True Story of the Day

[Age]

How can something so cringe, so utterly unbelievable and perfectly unrealistic, have positive results? Well here's an example.

In Transformers Rise Of The Beasts, Elena Wallace is an artifact researcher. Now our immediate impression is wtf is happening, she should be working at a hair salon or as a back up dancer in a missy eliot rap video.

Here is another great example of just how often and how much these people, back then, would think or imagine, 'This is what I think/do, therefore every one must also do/think the same'.

Which could not be any further from the actual Truth of things.

There's no fuckin way this person would ever be an artifact researcher. The latent inner white nationalist in us is revolted by this spectacle. We are taken aback and immediately reach for our swords. That that person would even know how to pronounce di Vinci, much less know anything about em. We feel like our unique european heritage is being mocked and depreciated by this abhorent creature.

Again, this could not be any further from the actual Truth of things.

But some were completely and utterly delusional, as again once shown and proved here.

This is understandable but a little unfair. There have been, and are, colored artifact researchers. Like four of em, I'm sure. So, while we'd prefer to see some old pasty white guy in a tweed coat playing the artifact researcher in the movie, the idea of a black woman being one is not completely unheard of. Almost completely, but not completely.

But what good results can come of this? I'll tell u. The character encourages those in the young black audience to aspire to become something other than a professional rapper, athelete, professional rapper, hussala or professional rapper. And this is precisely what the black youth need today in the capitalist world where 'the man' is keepin em down; good role models.

Looking, and/or seeing, people as being somehow different just because of a tint of a different shade of color on the external organ of the human body was, really, how some and even a lot of adult human beings viewed and saw things, back in the very olden days of when this was being written.

[promethean75]

I just had a religious experience u guys. I cannot believe it was coincidence. No way.

Okay so I'm watching Stone and at the very end the weirdest thing happened while i was watching the movie on my tablet.

While in prison, Stone (Norton) finds this little paper back in the prison library about some not-well-known religion (forget the name of it) and he gets all into it. Says u connect to god through sounds and then u become like God's tuning fork or some such thing.

At the end he's talking about how important it is to listen and how the little insignificant things like a buzzing bee are important sounds. As he's saying this - he's narrating over the scene - deniro's wife is hearing a buzzing fly while she's sitting outside. Well right when that fly started buzzing, a fuckin gnat flew in front of my tablet and flew around in little circles until the buzzing stopped, and then he flew off.

I even rewound the scene to see if the gnat was in the movie and i was just trippin. It wasn't.

Never ever are there gnats flyin around here, so u wouldn't say 'oh that's prolly just one of those gnats.'

I shit u not it was not a second too soon or late. A tiny little gnat in perfect time with the buzzing fly.

And the weird part is that right when norton is narrating that part, i remembered how he was sxplaining earlier in the movie how he didn't feel guilty about the fire (that got him locked up) and how everything was an act of god... everything good and bad, etc., and then I'm reminded of Spinoza's view of god at the very moment the buzzing starts and the gnat appears.

Bro. This was god giving me the go'head. This was god telling me that i am his hand, that i have no freewill, and that he (or it) acts through me (see occassionalism).

It was the god of Spinoza, not any other god. Becuz if i was, that god wouldn't have produced that sign at that eureka moment when the gnat appeared and Spinoza's logic was running through my head. Bro this was god saying 'yes, what you're thinking is right; it is all me, the good and the bad. There is no right or wrong and no-one is guilty of anything.'

I was like ho lee shit this did not just happen. That gnat had the whole movie to show up and instead it waited right until that fly started buzzin.

C'mon man. If it was any other god he would have been like 'wait i better not give him a sign while he's thinking like spinoza becuz then he'll get the wrong impression about what i am.'

That gnat was god. The gnat of gnosis. I'm sure of it.

[Age]

I just had a religious experience u guys. I cannot believe it was coincidence. No way.

Okay so I'm watching Stone and at the very end the weirdest thing happened while i was watching the movie on my tablet.

While in prison, Stone (Norton) finds this little paper back in the prison library about some not-well-known religion (forget the name of it) and he gets all into it. Says u connect to god through sounds and then u become like God's tuning fork or some such thing.

At the end he's talking about how important it is to listen and how the little insignificant things like a buzzing bee are important sounds. As he's saying this - he's narrating over the scene - deniro's wife is hearing a buzzing fly while she's sitting outside. Well right when that fly started buzzing, a fuckin gnat flew in front of my tablet and flew around in little circles until the buzzing stopped, and then he flew off.

I even rewound the scene to see if the gnat was in the movie and i was just trippin. It wasn't.

Never ever are there gnats flyin around here, so u wouldn't say 'oh that's prolly just one of those gnats.'

I shit u not it was not a second too soon or late. A tiny little gnat in perfect time with the buzzing fly.

And the weird part is that right when norton is narrating that part, i remembered how he was sxplaining earlier in the movie how he didn't feel guilty about the fire (that got him locked up) and how everything was an act of god... everything good and bad, etc., and then I'm reminded of Spinoza's view of god at the very moment the buzzing starts and the gnat appears.

Bro. This was god giving me the go'head. This was god telling me that i am his hand, that i have no freewill, and that he (or it) acts through me (see occassionalism).

Now "atla" has another one of 'us', in which "atla" can 'study', and then makes claims, accusations, diagnoses, and prognosis about, and at.

It was the god of Spinoza, not any other god. Becuz if i was, that god wouldn't have produced that sign at that eureka moment when the gnat appeared and Spinoza's logic was running through my head. Bro this was god saying 'yes, what you're thinking is right; it is all me, the good and the bad. There is no right or wrong and no-one is guilty of anything.'

I was like ho lee shit this did not just happen. That gnat had the whole movie to show up and instead it waited right until that fly started buzzin.

But it did not wait. Well not according to your logic here anyway.

C'mon man. If it was any other god he would have been like 'wait i better not give him a sign while he's thinking like spinoza becuz then he'll get the wrong impression about what i am.'

That gnat was god. The gnat of gnosis. I'm sure of it.

So, now we have god as being a gnat, only.

[henry quirk]

I never get tired from the thrill of a good debate.

I used to feel that way. Done rode the horse too many times now. It ain't fun anymore. All I got to show for any of it is piles.

Maybe if you had 'won' one, then you might have got something else other than just piles, and then you may still be wanting to keep 'trying to win', now.

[promethean75]

"So, now we have god as being a gnat, only."

Gno I did gnot say god is just a gnat u gnucklhead. God is all of gnature and anything gnatural.

[Age]

"So, now we have god as being a gnat, only."

Gno I did gnot say god is just a gnat u gnucklhead. God is all of gnature and anything gnatural.

But you did say that that gnat was god, right?

If yes, then now what you are saying is that what you actually meant was that that gnat, plus absolutely everything else, is god, correct?

If yes, then okay.

[promethean75]

Yes, Socrates, that is true.

[Age]

a fifteen year isn't allowed to get a job, vote, have sex, drive, purchase a firearm, alcohol or tobacco, sign a lease, or get married... but the second he shoots somebody he's to be tried as an adult? If you have a court system full of idiots who don't realize their wonky society is producing such people or that there is no freewill, absolutely. That and it's a good career move for the prosecutor in exchange for the rest of the fifteen year old's life (in a cell) and the misery of the kid's parents.

(in reference to the raleigh shooting a couple days ago) 

What do the words 'free will' even mean or refer to, to you "promethean75", which you believe, absolutely, and keep trying to insist here does not exist?

[Age]

Yes, Socrates, that is true.

Okay.

But, are also suggesting that the 'evil' or Wong that you adult human beings do is also God, Itself?

if yes, then will you explain how they could be, and why, exactly?

[Wizard22]

I used to feel that way. Done rode the horse too many times now. It ain't fun anymore. All I got to show for any of it is piles.

I'm in my mid-life, still have some testosterone left in the tank, so...

YEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAWWWWW!!!

[henry quirk]

I'm in my mid-life, still have some testosterone left in the tank, so...

YEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAWWWWW!!!

Well, you go, guy.

[Wizard22]

Here we can clearly see, once more, the result of enduring through a Wrongly taught, and thus a very abusive, childhood environment.

What are you talking about, AgeGPT? My childhood environment was Rightly taught and not abusive at all.

Are you implying that being competitive in life is directly proportional to abuse received as a child??? Because that's what it sounds like...

[promethean75]

"What do the words 'free will' even mean or refer to, to you "promethean75", which you believe, absolutely, and keep trying to insist here does not exist?"

Here u go age. A post I made when I first came over here that'll answer your question. I refer u to it becuz I've been over this freewill/determinism stuff so many times I can't be bothered to re-explain it all every time somebody akses me to.

Do me (and u) a favor tho. After u read this and don't understand any of it, save yourself the trouble of aksing me more questions that I won't answer.

....

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.

[Age]

Here we can clearly see, once more, the result of enduring through a Wrongly taught, and thus a very abusive, childhood environment.

What are you talking about, AgeGPT? My childhood environment was Rightly taught and not abusive at all.

If you say and believe so, then it must have been absolutely so, correct?

Now, would you like to explain to 'us' why you believe so, exactly?

If yes, then will you explain here what the word 'abuse' means and/or refers to, to you, exactly?

Are you implying that being competitive in life is directly proportional to abuse received as a child???

I was not.

But, you may well have brought a very good point here.

Because that's what it sounds like...

Okay.

[Age]

"What do the words 'free will' even mean or refer to, to you "promethean75", which you believe, absolutely, and keep trying to insist here does not exist?"

Here u go age. A post I made when I first came over here that'll answer your question. I refer u to it becuz I've been over this freewill/determinism stuff so many times I can't be bothered to re-explain it all every time somebody akses me to.

So, you come to a philosophy forum, say, state, and/or claim some things, but cannot be bothered to explain things every time someone asks you to.

Are you aware that not everyone goes back through everything you have written, just to see if you have explained one or another very specific thing?

And, if you feel somewhat 'bothered' being asked to explain one or more of your very unique positions, perspectives, or views, then are you sure a philosophy forum is really the right place for you to be?

After all a part of philosophical discussions is being able to back up and support what one says, claims, or states, and thus being able, and ready, to be questioned and/or challenged over one's own words.

Do me (and u) a favor tho. After u read this and don't understand any of it, save yourself the trouble of aksing me more questions that I won't answer.

Once again, what we can clearly see here is another absolute belief that this one holds to be absolutely true, while at the same time showing how it cannot even back up and support what it claims is absolutely true. Which, usually, means that what it is saying, stating, and/or claiming is just False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.

But, we will wait, to see.

...

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.

1. What fails to make any sense, to you, may not be the case for any or every other one.

2. I really do not care about any 'thesis' here. I prefer to only look at what is actually True and Right, instead.

3. What role so-called 'platonic/cartesian substance dualism, supposedly, has in what you call 'the freewill thesis', we will wait to see has absolutely any thing to do what what I actually asked you to provide here.

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.

Very quickly we can start to see that this one's very own unique definition of 'free will' is why it says, states, and claims some of the things that it does here.

Just so you become aware, different people have different definitions for the term or phrase 'free will'.

And, only 'a definition', which can fit in, perfectly, with all other words, and their definitions, and which shows, illustrates, or paints a completely Accurate and True Picture of Life, and living, Itself, is the only definitions worthy of being looked, and discussed here.

We are, obviously, and by the way, still waiting for you to show and reveal to us how you define what the 'free will' term or phrase means, or refers to, to you, exactly, "promethean75".

Okay so how does the human body set itself into motion (or not)?

Through, by, and with 'thought', obviously.

Considering to what you were previously referring to.

Where does this process of moving, begin?

From thought.

That's right, very good! In the nervous system.

Sounds like you here believe, absolutely, that this is actually true and right, correct?

And what organ controls the nervous system in its coordination of physical movement?

Is it the human brain?

Hey you're getting good at this.

If you say and believe so.

The brain.

Okay, so then how does the brain work...

Exactly like a computer does.

how does it communicate with the muscles?
Yes!! Jesus you guys are like regular neurologists.

Which guys?

I might have to retract what I said earlier about'cha.

What did you say about us or them, earlier?

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?

What would be much more so-called 'neater' would be if you just informed us of what the words 'free will' mean, or refer to, to you, exactly.

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?

From my perspective exactly where the 'free will' is, exactly.

But, from your perspective, we are still waiting to find out and see how you define the 'free will' words, first.

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.

Once more we can clearly see here another prime example of how and when people will say just about absolutely anything at all, just in the hope that it would back up and support what they believe is absolute true, right, accurate, and correct.

That is; they will say just about anything except for the actual 'thing' that was asked for, for clarification.

Uh-oh... now we have a problem.

you and some others might, but 'we' certainly do not now have a problem.

We are just, still, waiting for you to explain what the words 'free will' means, or refers to, to you.

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?

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.

Well obviously a so-called 'immaterial substance', itself, cannot be observed, with the physical eyes.

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.

Once again, will you just answer, and thus clarify, what do the words 'free will' mean, or refer to, to you, exactly, "promethean75"?

If no, then why not?