Didymos Thomas wrote:
Quote: nameless; The results of his experiments speak for themselves.
You're right, they do. The commentary I referenced is not merely an interpretation, though it is one. It also relfects something clear about the tests - that they leave plenty of room for concious influence over actions, they leave room for freewill. Some other tests would have to rule out freewill.
Yes, it IS 'merely' an interpretation, merely a perspective of the data. You are certainly entitled to your perspective.
Quote:The evidence of the experiment supports this perspective, in harmony and conjunction with other disciplines that support what I am offering.
Here you are speaking so much of ego. If you were willing to take an honest look at those experiments you would see that they do not support nor do they refute your perspective.
In YOUR opinion, from YOUR perspective. Do you 'have' to be 'right'? My perspective is supportable logically, and, I imagine, that you can support your perspective, logically. You interpret evidence from your perspective as do we all. The problems come when someone, egoically, must 'know and show' what is 'right' for everyone else. You got cojones telling me to "take an honest look" at the evidence since my interpretation doesn't coincide with yours. Whatever, I cannot converse at this level.
Quote:There is plenty of support, but are people ready to deal with this 'knowledge' on that deep a level as to alter their whole world-view? With their emotional and egoic attachments? Not for a couple hundred years will what we now 'know' be accepted as a (relatively) common world-view.
Freewill has been denied, in a variety of ways, for thousands of years. The notion that we have no freewill is already a relatively common world view.
No, you are not telling the truth. It is far from a "common world view" nor can you support such a nonsensical assertion! That sort of thing ordinarilly detracts from one's credibility...
Furthermore, not knowing the intent of this erroneous pronouncement, I will add that Aristotle and Buddha did not have the support and benefits of modern science. Buddha would never have conceived of 'karma' if he was at all conversant with quantum theory. Not rocket science, but certainly in the same neighborhood, and not easy stuff, nor for everyone, obviously.
Are you somehow attempting to somehow discredit me by hollering 'nothing new'? That would certainly be an error. Are we trying to 'understand' or joust ego? I am just offering what I 'see', whats to argue? What is threatening? The evidence here seems to indicate that 'free-will' is a 'belief virus' and exhibits all the relevent symptoms of egoic attachments and identification with the 'belief'. A 'belief' is an important 'program/memory' and must be defended at all costs (history shows us the results of this, the violence in fighting for 'god', 'freedom', 'choice', etc... all 'beliefs'. Beliefs, unfortunately, are non-rational, and unsuitable for 'rational' examination and evaluation. It is an essential program/memory of the moment. I don't 'believe' so I can discuss it and easily change 'world-views' with the revelation of relevent data (memory). Believers will have their own validations and evidences, just non-rational. One main 'errors' of 'believers' is to be seduced into thinking that there is some need to attempt to defend their 'beliefs' in rational discussion. It is fruitless. No one changes another's mind like that, with argument. A battle of prideful ego at best.
But the "power of veto" was observed in the experiments.
I saw 100% results of brain initiating action PRIOR to conscious choice. If there is something in that evidence that I missed, please link me. I have no probnlem accepting a 'critical update', but I warn you that 'free-will' is negated from a convergence of so many 'independent' disciplines, that I have no problem with the interpretation of his experimental data.
Besides (he said, already bored of the conversation) even if there were some 'error' in his experiment, that in no way negates the plethora of other independent supportive 'evidence'. We all have different perspectives, though, eh?
Declaring that people who disagree with you do so because of egoism and emotional attachments is entirely worthless.
Listen, we are all unique perspectives. No one's perceptions/concepts/memory exactly matches anyone else's. So, from that perspective, everyone disagrees with everyone else. I find that makes communication with people so interesting.
An 'argument' from egoic pride is non-rational and will bear no fruit but of the ego.
First, it is ego that is your sense of individual self; the 'personality' that you see in the mirror. So, egoism is the only reason that we have different perspectives in the first place, the only reason that we 'disagree'. The ego, the perspective that we are, IS our unique perspective. Ego IS perspective.
Discerning between a different perspective (and egoic emotional 'beliefs') and attempting to understand it (without being intimidated with the concept of understanding something that differs from our 'experience' (memory)) doesn't seem "worthless" to me.
It is the difference between a rational conversation and the nonsense of the 'belief vs logic' egoic emotional brawls we see all over the net.
First, because you could never prove such a thing.
Oh, I think that it wouldn't be difficult at all. And I only 'might' say that some people who need to 'argue' do so from, when the symptoms are observed, prideful ego/'belief virus'.
Second, because such claims are equally as valid when levelled against you.
As well they should be if I, too, were displaying similar appropriate symptoms. Call a spade a spade, eh? Honesty, yes?
Quote:Exactly!!! By the way, the sun does not 'rise' but in illusory appearance!
The point is not that the sun literally rises above the Earth, the point is that something has happened consistently, with almost no variation, within human history.
Actually, as the sun does not literally rise, but only appears to 'rise', and the sun's appearance, spin, location, size, etc... is, actually, 'different' every moment of it's existence. Your 'consistency' is only a vague consensus of appearance. The 'lack of variation' is strictly a function of your 'memory'/awareness.
Quote:And the only 'place' that you 'experience motion' is in memory, in Mind.
No, you experience motion with the senses.
Oh come on, you know better than this. Where are your 'senses' 'experienced'? Where is your feeling of hot when you burn your finger? In the flame? The apendage? IN YOUR MIND! That is where your perceptions and concepts finally make it to the monitor for it's hologramic display. Your entire 'world-view' is in your mind, in your brain as memory. If you are arguing for the accuracy of your sensory perceptions in the reflecting of the existence of some kind of 'out there', as in naive realism, well, that 'concept' has long since been refuted. Thouroughly.
You know that you have experienced motion because you have a memory, which reminds you of the previous state of affairs.
What makes you think that a memory has anything to do with any moment but the present? You 'assume' a 'previous state of affairs' from what evidence? From the illusion of linearity, that makes sense, 'cause and effect' and all, but all scientifically obsolete already.
I can make a 'memory' for my computer that would look like all sorts of linear motion and historicity, but that 'memory' was simply created right Now with no ties to any other moments. The history and motion, in the 'program/memory' is just an illusion.. It is all simply coding of memory. All the attendent illusions of memory comprise what we laughingly call... 'life/existence'.
Quote:Accept one illusion as 'Reality' and it is easier to accept any illusion. The sun only APPEARS to 'rise' just as the sun's apparent 'motion' is also just that.
You have asserted over and over that these are illusions. The sun does only appear to rise, but the Earth does not merely appear rotate on it's axis. The Earth does rotate on an axis.
The 'motion' is an illusion. Nothing moves. The 'moving earth' is in your 'memory' and no where else. It appears to move and hence appears to 'spin'. Read the following, how your memory of a spinning 'thought'...
Quote:Oxymoronic!! unless the concept of 'reality' is no more than a 'materialists dream', the basest of concepts. There is no evidence of what is commonly called 'physical/material' 'reality'. Quantum theory has indicated that what you call 'physical', when examined, resembles nothing as much as 'thought'! 'Hologramic'! Perhaps you'd like to read a bit of physics? Modern..
Resembles thought? What does thought look like?
You have thoughts, look at one!
Again, perhaps a study of quantum theory, cognitive theory, neuroscience, mystical meditation, noetics, etc.. might be as fruitful for you as it has been for me. A weeks search and read of 'scroogle.org' (cookie free google) will provide at least a very basic foundation of modern thought on the subject. I'll be happy to help if I can, with my perspective on things.
Most people mistake apparently solid objects for being solid, a mistake. None the less, quantum theory is concerned with what physicists would call physical reality.
No, the honest study of so called 'physical reality' by physics has quickly removed and 'reality' from the concept of 'physical'.
Quote:Any 'property/quality' of illusion remains... illusion! Illusion studied and quantified, again, remains illusion.
Yes, but I would suggest that change does exist in reality,
Suggest away, but you will be hard pressed to scientifically support it. I am assuming, by your usage of the term, that by 'reality' you are referring to 'existence'? I already gave my best definition of 'Reality', and 'unchanging' was part of it.
and that change is the root of what seems to be motion in what we call physical reality.
Speaking of 'roots' is something that I avoid as it stinks of the obsolete notion of 'cause and effect'. Now 'cause and effect' are understood to be MUTUALLY ARISING features of one event. The illusion of motion arises synchronously with the illusions of 'linearity', 'time', 'space', 'material' (what you refer to as) 'reality', all dualistic mnemonic existence of the moment.
So, motion is not illusory, only the aparent motion of physical reality.
All 'motion' is 'apparent'. Because it 'appears' as such, don't make it necessarily so. All your senses lie to you if you think that they reflect an 'out there'. Life is a grand illusion, awesome, for everything, all existence ever timelessly 'existing' for one Planck moment! Truth is certainly stranger than fiction!
There are most who couldn't give a rats patoot about such concepts as 'Truth' or 'Reality' and just want their nachos and beer. God bless em. Others do ascribe a 'value' to those two concepts. I did.
The motion is real, what we see as motion is change in reality, parts of which we mistake for physical reality.
I'm sorry, your confusion, here, is obvious. It is not like we have 'free-will' and 'choice' about what to think or say, anyway..
I see things as I must, as do you..
Incidentally, with the elimination of the notion of 'personal responsibility', nothing positive would be lost with much to gain. Yes, you will still have to pay for the fender-bender, as financial 'responsibility' is a 'compromise' to be able/allowed to live with others in a society. But, with no 'free-will', there will be no guilt, no punishment (perhaps more emphasis on 'healing'), no revenge, less reason to hate.. Off the cuff, I'd think the benefits would outweigh the present state of affairs. Just a bit of pragmatic cogitation, nothing more.