choosing between two pieces of fruit (of all things) going to be "useful"? And, more importantly "more or less useful" in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Yes.


I simply mean that options are possible to you so you can consider them.
But when someone TELLS you that you 'have to' and/or 'need' to 'make' a decision, but you, however, can ONLY pick ONE fruit, then this does NOT sound very much like there is much ALLOWING going on here nor that many OPTIONS are REALLY possible, in this example of YOURS.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Yes. But you cannot force people to make decisions if they don't want to. That is true because they are free.
This may be True in the Truest sense, but I think you are still a LONG WAY from this and that you have NOT arrived at that sense FULLY, YET.

But anyway, if one is being threatened with death, then there is a sense of 'more force' being felt by that one, correct?

Or, do you still BELIEVE that a person can NOT be 'forced' to make decisions if they do not want to? For example, if someone put a gun to your head and told you that if you do not make a decision, then they will blow your head off, are you saying that you would NOT feel forced into making a decision if you did not want to make a decision?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Just think that that is true for sake of discussion.
But making up ABSOLUTELY DECEIVING LIES, in the hope that that will somehow CONVINCE the "other" to SEE 'things' "my way", does NOT work on 'me'. Is this UNDERSTOOD by 'you'?

If you WANT 'me' to think some 'thing' is TRUE, then you have to MAKE SURE that that 'thing' IS TRUE, FIRST, as well as be ABLE TO IRREFUTABLY PROVE that that 'thing' IS TRUE. You will HAVE TO DO THIS BEFORE I even consider to think about that 'thing' BEING TRUE. Is this WELL and Truly UNDERSTOOD, by 'you'?

And if you ever 'TRY TO' be this DECEITFUL AGAIN, I will bring that to the FOREFRONT and HIGHLIGHT it and SHOW it AGAIN, okay?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
So you cannot choose? You cannot even imagine the situation that I am describing?
How about YOU bringing some ACTUAL Truth and Honesty into YOUR EXAMPLES?

If you do, then I will NOT just 'try' but I WILL ACTUALLY DO. Is this UNDERSTOOD, by 'you'?

Also, NO I can NOT imagine how "an apple" is LOL "more useful" than "an orange" is.

I can OBVIOUSLY SEE and KNOW that you ARE 'trying' absolutely ANY 'thing' to "justify" and support YOUR ALREADY HELD DISTORTED BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, but I can NOT imagine 'things' that are SO BLATANTLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Because you can go against what your feeling and thought ask you.
Saying, "what your feeling and thought ask you", IS PURE and TOTAL NONSENSICAL.

Now, even if you were 'trying to' say something like, " Because you can go against "what you were feeling and thinking" ", then this STILL in ABSOLUTELY NO WAY AT ALL answers my CLARIFYING QUESTION about, HOW choosing the apple instead of the orange, in YOUR EXAMPLE, MEANS that that was some, so called, "unconditional/free decision".

You, are again, just getting FURTHER AWAY from what you start wanting to "convince" "others' of, in the threads you start up.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
That is matter thinking and reading what I wrote again.
LOL But it does NOT matter how many times I read what you wrote. What you wrote REMAINS PURE NONSENSICAL.

And YOUR INABILITY to CLARIFY NOR to be ABLE TO justify what you write PROVES that what you wrote is even MORE NONSENSICAL on FURTHER READINGS to other readers.

If you can NOT back up and support what you wrote the FIRST TIME, then you probably can NOT and WILL NOT ANY other time, correct?

If you CAN NOT and WILL NOT inform 'us', readers, the FIRST TIME of WHY EXACTLY is 'me' choosing "an orange", in YOUR EXAMPLE, BIASED but if 'I' chose "the apple", then that would NOT be BIASED but would, in fact, be an "unconditional/free decision", then that IMPLIES that you are TOTALLY and UTTERLY INCAPABLE to back up and support YOUR CLAIM/S here.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Support? You are not serious. I am asking you to imagine yourself in a situation and you asked me a lot of nonsense questions.
And you are ONLY calling those questions, "nonsense questions" BECAUSE you are TOTALLY INCAPABLE of being able to answer them, Honestly.

Because if you did, then you would DEFEAT your OWN position, view, "argument", and BELIEF.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Believing is not enough. It is what I said.
Okay. So, if you just say 'it', then 'it' MUST BE TRUE, correct?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm You can say that you don't know the details though.
But WHY can I say this?

You can say that you do NOT know the details also, correct?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
I am definint different situation for you first. It has nothing to do with the proof. I then explained other things like what free and non-free decisions are.
But you are ONLY explaining 'things' from YOUR PERSPECTIVE ONLY.

You are obviously NOT necessarily explaining 'things' from thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' PERSPECTIVE.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
It is how we decide in situations.
'you' make decisions. Just how 'free' or 'not' they are is UP FOR DISCUSSION. Although you ALREADY BELIEVE that there is NO 'need' FOR DISCUSSION because you BELIEVE that you ALREADY KNOW what the ACTUAL TRUTH IS, correct?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm Are you different from us?
LOL If ONLY thee ACTUAL Truth was ALREADY KNOWN, by 'you'?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
You need to use imagination more if you want to understand what I am trying to say.
But even with IMAGINATION, YOUR EXAMPLES DO NOT WORK.

When, and IF, 'you' ever learn how the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORK, then 'you' WILL UNDERSTAND FULLY WHY YOUR EXAMPLES DO NOT WORK.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm You also need to study computer science more. Do you expect me to teach you everything while you laugh at me?
The CONDESCENDING TONE in here is amusing to SEE and OBSERVE.

Will "studying computer science" teach/tell me WHY if I choose "an orange" then that is BIASED and WHY if I choose "an apple", then THAT IS an "unconditional/free decision"?

If no, then THAT is WHAT I expect 'you' to TEACH 'me', understood?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
I freely decide and turned it wrong. That was a gamble and I was able to do it since I was free.
LOL The way to PROVE that YOUR DECISION was a Truly FREE decision is such a VERY SIMPLE and EASY thing to do. Yet here you are PROVING the EXACT OPPOSITE.

I will say and explain this again. If it your decision "turned out WRONG", then you were making a decision BASED on some 'thing', which is OBVIOUSLY a 'biased' decision. And, thus, according to your OWN definitions, was therefore NOT an "unconditional" NOR "free" decision AT ALL.

Besides all of this you said that it was a "wrong decision" because you did NOT get to WHERE you WANTED to go. Now, are you SURE you NEVER got to WHERE you WANTED to go, or did you just get THERE some time later?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
How I could be controlled by something else?
BECAUSE, as I have been SAYING and SHOWING, YOU WANTED TO GET SOMEWHERE.

Thus, you were CONTROLLED by WHERE you WANTED to GET TO. The 'things' that WERE CONTROLLING YOU, were your DESIRES, and the PLACE that you WANTED to GET TO.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
A short period.
So, WHY AGAIN did you pick the trail that YOU DID?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
It remains after meditation too.
And for HOW LONG, EXACTLY?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
I don't think that there is a theory for free will. You said there is. I asked what it is to challenge you.
Did I EVER say that there is a theory for 'FREE WILL'?

If yes, then WHERE EXACTLY? But if no, then WHY say I DID?

Also, when did you ask me, "What 'it' is?" And, if you EVER did, then my FIRST response would have been, 'What is 'it', which you are referring to here, EXACTLY?

From what I can ascertain, what ACTUALLY took place, WAS:
I asked you; Do you follow a chain of causality?, and then I said and asked; If no, then WHEN and HOW?

To which you replied; It is an ability of the mind. and, So asking how is meaningless since there is no explanation or theory for it.

SO, this is what ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVEN by OUR written words.

Now, you can keep 'TRYING TO' LIE and DECEIVE your way through our discussions OR you can just be completely Truthful and Honest. Personally, I find the latter FAR MORE IN-SIGHT-FULL and thus VERY REWARDING.

If you WANT to continue this DISCUSSION, then PLEASE DO.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
I am a free agent who has a body and a mind.
Okay. Although this CONTRADICTS COMPLETELY when you say, that "you ARE a mind", this will have to do, for now.

By the way, 'you', "bahman", are a LOT CLOSER to thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' here than a LOT of 'you', other human beings, are and have been for thousands upon thousands of years.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Suppose that there is a theory for free will. This means that you can predict the decision.
But a "theory" is NEVER necessarily even close to be accurate EVER, let alone actually being accurate at all.

"Theories" are nothing more than just a guess or an assumption about what is true, right, and/or correct. I MUCH PREFER to just LOOK AT and DISCUSS ONLY 'that' what IS ACTUALLY True, Right, and/or Correct, instead. Is this UNDERSTOOD by you?
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm You however cannot predict a free decision since it is not biased (there is no causal relation between free decision and one of the options so free decision cannot be predicted). Therefore, there is no theory for free will.
I NEVER said there was. NEVER even imagined there was. And, NEVER even thought that was, BEFORE, you STARTED talking about this here in this response of yours now.
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:52 pm
Did you understand the difference between decision and free decision as I described and defined?
YES.

But what you described and defined is ONLY YOUR VIEWS and/or BELIEFS ONLY.

What you describe and define does NOT necessarily match in with what is ACTUALLY True, Right, and Correct. Or, do you ACTUALLY BELIEVE otherwise?
I don't have time to go through all this.
WHY? What else have you to do?

Also, that could just be an excuse to DEFLECT away once again.
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:29 pm You need to contemplate to realize the relation between what I said.
But I contemplate WHILE I read what you say and write.

And what I have REALIZED so far "in relation between what you have said" is that you CONTRADICT your previous writings FAR MORE OFTEN than you even REALIZE and care to BELIEVE is true.

What I have also REALIZED, through contemplation, is that you are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY INCAPABLE of backing up and supporting your previous CLAIMS when you are CHALLENGED on them.

I have also REALIZED, again through contemplation, is that you can NOT clarify most of the questions I pose to you.
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:29 pm Otherwise, this conversation expands.
Well if you can NOT back up and support and can NOT clarify ALL of your OWN views and words, then, OF COURSE, this conversation expands.

ONLY when you are ABLE TO back up and support your CLAIMS does the conversation shrink, contract, condense, and scale down.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Can We Be Free?

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:07 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:29 pm
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:36 am

What made you PRESUME this?



But I could pick up NO fruit, and so there is now four options. Or, I could just walk away, and so there is now five options. But, so what?

You did NOT answer the actual clarifying question I asked you. Have you forgotten ALREADY that you STIPULATED that I could ONLY pick up ONE fruit?

So, I would suggest that if you want to use examples like these to prove some point that you want to get across, then you STICK TO what you ACTUALLY SAY and STIPULATE in YOUR examples.



'Feeling' will NEVER tell 'me' which fruit is better for me.

In fact, 'feelings' can lead to the VERY OPPOSITE.



LOL WHY is one, supposedly and allegedly, "very useful" and the other one, supposedly and allegedly, "less useful"?

In fact, HOW and WHY is choosing between two pieces of fruit (of all things) going to be "useful"? And, more importantly "more or less useful" in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?



But when someone TELLS you that you 'have to' and/or 'need' to 'make' a decision, but you, however, can ONLY pick ONE fruit, then this does NOT sound very much like there is much ALLOWING going on here nor that many OPTIONS are REALLY possible, in this example of YOURS.



This may be True in the Truest sense, but I think you are still a LONG WAY from this and that you have NOT arrived at that sense FULLY, YET.

But anyway, if one is being threatened with death, then there is a sense of 'more force' being felt by that one, correct?

Or, do you still BELIEVE that a person can NOT be 'forced' to make decisions if they do not want to? For example, if someone put a gun to your head and told you that if you do not make a decision, then they will blow your head off, are you saying that you would NOT feel forced into making a decision if you did not want to make a decision?



But making up ABSOLUTELY DECEIVING LIES, in the hope that that will somehow CONVINCE the "other" to SEE 'things' "my way", does NOT work on 'me'. Is this UNDERSTOOD by 'you'?

If you WANT 'me' to think some 'thing' is TRUE, then you have to MAKE SURE that that 'thing' IS TRUE, FIRST, as well as be ABLE TO IRREFUTABLY PROVE that that 'thing' IS TRUE. You will HAVE TO DO THIS BEFORE I even consider to think about that 'thing' BEING TRUE. Is this WELL and Truly UNDERSTOOD, by 'you'?

And if you ever 'TRY TO' be this DECEITFUL AGAIN, I will bring that to the FOREFRONT and HIGHLIGHT it and SHOW it AGAIN, okay?



How about YOU bringing some ACTUAL Truth and Honesty into YOUR EXAMPLES?

If you do, then I will NOT just 'try' but I WILL ACTUALLY DO. Is this UNDERSTOOD, by 'you'?

Also, NO I can NOT imagine how "an apple" is LOL "more useful" than "an orange" is.

I can OBVIOUSLY SEE and KNOW that you ARE 'trying' absolutely ANY 'thing' to "justify" and support YOUR ALREADY HELD DISTORTED BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, but I can NOT imagine 'things' that are SO BLATANTLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.



Saying, "what your feeling and thought ask you", IS PURE and TOTAL NONSENSICAL.

Now, even if you were 'trying to' say something like, " Because you can go against "what you were feeling and thinking" ", then this STILL in ABSOLUTELY NO WAY AT ALL answers my CLARIFYING QUESTION about, HOW choosing the apple instead of the orange, in YOUR EXAMPLE, MEANS that that was some, so called, "unconditional/free decision".

You, are again, just getting FURTHER AWAY from what you start wanting to "convince" "others' of, in the threads you start up.



LOL But it does NOT matter how many times I read what you wrote. What you wrote REMAINS PURE NONSENSICAL.

And YOUR INABILITY to CLARIFY NOR to be ABLE TO justify what you write PROVES that what you wrote is even MORE NONSENSICAL on FURTHER READINGS to other readers.

If you can NOT back up and support what you wrote the FIRST TIME, then you probably can NOT and WILL NOT ANY other time, correct?

If you CAN NOT and WILL NOT inform 'us', readers, the FIRST TIME of WHY EXACTLY is 'me' choosing "an orange", in YOUR EXAMPLE, BIASED but if 'I' chose "the apple", then that would NOT be BIASED but would, in fact, be an "unconditional/free decision", then that IMPLIES that you are TOTALLY and UTTERLY INCAPABLE to back up and support YOUR CLAIM/S here.



And you are ONLY calling those questions, "nonsense questions" BECAUSE you are TOTALLY INCAPABLE of being able to answer them, Honestly.

Because if you did, then you would DEFEAT your OWN position, view, "argument", and BELIEF.



Okay. So, if you just say 'it', then 'it' MUST BE TRUE, correct?



But WHY can I say this?

You can say that you do NOT know the details also, correct?



But you are ONLY explaining 'things' from YOUR PERSPECTIVE ONLY.

You are obviously NOT necessarily explaining 'things' from thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' PERSPECTIVE.



'you' make decisions. Just how 'free' or 'not' they are is UP FOR DISCUSSION. Although you ALREADY BELIEVE that there is NO 'need' FOR DISCUSSION because you BELIEVE that you ALREADY KNOW what the ACTUAL TRUTH IS, correct?



LOL If ONLY thee ACTUAL Truth was ALREADY KNOWN, by 'you'?



But even with IMAGINATION, YOUR EXAMPLES DO NOT WORK.

When, and IF, 'you' ever learn how the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORK, then 'you' WILL UNDERSTAND FULLY WHY YOUR EXAMPLES DO NOT WORK.



The CONDESCENDING TONE in here is amusing to SEE and OBSERVE.

Will "studying computer science" teach/tell me WHY if I choose "an orange" then that is BIASED and WHY if I choose "an apple", then THAT IS an "unconditional/free decision"?

If no, then THAT is WHAT I expect 'you' to TEACH 'me', understood?



LOL The way to PROVE that YOUR DECISION was a Truly FREE decision is such a VERY SIMPLE and EASY thing to do. Yet here you are PROVING the EXACT OPPOSITE.

I will say and explain this again. If it your decision "turned out WRONG", then you were making a decision BASED on some 'thing', which is OBVIOUSLY a 'biased' decision. And, thus, according to your OWN definitions, was therefore NOT an "unconditional" NOR "free" decision AT ALL.

Besides all of this you said that it was a "wrong decision" because you did NOT get to WHERE you WANTED to go. Now, are you SURE you NEVER got to WHERE you WANTED to go, or did you just get THERE some time later?



BECAUSE, as I have been SAYING and SHOWING, YOU WANTED TO GET SOMEWHERE.

Thus, you were CONTROLLED by WHERE you WANTED to GET TO. The 'things' that WERE CONTROLLING YOU, were your DESIRES, and the PLACE that you WANTED to GET TO.



So, WHY AGAIN did you pick the trail that YOU DID?



And for HOW LONG, EXACTLY?



Did I EVER say that there is a theory for 'FREE WILL'?

If yes, then WHERE EXACTLY? But if no, then WHY say I DID?

Also, when did you ask me, "What 'it' is?" And, if you EVER did, then my FIRST response would have been, 'What is 'it', which you are referring to here, EXACTLY?

From what I can ascertain, what ACTUALLY took place, WAS:
I asked you; Do you follow a chain of causality?, and then I said and asked; If no, then WHEN and HOW?

To which you replied; It is an ability of the mind. and, So asking how is meaningless since there is no explanation or theory for it.

SO, this is what ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVEN by OUR written words.

Now, you can keep 'TRYING TO' LIE and DECEIVE your way through our discussions OR you can just be completely Truthful and Honest. Personally, I find the latter FAR MORE IN-SIGHT-FULL and thus VERY REWARDING.

If you WANT to continue this DISCUSSION, then PLEASE DO.



Okay. Although this CONTRADICTS COMPLETELY when you say, that "you ARE a mind", this will have to do, for now.

By the way, 'you', "bahman", are a LOT CLOSER to thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things' here than a LOT of 'you', other human beings, are and have been for thousands upon thousands of years.



But a "theory" is NEVER necessarily even close to be accurate EVER, let alone actually being accurate at all.

"Theories" are nothing more than just a guess or an assumption about what is true, right, and/or correct. I MUCH PREFER to just LOOK AT and DISCUSS ONLY 'that' what IS ACTUALLY True, Right, and/or Correct, instead. Is this UNDERSTOOD by you?



I NEVER said there was. NEVER even imagined there was. And, NEVER even thought that was, BEFORE, you STARTED talking about this here in this response of yours now.



YES.

But what you described and defined is ONLY YOUR VIEWS and/or BELIEFS ONLY.

What you describe and define does NOT necessarily match in with what is ACTUALLY True, Right, and Correct. Or, do you ACTUALLY BELIEVE otherwise?
I don't have time to go through all this.
WHY? What else have you to do?

Also, that could just be an excuse to DEFLECT away once again.
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:29 pm You need to contemplate to realize the relation between what I said.
But I contemplate WHILE I read what you say and write.

And what I have REALIZED so far "in relation between what you have said" is that you CONTRADICT your previous writings FAR MORE OFTEN than you even REALIZE and care to BELIEVE is true.

What I have also REALIZED, through contemplation, is that you are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY INCAPABLE of backing up and supporting your previous CLAIMS when you are CHALLENGED on them.

I have also REALIZED, again through contemplation, is that you can NOT clarify most of the questions I pose to you.
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:29 pm Otherwise, this conversation expands.
Well if you can NOT back up and support and can NOT clarify ALL of your OWN views and words, then, OF COURSE, this conversation expands.

ONLY when you are ABLE TO back up and support your CLAIMS does the conversation shrink, contract, condense, and scale down.
I am sorry. I cannot help you further with this topic.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Can We Be Free?

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:14 pm
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:07 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:29 pm
I don't have time to go through all this.
WHY? What else have you to do?

Also, that could just be an excuse to DEFLECT away once again.
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:29 pm You need to contemplate to realize the relation between what I said.
But I contemplate WHILE I read what you say and write.

And what I have REALIZED so far "in relation between what you have said" is that you CONTRADICT your previous writings FAR MORE OFTEN than you even REALIZE and care to BELIEVE is true.

What I have also REALIZED, through contemplation, is that you are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY INCAPABLE of backing up and supporting your previous CLAIMS when you are CHALLENGED on them.

I have also REALIZED, again through contemplation, is that you can NOT clarify most of the questions I pose to you.
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 10:29 pm Otherwise, this conversation expands.
Well if you can NOT back up and support and can NOT clarify ALL of your OWN views and words, then, OF COURSE, this conversation expands.

ONLY when you are ABLE TO back up and support your CLAIMS does the conversation shrink, contract, condense, and scale down.
I am sorry. I cannot help you further with this topic.
This is because "this topic" is about YOUR BELIEFS and YOUR CLAIMS, and because you can NOT back up and support YOUR BELIEFS and YOUR CLAIMS, you can NOT help ANY one further, including 'YOU'.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Can We Be Free?

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:52 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:14 pm
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:07 pm

WHY? What else have you to do?

Also, that could just be an excuse to DEFLECT away once again.



But I contemplate WHILE I read what you say and write.

And what I have REALIZED so far "in relation between what you have said" is that you CONTRADICT your previous writings FAR MORE OFTEN than you even REALIZE and care to BELIEVE is true.

What I have also REALIZED, through contemplation, is that you are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY INCAPABLE of backing up and supporting your previous CLAIMS when you are CHALLENGED on them.

I have also REALIZED, again through contemplation, is that you can NOT clarify most of the questions I pose to you.



Well if you can NOT back up and support and can NOT clarify ALL of your OWN views and words, then, OF COURSE, this conversation expands.

ONLY when you are ABLE TO back up and support your CLAIMS does the conversation shrink, contract, condense, and scale down.
I am sorry. I cannot help you further with this topic.
This is because "this topic" is about YOUR BELIEFS and YOUR CLAIMS, and because you can NOT back up and support YOUR BELIEFS and YOUR CLAIMS, you can NOT help ANY one further, including 'YOU'.
I am just wondering why do you bother when you think I am a liar? Are you here to find liars? Is it fun for you? Do you have anything else more useful to do?

I cannot help it when your non-sense questions pop up one after another either. You have to try very hard to make a coherent picture of what I am trying to say here. It is simple though but it is a lot.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Can We Be Free?

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 12:28 am
Age wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:52 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:14 pm
I am sorry. I cannot help you further with this topic.
This is because "this topic" is about YOUR BELIEFS and YOUR CLAIMS, and because you can NOT back up and support YOUR BELIEFS and YOUR CLAIMS, you can NOT help ANY one further, including 'YOU'.
I am just wondering why do you bother when you think I am a liar?
Because a considerable amount of the time you are NOT intentionally lying.

I KNOW 'you' are REALLY 'trying' your hardest to just express what you BELIEVE is the truth of things.

I even KNOW that 'you' are sometimes VERY CLOSE to thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', and that with a little help and guidance you could be expressing thee One and ONLY ACTUAL Truth of 'things' by now.

I 'bother' because I KNOW I could help 'you', that is; if you wanted some help in expressing 'that' what you BELIEVE deep down IS True.
bahman wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 12:28 am Are you here to find liars?
What is your concern with the 'liar' tag? EVERY adult human being LIES. And, MOST of that LYING it could be argued, and will be discovered, is completely UNINTENTIONAL and just arises because of the LIES that they have endured through their childhoods. These adults are NOT doing ANY thing DECEIVINGLY WRONG on PURPOSE. They are, however, just deceiving "themselves" because they have been and were deceived "themselves" PREVIOUSLY.
bahman wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 12:28 am Is it fun for you?
I only have to listen to my family members, or even just listen to this 'person' writing this speak to "others" outside of this forum" to "find liars". Finding "liars" is EXCEPTIONALLY EASY but NOT necessarily fun at all. Finding and noticing "them" was just a consequence of learning how the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORK.

Therefore, I am NOT here in this forum "to find liars". I just respond more to those who make CLAIMS more strongly than "others" do.

I only CHALLENGE and QUESTION "those" who ASSUME or BELIEVE that what they are saying is true.

I do this so that I might possibly find a way to OPEN UP a person who is ALREADY ASSUMING and/or BELIEVING that they know truth.

People who are ALREADY OPEN is NOT what I am LOOKING FOR here, in this forum. Learning how to OPEN UP those who are ALREADY CLOSED is my main goal and intention here, in this forum.
bahman wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 12:28 am Do you have anything else more useful to do?
I have some VERY USEFUL to do. That is; to write some words down. But, I have found there is NO use writing those words down WHILE people are CLOSED and STILL BELIEVING some 'things'.

Once I FIND how to OPEN UP adult human beings, and spark that NATURAL CURIOSITY within "them", AGAIN, like they ONCE WERE, then I will KNOW how to write those words, properly AND correctly, which I want to SHARE.
bahman wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 12:28 am I cannot help it when your non-sense questions pop up one after another either.
Are you suggesting here that 'you' are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY USELESS in this situation?
bahman wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 12:28 am You have to try very hard to make a coherent picture of what I am trying to say here. It is simple though but it is a lot.
So, for 'me' to UNDERSTAND 'you', what you are saying here is that it is ALL up to 'me', correct?

Could it be a POSSIBILITY that the 'picture', which 'you' say 'you' are 'trying to' paint for 'us', readers, here, I have ALREADY SEEN, and thus also ALREADY KNOW, FULLY?

Or, is this just NOT A POSSIBILITY?
Post Reply