Free Will Mix

[SpheresOfBalance]

Oh, I get it, a Chicken Little analogy, No wonder I missed it the first time, chickens do flock but they don't squawk, maybe chirp, cheep or crow.
Of course my response would be, what's that got to do with it? The number of people accounting an impending doom, has absolutely nothing to do with it's validity, only fools would think otherwise.

I wasn't thinking of this chicken. I was just pointing-out that your claim to be trying to warn everyone else is not much needed as the whole media and many politicians, at least over here, are shouting this. Maybe its not the same in the States? And thinking about it I'd not be surprised given you pretty much appear not to teach the theory of evolution over there.
Who do you think you are, to decide what's needed?

That's not true, I learned of evolution in the public school system, I'm not sure what grade it was, but I believe it was what's called middle school here. Middle school is 7, 8 & 9 (which is technically the first year of high school (freshman)). I think my locality did that due to school size vs population size. There just wasn't room to have freshman in the high school, as it was, they had to build temporary wooden buildings they called colonies, to house 10-12 at my high school, but I digress.

Inflections!

Not really, of course its hard to judge the nuance of an inflection but words do express the state-of-mind of the other, crudely maybe but there nonetheless.
I disagree, you are a fucking moron!!!! See what I mean, I was not mad at all, when I wrote that last sentence, as a matter of fact I was almost uncontrollably laughing, it was really hard to type, because I knew the point I was making and imagined you reading it as you went and actually believing I was pissed (no, not drunk, you brit), it is impossible to 'know' the true frame of mind of a writer here, without visual and aural cues.

I failed to follow this, as it seemed to have too many nondescript 'degrees.'
I was under the impression that you had a Masters (8 years) in AI and a Bachelors (4 years) in Philosophy.

We must have a different system than you, B.A.(Hons)Degree(Bachelor of Arts) or B.Sc.(Hons)(Bachelor of Science)- three years, M.A.(Master of Arts) or M.Sc.(Master of Science) degree - 1 year(as its supposed to be in the same subject as the degree, thats why it took me longer to get), Phd or Doctorate - anything from three to eight years depending upon how brilliant you are, normally in the same subject as the other degrees but ironically enough its known as a Doctorate of Philosophy.

Yes ours is different:
Associates degree (2 years)
Bachelors degree (4 years)
Masters degree (1-6 years) can be done concurrently with Bachelors.
PhD degree (4-8 years) consecutive years after Bachelors.

[Arising_uk]

Since I started, I've only seen her 5 times, that would be not quite 5 hours. Actually after the first visit she gave me something that I use to slow me down a bit. And I've combined that with some hypnosis, and together they work pretty well, not that you're really concerned.

NLP was based in part upon a successful hypnotherapist, Milton Erickson, as such hypnosis is a subset of it.

That's nice, Thanks for the info, I'm sure it'll come in handy one day.

Let's hope as it hurts my eyes reading your replies.

Like I've told you, I don't buy 100% into anything anyone tells me, I realize that there can be both correct and incorrect ideas in everyone's analysis, therefore I pick and choose, only those ideas that I find elsewhere supported, especially if it comes from a totally different subject. I try and find a multidimensional interconnectedness, that I see, as ensuring I've collected the proper bits of data. The only people I tend to shun altogether are those that are somehow related to the killing of innocents, as I believe they are truly incapable of understanding anything worthwhile, or they would have killed themselves instead.

"multidimensional interconnectedness", what's this when its at home?

How do you know whats the "proper bits of data"? Sounds like you could be in danger of selective-bias with this approach.

Whilst I agree that the killing of children is a no-no I'm not sure if you mean this by innocents?

That's because you don't know of the evidence I've put forward. Again you see me write things and take them to be complete, without further need of articulation, this is false, but you judge them anyway, as complete. Nothing can be understood for what it truly is, until 100% of it is in clear sight. And even then, there may be aspects that aren't quite obvious to the casual observer.

Especially if the statee refuses to elucidate more.

Can't you get it through your thick skull, I can barely afford to eat, this is one of the things that pisses me off about talking to you, my need to constantly reiterate, for your re-acquaintance, because it consumes time, and as I've told you, I can't type for shit, your memory sucks! Start eating lots of cinnamon and sage to increase your memory and focus, seriously, it works.

And yet you can afford an internet connection and a computer?

You type fine, as I think you well think. Save your home remedies for yourself, as its not me who needs to use colours to keep track of my thoughts.

Education!!! Contextually, what else could it have been?

I had no idea, as I don't clump my educational experience into this one entity that you appear to wish to rail against.

Created in the first 5 years. Fair enough, I mean it as one that believes in, and embraces all that is provided by nature. The natural state of things, without being corrupted.

And this is where I get confused about your thoughts, as you say you believe in this 'free-will' but everything you say implies a determinism with respect to ones self and behaviours?

I also think your idea that there is some 'natural state' or 'state of grace' or 'golden age' that we fall from or are corrupted by, a fiction.

Not at all, look, some people had the luxury of having soft and sweet love, understanding and nurturing during the first five, as long as there are not physical defects in the brain, this creates a sound psyche. But unfortunately for some of us, we were abused during this time, unloved, and in my case placed into a mode of believing that they must always be on their toes, as their death is eminent, resulting in angst, because it's programmed in during this very important time of psyche formation, it can be hard to get rid of. If one could remember every instance of the abuse then it would be easy to change, as the adult rational mind could revisit and understand the dynamics of the cause and effect, thus negate their influence more readily. Unfortunately, it's very hard to get in touch with those early years so as to revisit them in order to see and change their effects. I'm lucky that I'm able to remember one of them, I was 4 and I've already come to terms with at least some of it such that I've seen some of it's effects which caused me more pain. Basically I was getting punished for being punished, and I deserved none of it!

This is exactly what you can do with NLP, although the reality is that you can't actually get back to the event as it has passed, what you can do is recreate whatever it is that you think it was and that you think is responsible for the behaviours that you are showing now, and that you hopefully wish to change, and reprogramme them, hence the title Neuro-Linguistic Programming.

See what I mean by how you love your victimhood? As you think that the mentally ill and depressed have to have had hard childhoods and this is not the case, as its also not the case that having such a thing leads one to mental problems, not that I'm saying it cannot. I've met enough abused people with horror stories from their childhood that would curl the average persons brain and many appear to have managed to achieve a sound psyche.

It's about coming to terms with the truth of the matter of the programming of the first five years, when we're incapable of fully allowing the adult to regulate the false parental inputs. After many years, In retrospect, it's about the clarity of memory, so its a struggle.

....

See above, I said as much. But what you fail to realize is that some of what happened is either forgotten, or has been purposely blocked. And these things can only be reconciled if they are known.

If its been forgotten then its not a problem, unless you believe in the Freudian unconsciousness. As with the idea of 'blockage'. Find a therapist who knows about time-line therapy and try it, you'll be amazed at what you can 'recover'. Don't take them seriously unless they first make you state, in the positive, what the issue or outcome it is that you want to change in your life.

Hey, you started the ridiculous shit!

Actually, no, you stated this in a previous post to me, I just thought it nice to see if the word cum would remind you, apparently it did.

No, life is the living

Is this the same as living is life? If so I agree.

Never said there was.

So why do you think there a riddle then?

No shit, Sherlock!

Scouts honour.

Then your vision is cloudy, as I see that we are born of the universe, and as such it's children, I do not believe in mans god, but I believe that there may be a creator, and then again it could be pure chance, but even then we are the children of the universe.

LMAO! See what I mean, you want a parent. There is no entity called the universe that can bear children.

Have you found it to work for 'you?'

Every time I choose to use it.

That which I have already said, I find it surprising that with our differences, we see some things similarly.

But you've offered nothing so far apart from lots of bemoaning and chastising of these 'selfish' ones.

Can you read? I said it could be otherwise, for a time, but for his selfishness. The essence seems to be chaos.

The "essence" of what? Man? Order, design and co-operation also appear to be essential traits of Man.

You talk much about this "selfishness" and the inevitability of Mans downfall but offer no solutions. So why should we bother listening to you? What's the point?

"... The world of the happy man is a different one from that of the unhappy man"
Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 6.43

You seem to be incapable of keeping track of the conversation, you asked why I haven't become my example of a 'normal' human, It's because I can't turn back time, because what I see as normal, is so far removed from that of today, it shall require turning back time, unless I get everyone's cooperation, and there is no way that's going to happen

See what I mean? Despite your claim about 'free-will' you are a pessimistic determinist. I think you also live in a fictional dream of a 'golden past'.

Not mine, ours!

I should be walking around naked, can I, without being fucked with? What if I decide it may be fun to copulate in the middle of a field, can I do that, it's natural? I don't want to pay taxes, I don't owe anyone shit, can I get away with that? I may want to smoke pot as I stare at the stars contemplating infinity, can I do that? I want to pick out a piece of fertile land and farm it instead of working for any other fucking human, can I do that? The answer to all is fuck no, I'm a fucking slave to your fucking system that is designed to make you fucking rich. I despise your so called fucking civilization, because it's fucking designed to keep the fucking rich ahead of me, as they fucking stole all the land up centuries ago, saying it was fucking there's just because they were here first and would fucking kill for it. Today they expect you to be civil and not take their example and kill them for it, so they put laws into effect so as to ensure they keep it, god forbid you take it like they did, And I agree!!!! So fucking do the right thing and give up your excess, as it's not really yours to begin with. Can you see my dilemma? I want to live truly free as the natural universe intended, fuck mans laws, save one. The Golden Rule revised by me to compensate for it's flaws pointed out by some philosophers, which I call the "Fundamental Social Axiom" (Gold is uncalled for) which states: Treat others as you would have others treat you, to the extent that all parties knowingly agree at the time."

Oh please! America is more than big enough and still 'free' enough that you could find somewhere where the bulk of your outcomes could be realised. If not the world is full of lawless places where you can live out your pot-smoking survivalist farming dreams.

The only dilemma I see with you is that you can't state what you want in the positive and have no techniques to achieve what you want. Its all them, them, them. Still, cheer-up, you'll be dead soon.

See Above!

See reply.

That's because you've bought into the lie!

Nope, its because I'm a cock-up theorist and not a conspiracy one. I'm also, 'god' forbid, a touch of a Buddhist.

In this context, it means that each and every life has the same right to equally enjoy it's time here without anyone interfering. A particular life's construct is up to it alone as long as it does not harm another, because no one knows the truth of our existence, thus none are subject to another's construct. In other words the only thing we absolutely owe one another is to leave one another alone, as there is no accounting for any particular lifestyles truth.

You live in a fantasy. If Man had done this we'd not have survived.

Yes, this is true

At least we agree on something.

It's not necessarily a plot. I have an education, you should take your own advice!

Try showing it sometime.

It's a song!

Its all the same to me.

No brat here, just a victim of brats.

Maybe, but Forces I suspect.

Did you read it? Note the first half: "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world, than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled" If there is only one people no flag is required!

The trouble with this is that there is no entity to be a world-citizen of, just as much of the people of the world have no citizenship in any real sense. So whilst a lovely thought you're going to need to unite people to act and fight for such a concept, as such a flag is a great banner for such endeavours.

"The people's flag is deepest red,
It shrouded oft our martyred dead,
And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold,
Their hearts' blood dyed its ev'ry fold.

So raise ..."

I've yet to here you saying anything worth rebutting. Actually I disagree, I've just not done so to your liking.

Tell you what, the next time you reply answer any of my questions rather than ignore them and concentrate only upon what you wish to reply to.

No, I used those Items I thought applied.

What on earth has AI got to do with what we are talking about?

[Arising_uk]

Who do you think you are, to decide what's needed?

Why not? Who else? But who are you to make the claims that you do?

That's not true, I learned of evolution in the public school system, I'm not sure what grade it was, but I believe it was what's called middle school here. Middle school is 7, 8 & 9 (which is technically the first year of high school (freshman)). I think my locality did that due to school size vs population size. There just wasn't room to have freshman in the high school, as it was, they had to build temporary wooden buildings they called colonies, to house 10-12 at my high school, but I digress

Check out how many teachers in your schools now-a-days are not covering the subject due to what they feel will be to much grief if they do. I think there is an American Science Academy that is raising this issue right now and trying to fight the increase.

I disagree, you are a fucking moron!!!! See what I mean, I was not mad at all, when I wrote that last sentence, as a matter of fact I was almost uncontrollably laughing, it was really hard to type, because I knew the point I was making and imagined you reading it as you went and actually believing I was pissed (no, not drunk, you brit), it is impossible to 'know' the true frame of mind of a writer here, without visual and aural cues.

I agree you are a twat and you can't know if I mean this, but during a written conversation, if the person is congruent in their thoughts and with their words then one generally gets the drift. Of course if they are not honest or just playing psychological games then its all up for grabs. Which are you?

Yes ours is different:
Associates degree (2 years)
Bachelors degree (4 years)
Masters degree (1-6 years) can be done concurrently with Bachelors.
PhD degree (4-8 years) consecutive years after Bachelors.

Thats odd? How can you do a Masters concurrently with the Bachelors? Whats the difference between them? But phew! You appear to spend a long time in Higher Education, what age do you normally start the Associates degree?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Who do you think you are, to decide what's needed?

Why not? Who else? But who are you to make the claims that you do?
The difference is, I'm here to help and share, and you're here to destroy for your ego's sake!

That's not true, I learned of evolution in the public school system, I'm not sure what grade it was, but I believe it was what's called middle school here. Middle school is 7, 8 & 9 (which is technically the first year of high school (freshman)). I think my locality did that due to school size vs population size. There just wasn't room to have freshman in the high school, as it was, they had to build temporary wooden buildings they called colonies, to house 10-12 at my high school, but I digress

Check out how many teachers in your schools now-a-days are not covering the subject due to what they feel will be to much grief if they do. I think there is an American Science Academy that is raising this issue right now and trying to fight the increase.
You initially made a stupid blanket statement, and now, once shown your error, decide to specify.

I disagree, you are a fucking moron!!!! See what I mean, I was not mad at all, when I wrote that last sentence, as a matter of fact I was almost uncontrollably laughing, it was really hard to type, because I knew the point I was making and imagined you reading it as you went and actually believing I was pissed (no, not drunk, you brit), it is impossible to 'know' the true frame of mind of a writer here, without visual and aural cues.

I agree you are a twat and you can't know if I mean this, but during a written conversation, if the person is congruent in their thoughts and with their words then one generally gets the drift. Of course if they are not honest or just playing psychological games then its all up for grabs. Which are you?
I treat people in kind!

Yes ours is different:
Associates degree (2 years)
Bachelors degree (4 years)
Masters degree (1-6 years) can be done concurrently with Bachelors.
PhD degree (4-8 years) consecutive years after Bachelors.

Thats odd? How can you do a Masters concurrently with the Bachelors? Whats the difference between them? But phew! You appear to spend a long time in Higher Education, what age do you normally start the Associates degree?

I pursued a traditional college education for the first time at 36, but most start college at 18-19 years of age. At least that's the age that seems to be most common, for those that streamline their education. I traveled the world first, but did receive a little technical college training during the traveling, it was equivalent to slightly over an associates degree, but keep in mind it was all technical, science related.

From a truth standpoint, I see that it's far better to start college late, after you've gotten a chance to learn of the world through experience. I believe this way, a clearer picture of truth can be obtained. And no, it's not because that's what I did, that's just a coincidence. But from a money standpoint, which unfortunately is why most people go to college, it's better to start immediately after high school.

[Arising_uk]

The difference is, I'm here to help and share, and you're here to destroy for your ego's sake!

And you get all this from this medium do you? Amazing!

When will you be saying something concrete that we can apply to help this situation you describe? As so far I've heard nothing but your ego and emotions.

You initially made a stupid blanket statement, and now, once shown your error, decide to specify.

What error? I specified because you denied what is happening in your schools based I presume upon your education a few decades ago.
http://bigthink.com/ideas/21147

I treat people in kind!

Coloured by your obvious insecurity.

I pursued a traditional college education for the first time at 36, but most start college at 18-19 years of age. At least that's the age that seems to be most common, for those that streamline their education. I traveled the world first, but did receive a little technical college training during the traveling, it was equivalent to slightly over an associates degree, but keep in mind it was all technical, science related.

From a truth standpoint, I see that it's far better to start college late, after you've gotten a chance to learn of the world through experience. I believe this way, a clearer picture of truth can be obtained. And no, it's not because that's what I did, that's just a coincidence. But from a money standpoint, which unfortunately is why most people go to college, it's better to start immediately after high school.

I wasn't asking for your life history just when this associate degree was started but I think it sounds like our A-levels(which would make sense if the "A" stood for associate), so over here these are normally between 16-18 and done at school or college and are essentially free, then the degrees are started which do cost money but all are eligible for a low-interest student loan, so pretty much anyone can do them if they wish, although it looks like we are going down the American route so money will now count when getting an education.

As a mature student myself I think 'truth' comes little into it but application certainly does. As it beats working.

This travel of yours, The Forces I guess, given where you've said you travelled?

[SpheresOfBalance]

The difference is, I'm here to help and share, and you're here to destroy for your ego's sake!

And you get all this from this medium do you? Amazing!
You can take things out of context all you want, it doesn't change the facts.

When will you be saying something concrete that we can apply to help this situation you describe? As so far I've heard nothing but your ego and emotions.
I've already answered that question. Yep, in response to your BS!

You initially made a stupid blanket statement, and now, once shown your error, decide to specify.

What error? I specified because you denied what is happening in your schools based I presume upon your education a few decades ago.
There goes your dipshit presumption and then jumping to conclusions again. Can't deny something I'm unaware of, I could give a fuck as to what's happening in schools today, my children are all grown up. In addition I have never believed that a public school system is responsible for my child's education, ultimately it was mine!

http://bigthink.com/ideas/21147

I treat people in kind!

Coloured by your obvious insecurity.
Only a fool is secure, as if anything is actually certain; with doubt, remains possibility?
Security is a trap that can preclude understanding.

"I only know that I know nothing" --Socrates--

I pursued a traditional college education for the first time at 36, but most start college at 18-19 years of age. At least that's the age that seems to be most common, for those that streamline their education. I traveled the world first, but did receive a little technical college training during the traveling, it was equivalent to slightly over an associates degree, but keep in mind it was all technical, science related.

From a truth standpoint, I see that it's far better to start college late, after you've gotten a chance to learn of the world through experience. I believe this way, a clearer picture of truth can be obtained. And no, it's not because that's what I did, that's just a coincidence. But from a money standpoint, which unfortunately is why most people go to college, it's better to start immediately after high school.

I wasn't asking for your life history
You got what you got, be glad you got anything at all!

just when this associate degree was started but I think it sounds like our A-levels(which would make sense if the "A" stood for associate), so over here these are normally between 16-18 and done at school or college and are essentially free, then the degrees are started which do cost money but all are eligible for a low-interest student loan, so pretty much anyone can do them if they wish, although it looks like we are going down the American route so money will now count when getting an education.

As a mature student myself I think 'truth' comes little into it but application certainly does. As it beats working.
Who said you were mature? I'm thinking quite the opposite!


This travel of yours, The Forces I guess, given where you've said you travelled?
Doesn't matter who paid the ticket, where ever you go, there you are.

[Arising_uk]

You can take things out of context all you want, it doesn't change the facts.

Which facts? The ones where I apparently can't make judgements upon you but you can make them about me.

I've already answered that question. Yep, in response to your BS!

Where? Show me one concrete proposal you've made about how to deal with the situation you describe.

There goes your dipshit presumption and then jumping to conclusions again. Can't deny something I'm unaware of, I could give a fuck as to what's happening in schools today, my children are all grown up. In addition I have never believed that a public school system is responsible for my child's education, ultimately it was mine!

A better example of this selfishness you describe I can't think of.

Only a fool is secure, as if anything is actually certain; with doubt, remains possibility?
Security is a trap that can preclude understanding.

"I only know that I know nothing" --Socrates--

And yet you appear willing to state much about what you don't know?

Something you may have missed about Socrates, he asked a lot of questions of his interlocutors in an attempt to get them to define what they meant by what they say. Presumably so they could then have an actual conversation.

You got what you got, be glad you got anything at all!

Why?

Who said you were mature? I'm thinking quite the opposite!

I said I was a mature student. Given your emotional responses I think one should look to themselves.

Doesn't matter who paid the ticket, where ever you go, there you are.

Thought so. I think it does matter as there is a difference between between living in another culture and living in a little slice of Americana. Unless of course you were this rare breed of US troop who did not live upon the Base.
p.s.
You ever going to answer my question about the tension you have between your idea that we have 'free-will' and the determinism you describe with respect to changing ones behaviour in the present?

[SpheresOfBalance]

You can take things out of context all you want, it doesn't change the facts.

Which facts? The ones where I apparently can't make judgements upon you but you can make them about me.
For me, it all depends on whom starts the shit, that I decide to treat in kind. you only have yourself to blame.

I've already answered that question. Yep, in response to your BS!

Where? Show me one concrete proposal you've made about how to deal with the situation you describe.
Again above your head, and shall require backtracking on my part as usual. I shouldn't have to repeat myself thousands of time for you to get it.

There goes your dipshit presumption and then jumping to conclusions again. Can't deny something I'm unaware of, I could give a fuck as to what's happening in schools today, my children are all grown up. In addition I have never believed that a public school system is responsible for my child's education, ultimately it was mine!

A better example of this selfishness you describe I can't think of.
Bullshit, what's the MTR of the APS-115? Also I want it's PRF and PW.
Outline the Russian FC's of the 80's.

And the list goes on and on and on and on of the things you don't know, how can you possibly be held accountable, in my presumption of your denial, you're a fucking idiot!

Only a fool is secure, as if anything is actually certain; with doubt, remains possibility?
Security is a trap that can preclude understanding.

"I only know that I know nothing" --Socrates--

And yet you appear willing to state much about what you don't know?
You don't understand how it applies!

Something you may have missed about Socrates, he asked a lot of questions of his interlocutors in an attempt to get them to define what they meant by what they say. Presumably so they could then have an actual conversation.
Why don't you understand, you've never been worthy of this conversation you speak of. Lance on the other hand, was different. I'm still waiting for the day, with you.

You got what you got, be glad you got anything at all!

Why?
Stupid question, a kids game!

Who said you were mature? I'm thinking quite the opposite!

I said I was a mature student. Given your emotional responses I think one should look to themselves.
I am, for he most part, we're talking about intent of offense not intent of defense.

Doesn't matter who paid the ticket, where ever you go, there you are.

Thought so. I think it does matter as there is a difference between between living in another culture and living in a little slice of Americana. Unless of course you were this rare breed of US troop who did not live upon the Base.
There's your presumption again, I clearly set you up, to again shit out your preconceived ideas, that are baseless. This is why you're not worth it.

p.s.
You ever going to answer my question about the tension you have between your idea that we have 'free-will' and the determinism you describe with respect to changing ones behaviour in the present?
Again, you have been going in the wrong direction, you only strengthen my resolve to not engage you as you would like, due to your presumption of what it is you think you hear. What would be the point, as everything I state falls on deaf ears.

What you experience now is the most you'll ever get out of me, unless I decide otherwise, you'll never goad me that way.

[Arising_uk]

For me, it all depends on whom starts the shit, that I decide to treat in kind. you only have yourself to blame.

Like I've said, I guess you find yourself in this situation a lot. "Blame", whats that?

Again above your head, and shall require backtracking on my part as usual. I shouldn't have to repeat myself thousands of time for you to get it.

I'll save you the trouble, you haven't.

Bullshit, what's the MTR of the APS-115? Also I want it's PRF and PW.
Outline the Russian FC's of the 80's.

No eyed-deer what you are talking about?

You don't understand how it applies!

You think you are demonstrating the Socratic method?

Why don't you understand, you've never been worthy of this conversation you speak of. Lance on the other hand, was different. I'm still waiting for the day, with you.

You appear to make many of the judgements you claim I should not make? Not that I'd make such a judgement as you just have oh great gnu. "Worthy"

Stupid question, a kids game!

Which I think just about sums-up the ignorant adults approach to things. Next you'll be telling me, "Because I said so!"

I am, for he most part, we're talking about intent of offense not intent of defense.

Funny how those who claim this always tend to find it.

There's your presumption again, I clearly set you up, to again shit out your preconceived ideas, that are baseless. This is why you're not worth it.

But the solution to such things are easy! A denial or refutation suffices. So, Forces or not, Army brat or not?

Again, you have been going in the wrong direction, you only strengthen my resolve to not engage you as you would like, due to your presumption of what it is you think you hear. What would be the point, as everything I state falls on deaf ears.

Nothing you say falls upon deaf ears. Its that you pretty much say nothing apart from psychological gushing.

you experience now is the most you'll ever get out of me, unless I decide otherwise, you'll never goad me that way.

What a paranoid you are.

[SpheresOfBalance]

For me, it all depends on whom starts the shit, that I decide to treat in kind. you only have yourself to blame.

Like I've said, I guess you find yourself in this situation a lot. "Blame", whats that?

Again above your head, and shall require backtracking on my part as usual. I shouldn't have to repeat myself thousands of time for you to get it.

I'll save you the trouble, you haven't.

Bullshit, what's the MTR of the APS-115? Also I want it's PRF and PW.
Outline the Russian FC's of the 80's.

No eyed-deer what you are talking about?

You don't understand how it applies!

You think you are demonstrating the Socratic method?

Why don't you understand, you've never been worthy of this conversation you speak of. Lance on the other hand, was different. I'm still waiting for the day, with you.

You appear to make many of the judgements you claim I should not make? Not that I'd make such a judgement as you just have oh great gnu. "Worthy"

Stupid question, a kids game!

Which I think just about sums-up the ignorant adults approach to things. Next you'll be telling me, "Because I said so!"

I am, for he most part, we're talking about intent of offense not intent of defense.

Funny how those who claim this always tend to find it.

There's your presumption again, I clearly set you up, to again shit out your preconceived ideas, that are baseless. This is why you're not worth it.

But the solution to such things are easy! A denial or refutation suffices. So, Forces or not, Army brat or not?

Again, you have been going in the wrong direction, you only strengthen my resolve to not engage you as you would like, due to your presumption of what it is you think you hear. What would be the point, as everything I state falls on deaf ears.

Nothing you say falls upon deaf ears. Its that you pretty much say nothing apart from psychological gushing.

you experience now is the most you'll ever get out of me, unless I decide otherwise, you'll never goad me that way.

What a paranoid you are.

Example of a typical conversation with you:

SOB: That's gray!
A: That car's not gray!
SOB: I never said anything about a car.
A: Why do you keep changing the subject?
SOB: I didn't, you're the one that keeps presuming we're talking about something we're not and I have to back track to refresh your memory.
A: (No retort for the last thing I said, instead picks another random sentence to do the same thing to.)

A normal person, such as myself, would have initially asked the question: What's gray? But not you, instead you think it's normal to presume meaning then expect the originator to set you straight, that's absurd, and gets really tiring. I talk to you because you respond to me, and of course I try and be nice and set you straight, but with you it's a never ending dialog of presumption, and it frustrates the crap out of me, so I explode a little.

Here's an actual situation:

I referenced Michio Kaku's words sighting that he was one of the originators of string theory.

Then you said that string theory has no substance, it's just theory.

Then I said that string theory had nothing to do with it, that it was just my way of calling attention to who he was for those unaware.

Then later you say that sting theory has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

And I'm thinking why the hell is she still talking about string theory, we're already covered this. Then I think that either this must be why she always deletes the thread nesting so as to only include the immediately previous message so that there is no proof of context so she can play some sort of game of misdirection, or that because she deletes the nesting she gets lost and confused as to context. So in essence I'm not sure if it's an intentional game you play, or the unintentional confusion you suffer, but either way it rubs me the wrong way, because it takes too much of my time to set you straight on something we should be well beyond. And you actually have the audacity to say that I never answer any of your questions. The answer of why I don't is simple, it's too much needless work to get a message across to you, it's not funny.

So until you either stop playing your game or you concentrate and follow along, I'll not spend any time elaborating.

[SpheresOfBalance]

For me, it all depends on whom starts the shit, that I decide to treat in kind. you only have yourself to blame.

Like I've said, I guess you find yourself in this situation a lot. "Blame", whats that?

Again above your head, and shall require backtracking on my part as usual. I shouldn't have to repeat myself thousands of time for you to get it.

I'll save you the trouble, you haven't.

Bullshit, what's the MTR of the APS-115? Also I want it's PRF and PW.
Outline the Russian FC's of the 80's.

No eyed-deer what you are talking about?

You don't understand how it applies!

You think you are demonstrating the Socratic method?

Why don't you understand, you've never been worthy of this conversation you speak of. Lance on the other hand, was different. I'm still waiting for the day, with you.

You appear to make many of the judgements you claim I should not make? Not that I'd make such a judgement as you just have oh great gnu. "Worthy"

Stupid question, a kids game!

Which I think just about sums-up the ignorant adults approach to things. Next you'll be telling me, "Because I said so!"

I am, for he most part, we're talking about intent of offense not intent of defense.

Funny how those who claim this always tend to find it.

There's your presumption again, I clearly set you up, to again shit out your preconceived ideas, that are baseless. This is why you're not worth it.

But the solution to such things are easy! A denial or refutation suffices. So, Forces or not, Army brat or not?

Again, you have been going in the wrong direction, you only strengthen my resolve to not engage you as you would like, due to your presumption of what it is you think you hear. What would be the point, as everything I state falls on deaf ears.

Nothing you say falls upon deaf ears. Its that you pretty much say nothing apart from psychological gushing.

you experience now is the most you'll ever get out of me, unless I decide otherwise, you'll never goad me that way.

What a paranoid you are.

Example of a typical conversation with you:

SOB: That's gray!
A: That car's not gray!
SOB: I never said anything about a car.
A: Why do you keep changing the subject?
SOB: I didn't, you're the one that keeps presuming we're talking about something we're not and I have to back track to refresh your memory.
A: (No retort for the last thing I said, instead picks another random sentence to do the same thing to.)

A normal person, such as myself, would have initially asked the question: What's gray? But not you, instead you think it's normal to presume meaning then expect the originator to set you straight, that's absurd, and gets really tiring. I talk to you because you respond to me, and of course I try and be nice and set you straight, but with you it's a never ending dialog of presumption, and it frustrates the crap out of me, so I explode a little.

Here's an actual situation:

I referenced Michio Kaku's words sighting that he was one of the originators of string theory.

Then you said that string theory has no substance, it's just theory.

Then I said that string theory had nothing to do with it, that it was just my way of calling attention to who he was for those unaware.

Then later you say that sting theory has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

And I'm thinking why the hell is she still talking about string theory, we're already covered this. Then I think that either this must be why she always deletes the thread nesting so as to only include the immediately previous message so that there is no proof of context so she can play some sort of game of misdirection, or that because she deletes the nesting she gets lost and confused as to context. So in essence I'm not sure if it's an intentional game you play, or the unintentional confusion you suffer, but either way it rubs me the wrong way, because it takes too much of my time to set you straight on something we should be well beyond. And you actually have the audacity to say that I never answer any of your questions. The answer of why I don't is simple, it's too much needless work to get a message across to you, it's not funny.

So until you either stop playing your game or you concentrate and follow along, I'll not spend any time elaborating.

Another example:

As to civilization, I had mentioned that it's a construct of mankind's legacy, and you made lite of my assertion saying that I'm a conspiracy nut. Your presumption, was that intent logically followed, and that is not necessarily true.

Some people in charge told it's inhabitants to return to their offices, as there was no danger of the towers collapsing. Was, either them saying that it wouldn't, or the fact that it did, that of intent? I would say that it was due to the legacy of it's construct, as it and our civilization is constructed of thousands of constituents. And the ghost in the machine, this evil that exists within the totality of any particular construct, isn't necessarily the intent of each constituent, (though obviously it can be), but how they mesh together. And the legacy of each constituent may not be fully understoond, yet they are still part of the constructs foundation.

You also let it be known that you were confused by my use of legacy, which is merely that which is handed down from the past, in the above example of the towers I can see where you might object a little, but with civilization, and it's construction which has been ongoing for quite some number of years, you're out of your tree. If you can't see that we are a product of everything that has been handed down form the past, thus a product of human legacy, then I submit that you are contradictory with the mention of Socrates or anything else dated back in time, as the past is that of the totality of your education, your education is a product of mankind's legacy, that which has been handed down from the past; history.

Ask Chaz about history and it's contents as it relates to truth, I've witnessed some thought provoking comments of his, yes he actually remained cool headed long enough to not alienate the one he was talking to, I was just an observer as it transpired. But he's not the only one that put me onto this idea. One of my history professors back in 1994 told of how he was hired by Britannica to write a piece on George Washington, and how when he included the truth, as to George's womanizing and subsequent death from syphilis, they fired him. The historical truth is not only whats been included but also whats not been included, and unfortunately a lot of this may never be known, and is a part of the Ghost in the Machine, the flawed part of the construct of civilization.

Of course none of this precludes intentional conspiracies, but this is our problem. That you seem incapable of, or refuse to, word your rebuttals, such that you've considered multiple possibilities, and instead see it only one way, your way, and then obviously hold me accountable for not seeing it your way, so you include demeaning wording, because I didn't. And all along I see that it's because you appear to not see this greater potential, of multiple possibilities, and become frustrated from the sheer volume that I have to contend with. So all this time I've been addressing this flaw between us, because I see it as the horse, and the subject at hand, as the cart. The horse has to be before the cart. If you have a faulty transmission and reception system the data shall always be corrupted and require a resend. I don't have the patience for that, because I can't type for shit, and I want to feel like we're actually moving forward at least at a reasonable pace.

[Hanuman]

Hanuman, I think you are very insightful and thank you for sharing your thoughts.

From what you wrote it sounds like Heidegger's hermeneutical horizon, which roughly means we are conditioned by historicity so that when we understand or interpret/choose/react etc. we do so because of our previous 'fore-structure.'

Thank-you, and I apologize for having not responded sooner. I will look into the theory you've referred to. Thanks for the info.

[Arising_uk]

...
Example of a typical conversation with you:

SOB: That's gray!
A: That car's not gray!
SOB: I never said anything about a car.
A: Why do you keep changing the subject?
SOB: I didn't, you're the one that keeps presuming we're talking about something we're not and I have to back track to refresh your memory.
A: (No retort for the last thing I said, instead picks another random sentence to do the same thing to.)

How can they be random when I address, in order, every sentence or set of sentences that stand together as a thought?

But *chuckle* at your reply as its pretty much typical of you to not respond to any of my questions. You have to back-track to refresh your memory, mines fine.

A normal person, such as myself, would have initially asked the question: What's gray? But not you, instead you think it's normal to presume meaning then expect the originator to set you straight, that's absurd, and gets really tiring. I talk to you because you respond to me, and of course I try and be nice and set you straight, but with you it's a never ending dialog of presumption, and it frustrates the crap out of me, so I explode a little.

Here's an actual situation:

I referenced Michio Kaku's words sighting that he was one of the originators of string theory.

Then you said that string theory has no substance, it's just theory.

Then I said that string theory had nothing to do with it, that it was just my way of calling attention to who he was for those unaware.

Then later you say that sting theory has nothing to do with the subject at hand. ...

A 'normal' person would say, "Michio Kaku's - physicist" and assume that in a philosophy forum the reader would have enough smarts to goggle him if they wished. Someone who wished to imbue some kind of gravitas or kudos to the idea they were punting, i.e. physicists needing 'god' to solve some problems they have, would do as you did. Is it that you aren't used to being in a forum where some of its members think?

You never did say what these 'problems' that having a 'god' would solve in Physics?

And I'm thinking why the hell is she still talking about string theory, we're already covered this. Then I think that either this must be why she always deletes the thread nesting so as to only include the immediately previous message so that there is no proof of context so she can play some sort of game of misdirection, or that because she deletes the nesting she gets lost and confused as to context. So in essence I'm not sure if it's an intentional game you play, or the unintentional confusion you suffer, but either way it rubs me the wrong way, because it takes too much of my time to set you straight on something we should be well beyond. And you actually have the audacity to say that I never answer any of your questions. The answer of why I don't is simple, it's too much needless work to get a message across to you, it's not funny. ...

LMAO. It appears that I'm not so audacious after all!

There you go with your paranoia and you add insinuation. Whilst I would love a nested quoting system we don't have one, as such I prefer not to have to scroll through whole resposts of whats already been said as I generally can remember what I've been talking about. If I can't or lose the thread I can easily backtrack given the way I quote as its just replaying the conversation and I prefer it to using colours embedded in the requotes as one can easily miss them given that after a while the whole thing looks like a kids collage.

Its also that so many posts contain so many different thoughts that I can only address them one at a time rather than the post being a complete whole thought that I can reply to, which I do if you notice when I reply to paragraphs that work.

So until you either stop playing your game or you concentrate and follow along, I'll not spend any time elaborating.

How many times! You haven't yet elaborated, nor have you yet backtracked and shown me my error, nor do you answer questions. Typically you spend most of your time and effort gushing out your emotional states and trying to psycho-babble me.

[SpheresOfBalance]

...
Example of a typical conversation with you:

SOB: That's gray!
A: That car's not gray!
SOB: I never said anything about a car.
A: Why do you keep changing the subject?
SOB: I didn't, you're the one that keeps presuming we're talking about something we're not and I have to back track to refresh your memory.
A: (No retort for the last thing I said, instead picks another random sentence to do the same thing to.)

How can they be random when I address, in order, every sentence or set of sentences that stand together as a thought?

But *chuckle* at your reply as its pretty much typical of you to not respond to any of my questions. You have to back-track to refresh your memory, mines fine.

A normal person, such as myself, would have initially asked the question: What's gray? But not you, instead you think it's normal to presume meaning then expect the originator to set you straight, that's absurd, and gets really tiring. I talk to you because you respond to me, and of course I try and be nice and set you straight, but with you it's a never ending dialog of presumption, and it frustrates the crap out of me, so I explode a little.

Here's an actual situation:

I referenced Michio Kaku's words sighting that he was one of the originators of string theory.

Then you said that string theory has no substance, it's just theory.

Then I said that string theory had nothing to do with it, that it was just my way of calling attention to who he was for those unaware.

Then later you say that sting theory has nothing to do with the subject at hand. ...

A 'normal' person would say, "Michio Kaku's - physicist" and assume that in a philosophy forum the reader would have enough smarts to goggle him if they wished. Someone who wished to imbue some kind of gravitas or kudos to the idea they were punting, i.e. physicists needing 'god' to solve some problems they have, would do as you did. Is it that you aren't used to being in a forum where some of its members think?

You never did say what these 'problems' that having a 'god' would solve in Physics?

And I'm thinking why the hell is she still talking about string theory, we're already covered this. Then I think that either this must be why she always deletes the thread nesting so as to only include the immediately previous message so that there is no proof of context so she can play some sort of game of misdirection, or that because she deletes the nesting she gets lost and confused as to context. So in essence I'm not sure if it's an intentional game you play, or the unintentional confusion you suffer, but either way it rubs me the wrong way, because it takes too much of my time to set you straight on something we should be well beyond. And you actually have the audacity to say that I never answer any of your questions. The answer of why I don't is simple, it's too much needless work to get a message across to you, it's not funny. ...

LMAO. It appears that I'm not so audacious after all!

There you go with your paranoia and you add insinuation. Whilst I would love a nested quoting system we don't have one, as such I prefer not to have to scroll through whole resposts of whats already been said as I generally can remember what I've been talking about. If I can't or lose the thread I can easily backtrack given the way I quote as its just replaying the conversation and I prefer it to using colours embedded in the requotes as one can easily miss them given that after a while the whole thing looks like a kids collage.

Its also that so many posts contain so many different thoughts that I can only address them one at a time rather than the post being a complete whole thought that I can reply to, which I do if you notice when I reply to paragraphs that work.

So until you either stop playing your game or you concentrate and follow along, I'll not spend any time elaborating.

How many times! You haven't yet elaborated, nor have you yet backtracked and shown me my error, nor do you answer questions. Typically you spend most of your time and effort gushing out your emotional states and trying to psycho-babble me.

Bullshit, again this is exactly what I mean, obviously you failed to follow that last statement of mine, which was easy as pie, so I'll ELABORATE, as usual, This message of mine, in it's totality, was me ELABORATING on the problems between us, and yet you have the audacity to say I never elaborate, so either you're playing games, trying to screw with me, or ignorant through your fear of the dictionary, and thus don't know what elaborate means. Either way we're spinning our tires because we fail, continually, to effectively communicate. And after I get done elaborating on this particular bunch of BS, I'm too frustrated and tired, because I can't type for shit, to respond to any question concerning the topic at hand. Do you finally see the problem between us. I believe it was self evident as to what my last sentence meant, but i have to break my word and elaborate yet again just to get you to see how you misunderstood, and thus caused us to waste yet more time, saying absolutely nothing, of philosophical consequence, as to "Free Will." I'm getting tired of spinning my wheels with you. I'm beginning to think that you're screwing with me because no one with your education could be this stupid.

[Arising_uk]

...
Bullshit, again this is exactly what I mean, obviously you failed to follow that last statement of mine, which was easy as pie, so I'll ELABORATE, as usual, This message of mine, in it's totality, was me ELABORATING on the problems between us, and yet you have the audacity to say I never elaborate, so either you're playing games, trying to screw with me, or ignorant through your fear of the dictionary, and thus don't know what elaborate means. Either way we're spinning our tires because we fail, continually, to effectively communicate. And after I get done elaborating on this particular bunch of BS, I'm too frustrated and tired, because I can't type for shit, to respond to any question concerning the topic at hand. Do you finally see the problem between us. I believe it was self evident as to what my last sentence meant, but i have to break my word and elaborate yet again just to get you to see how you misunderstood, and thus caused us to waste yet more time, saying absolutely nothing, of philosophical consequence, as to "Free Will." I'm getting tired of spinning my wheels with you. I'm beginning to think that you're screwing with me because no one with your education could be this stupid.

And this is your problem with me, you ELABORATE upon everything apart from the questions you are asked. You appear to mistake me as someone who gives two tosses about your emotional and psychological states, other than where I offer you advice as to how you can change them if you wish, after all you are on a philosophy forum so thought and conversation is the order of the day. I've asked you repeatedly from the start, where you claimed that it was obvious that we have "freewill", what you meant by this and along the way you've pretty much expressed the view that things are determined by past experiences and nearly impossible to change. As such I've asked you how you reconcile this with your original thought but I get scant answer from you. Me, I'm a determinist but think the Will exists and past experience offers choice with constraints not immutable bondage. I think "freewill" an old religious problem that got exported into modern-day scientism and has been causing nonsense ever since.