Does the "Free Will" point of view affect morals and character?

[Iwannaplato]

As I stated, the earth and the cosmos play biology like its instrument, which includes its biological circadian rhythms/internal momentum.

And as I responded, your metaphor is giving the cosmos the role of agency. Now here you are acknowledging internal rhythms. Those are PART of the organism. If those things are active, then they are part of the active facet of the organism.

Indeed, all is in motion energies frequencies vibrations, all very complex, but we were discussing the nature of human behaviors in the world, and debating if there is any such thing as human action. To me the answer is strikingly obvious, the physical world is cause and life/organisms are reactionary creatures.

We are part of the physical world, and hence cause. The rhythems are not separate from us, they are part of us. If they are cause, then we are causal. The universe is moving forward with internal propulsions and reactions to other parts of the universe. But for some reason you take active out of humans, while pointing to external causes, and now internal causes. Those things are causes and we are reactive. I don't think that makes any sense.

You don't know what the universe is reacting to. You say we don't know if it is an open or closed system. But if it's open, whatever it is open to can be viewed as the cosmos. If there is anything that is active, it seems to me we are active. We are part of the active changing universe.

If nothing is active, where is all this action coming from?

And again, note, I am not arguing in favor of free will. But notice that you even include internal causes in us as external to us. I don't see any reason to do that.

We are not passively waiting around for stimuli. We are in motion with goals and desires and curiosity and ongoing active cycles.

[popeye1945]

As I stated, the earth and the cosmos play biology like its instrument, which includes its biological circadian rhythms/internal momentum.

And as I responded, your metaphor is giving the cosmos the role of agency. Now here you are acknowledging internal rhythms. Those are PART of the organism. If those things are active, then they are part of the active facet of the organism.

Yes, but they are governed by the earth, moon and the cosmos, like I said your played like an instrument.

Indeed, all is in motion energies frequencies vibrations, all very complex, but we were discussing the nature of human behaviors in the world, and debating if there is any such thing as human action. To me the answer is strikingly obvious, the physical world is cause and life/organisms are reactionary creatures. [/quote

]We are part of the physical world, and hence cause. The rhythms are not separate from us, they are part of us. If they are cause, then we are causal. The universe is moving forward with internal propulsions and reactions to other parts of the universe. But for some reason you take active out of humans, while pointing to external causes, and now internal causes. Those things are causes and we are reactive. I don't think that makes any sense.

Evolutionary adaptation links reactionary organisms to the slowly ever-changing world. It is the organisms reactionary nature that makes this process possible. The reaction of the organisms becomes to the world at large cause, in the way of contributing incrementally to the changing of ever-changing world. So, there is a reciprocal causation and reaction here, but to say that humanity in particular acts independently is just nonsense and gives an entirely delusional sense of what it is to be OF the world.

You don't know what the universe is reacting to. You say we don't know if it is an open or closed system. But if it's open, whatever it is open to can be viewed as the cosmos. If there is anything that is active, it seems to me we are active. We are part of the active changing universe.
If nothing is active, where is all this action coming from? [/quote]

It can be confusing, but in essence, being is cause to other forms of being, and it would appear that the larger manifestations such as earth guide and support the living systems of the organism, the organism by its being contributes to the changing larger system.

And again, note, I am not arguing in favor of free will. But notice that you even include internal causes in us as external to us. I don't see any reason to do that. We are not passively waiting around for stimuli. We are in motion with goals and desires and curiosity and ongoing active cycles.
[/quote]

I am saying that the world and cosmos govern the biology of the organism, as in a multitude of Carcadine rhythms ordered by the rotation of the earth, the movement of the sun, the moon and the influences of the cosmos in general. Our internal organs are internal. but are regulated by the music of the spheres/the cosmos, the earth and the cosmos are our life support systems. You are part of my physical world and thus I react to you, as you react to me, being in and of itself, is cause to other beings.

[Iwannaplato]

Yes, but they are governed by the earth, moon and the cosmos, like I said your played like an instrument.

My breathing is not regulated by the cosmos, nor my desires, a baby does not look for faces because of the Moon. I also exert however tiny gravitational and EM forces. Why are you giving some matter agency and not all of it?

Evolutionary adaptation links reactionary organisms to the slowly ever-changing world. It is the organisms reactionary nature that makes this process possible. The reaction of the organisms becomes to the world at large cause, in the way of contributing incrementally to the changing of ever-changing world. So, there is a reciprocal causation and reaction here, but to say that humanity in particular acts independently is just nonsense and gives an entirely delusional sense of what it is to be OF the world.

I never said that humanity in particular acts independently. Is that why you keep responding the same way each time??? 2) And there you finally say it: reciprocal causation. Thank you. If anything is playing anything, then everything is playing everything.

It can be confusing, but in essence, being is cause to other forms of being, and it would appear that the larger manifestations such as earth guide and support the living systems of the organism, the organism by its being contributes to the changing larger system.

And again, thank you. I wasn't confused.

I am saying that the world and cosmos govern the biology of the organism, as in a multitude of Carcadine rhythms ordered by the rotation of the earth, the movement of the sun, the moon and the influences of the cosmos in general. Our internal organs are internal. but are regulated by the music of the spheres/the cosmos, the earth and the cosmos are our life support systems. You are part of my physical world and thus I react to you, as you react to me, being in and of itself, is cause to other beings.

And here you seem to move back to your ruling metaphor, despite what you have said several times above.

I took pains in my responses to say I was not arguing for free will. I also mentioned that I was not taking the opposite position from your that all causation comes from us. Yet, somehow you still interpreted my position as opposite yours. I was disagreeing with what I thought was an unreal giving agency to the cosmos while treating the matter that we are as not having agency. The cosmos plays us. We don't play, though ironically we are the part of the cosmos that plays intruments thus providing the metaphor where we have less agency than the cosmos.

We are not just reactive. The universe is not just reactive. There is a forward set of tendencies in all of it. AND it all reacts to other thing or portions of the universe.

I am going to lope away before I hear the same idea repeated yet again. For a brief period we seemed on the same page in part of your quoted post above. I don't want that spoiled.

Running........

[popeye1945]

Yes, but they are governed by the earth, moon and the cosmos, like I said your played like an instrument.

My breathing is not regulated by the cosmos, nor my desires, a baby does not look for faces because of the Moon. I also exert however tiny gravitational and EM forces. Why are you giving some matter agency and not all of it?

Life arose from the inanimate world and it is the inanimate world that is your life support. Your needs, desires, pains and pleasure are of the world as cause, and you react in quest of your needs of the world. I believe I have stated previously, that all beings is cause to all other beings. You are part of my outer world, and I react to you, as you react to me, so, being in and of itself, is the agency of cause to other beings.


Evolutionary adaptation links reactionary organisms to the slowly ever-changing world. It is the organisms reactionary nature that makes this process possible. The reaction of the organisms becomes to the world at large cause, in the way of contributing incrementally to the changing of ever-changing world. So, there is a reciprocal causation and reaction here, but to say that humanity in particular acts independently is just nonsense and gives an entirely delusional sense of what it is to be OF the world. [/quote]

I never said that humanity in particular acts independently. Is that why you keep responding the same way each time??? 2) And there you finally say it: reciprocal causation. Thank you. If anything is playing anything, then everything is playing everything. [/quote]

You've got it I think, but as part of the larger whole we are governed by the larger whole as reactionary creatures, which makes evolutionary adaptation possible. That being is cause to other beings I think we agree-- no? We are concerned here in how organisms function in the world, and that is as I say they react, for all motivated movement spells reaction, not action. There is no such thing as an unmotivated response/reaction. We as organisms are dependent upon our environment, the environment is not dependent upon us.



It can be confusing, but in essence, being is cause to other forms of being, and it would appear that the larger manifestations such as earth guide and support the living systems of the organism, the organism by its being contributes to the changing larger system.[/quote]And again, thank you. I wasn't confused. [/quote]

Then why are we having this discussion?

I am saying that the world and cosmos govern the biology of the organism, as in a multitude of Carcadine rhythms ordered by the rotation of the earth, the movement of the sun, the moon and the influences of the cosmos in general. Our internal organs are internal. but are regulated by the music of the spheres/the cosmos, the earth and the cosmos are our life support systems. You are part of my physical world and thus I react to you, as you react to me, being in and of itself, is cause to other beings.

And here you seem to move back to your ruling metaphor, despite what you have said several times above.

I took pains in my responses to say I was not arguing for free will. I also mentioned that I was not taking the opposite position from your that all causation comes from us. Yet, somehow you still interpreted my position as opposite yours. I was disagreeing with what I thought was an unreal giving agency to the cosmos while treating the matter that we are as not having agency. The cosmos plays us. We don't play, though ironically we are the part of the cosmos that plays intruments thus providing the metaphor where we have less agency than the cosmos.

The point we have been trying to clarify is, how do organisms function in the world, are they independent active agencies or are they reactionary organisms?

We are not just reactive. The universe is not just reactive. There is a forward set of tendencies in all of it. AND it all reacts to other thing or portions of the universe. [/quote]

Well, you don't know that the universe is not just reactive for no one knows if it's a closed or open system. I really don't think we are miles apart on this, but my main point is the reactive nature of all organisms. If this were not so, evolutionary development/adaptation would not be possiable, the source of all diseases would not be of a reactionary nature, and if one ever wishes to understand the behavior of his fellows he would be lost if not asking to what is the chap reacting to.



I am going to lope away before I hear the same idea repeated yet again. For a brief period we seemed on the same page in part of your quoted post above. I don't want that spoiled. Running........
[/quote]

Fair well!

[Flannel Jesus]

But, again, what's the whole thing reacting to?

The starting conditions. If the universe is lawful (and even if those laws include randomness), then you set up the initial conditions and press play. Not "you" as in literally you, of course.

And the starting conditions are part of the universe.

I don't disagree

[Belinda]

As I stated, the earth and the cosmos play biology like its instrument, which includes its biological circadian rhythms/internal momentum.

And as I responded, your metaphor is giving the cosmos the role of agency. Now here you are acknowledging internal rhythms. Those are PART of the organism. If those things are active, then they are part of the active facet of the organism.

Indeed, all is in motion energies frequencies vibrations, all very complex, but we were discussing the nature of human behaviors in the world, and debating if there is any such thing as human action. To me the answer is strikingly obvious, the physical world is cause and life/organisms are reactionary creatures.

We are part of the physical world, and hence cause. The rhythems are not separate from us, they are part of us. If they are cause, then we are causal. The universe is moving forward with internal propulsions and reactions to other parts of the universe. But for some reason you take active out of humans, while pointing to external causes, and now internal causes. Those things are causes and we are reactive. I don't think that makes any sense.

You don't know what the universe is reacting to. You say we don't know if it is an open or closed system. But if it's open, whatever it is open to can be viewed as the cosmos. If there is anything that is active, it seems to me we are active. We are part of the active changing universe.

If nothing is active, where is all this action coming from?

And again, note, I am not arguing in favor of free will. But notice that you even include internal causes in us as external to us. I don't see any reason to do that.

We are not passively waiting around for stimuli. We are in motion with goals and desires and curiosity and ongoing active cycles.

Change itself is integral to existence in this world of time and relativity. This world of time and relativity is all we can know, as we ourselves are temporal and relative beings.

The baby does not breathe because he chooses to do so but because he must; he is immersed in change.
Biology presumes change ; that's to say biology presumes the dynamic of determinism as process in time.
An adult human can choose whether or not to eat or drink (voluntary activities) because the adult human can choose to stop his life.

[Sculptor]

The physical world is cause on many levels to reactive organisms, only a few of which we are conscious of. Circumstances are of the nature of understanding; in that they are experienced as relational complexes in which you are to react too. Always remember that there is no meaning but the meaning possessed by a conscious subject, the world itself, is utterly meaningless, all aspects of the outside world only gain meaning in that they relate to biological consciousness. We react to the whole which is unknown to us, for the earth is an open system and the cosmos itself may be an open system, this is not known to us. So, to define a circumstance one must realize it to be a relational complex, relative to our biological consciousness.

Just no.
There is reality beyond consciousness whether you like it or not.
THe logical conclusion of your thinking is to suggest that reality creates itself as we observe and become conscious of it. This is beyond absurd,
This is why elsewhere I asked the question: If a tree falls in a wood and a human does not see it do you think the forest creates give a damn.
And did the that supernova only happen when we saw it, or did it happen millions of years before humans ever existed?

What can I tell you, its quantum absurd/weird. You've done terrible things to that delightful story of the tree falling in the forest! Tell me, does that tree that falls in the forest make a sound in the absence of all biological consciousness, not an ear to be found?

If you are a solipsist then you want to believe it is silent. But when objects fall they create sound waves.
Your question about the tree is self defeating since you have already accepted that the tree has fallen.
Quantum weirdness is not an answer. No one saw the asteroid that hit the earth 65mbp, yet all those fossils are there. You know and I know that they do not magically appear as they are dug up. So stop being silly and work out a more viable metaphysic to account for what you really know to be true.

If you believe there is a physical reality beyond what subjective consciousness provides, then enlighten me as to how you know this.

It's called evidence.
Its exacly the same way I know anything exists, even you.

I never stated that the universe is not abundant with energy, in fact science now tells us that is all there is. That supernova you are worried about is energy and you are now seeing the light from its occurrence. Just as there is no sound or color in the real world in the absence of a conscious subject, so too, there are no objects in the real world in the absence of a conscious subject. Just as Spinoza pointed out to us how we come to know the world of objects by the alterations they make to our biological senses, the physical world is the said reactions of the energies that alter those biological senses and apparent reality is a biological readout, a melody known only to the biological subject. Experience creates its own reality of things relative to its biological well-being constituted of the energies that surround us. All things are energies, frequencies and vibrations, it's absurd, weird, dreamlike, and wonderous.

blah.

[popeye1945]

As I stated, the earth and the cosmos play biology like its instrument, which includes its biological circadian rhythms/internal momentum.

And as I responded, your metaphor is giving the cosmos the role of agency. Now here you are acknowledging internal rhythms. Those are PART of the organism. If those things are active, then they are part of the active facet of the organism.

Does it not register with you, that these internal rhythms are governed by the greater reality of the earth and the cosmos? Why is this not significant to you? Your twenty-four-hour circadian rhythms, which are many, are geared to the daily cycle of the turning of the earth.



Indeed, all is in motion energies frequencies vibrations, all very complex, but we were discussing the nature of human behaviors in the world, and debating if there is any such thing as human action. To me the answer is strikingly obvious, the physical world is cause and life/organisms are reactionary creatures.

We are part of the physical world, and hence cause. The rhythms are not separate from us, they are part of us. If they are cause, then we are causal. The universe is moving forward with internal propulsions and reactions to other parts of the universe. But for some reason you take active out of humans, while pointing to external causes, and now internal causes. Those things are causes and we are reactive. I don't think that makes any sense. [/quote]

Yes well, I don't see where the misunderstanding is occurring. I am not saying we are separate from the Earth; I am saying we are a functioning part of the earth, and the way we participate as part of the Earth is through reactions. Our reactions then become to the physical world incremental causes of change in the ever-changing world, and a reciprocal cause reaction process is apparent.

You don't know what the universe is reacting to. You say we don't know if it is an open or closed system. But if it's open, whatever it is open to can be viewed as the cosmos. If there is anything that is active, it seems to me we are active. We are part of the active changing universe. [ quote]

We are part of the actively changing earth in a very particular way, our reactions become incremental causes contributing to the changing world.

If nothing is active, where is all this action coming from? [/quote]

It is all energy, where are you getting this idea that I am saying nothing is active, a reaction is active so is a cause to that it causes a reaction in.

And again, note, I am not arguing in favor of free will. But notice that you even include internal causes in us as external to us. I don't see any reason to do that. [/quote]

Are you telling me that you do not agree that our bodily rhythms of governed by the earth and the cosmos? Have you never heard of circadian twenty-four-hour rhythms, in tune with the rotation of the earth?

We are not passively waiting around for stimuli. We are in motion with goals and desires and curiosity and ongoing active cycles.
Change itself is integral to existence in this world of time and relativity. This world of time and relativity is all we can know, as we ourselves are temporal and relative beings. [/quote]

Breathing is a reaction to the absence of oxygen in the lungs, involuntary reaction, life itself you might say is involuntary---lol!! Motion in the organism or the internal unconscious functioning are governed by pre-programming to function as internal reactions. I suspect at least some are governed by our physical reality, the Earth. Your desires, goals, and curiosity are reactions to the physical world as part of it, where do you think you are getting the motivations for these desires, goals, or curiosities if not the physical world as cause your quests are reactions.

The baby does not breathe because he chooses to do so but because he must; he is immersed in change.
Biology presumes change ; that's to say biology presumes the dynamic of determinism as process in time.
An adult human can choose whether or not to eat or drink (voluntary activities) because the adult human can choose to stop his life.
[/quote]

I didn't say there were no choices in life, in fact the one choice you do not have is, you cannot choose to not react, for even a considered non-response to a given situation is a reaction to your environment. As I have stated before, there is no such thing as human action, there is only human reaction. If a person chooses to end his/her life, don't you think that is a reaction to something?

[popeye1945]

Just no.
There is reality beyond consciousness whether you like it or not.
THe logical conclusion of your thinking is to suggest that reality creates itself as we observe and become conscious of it. This is beyond absurd,
This is why elsewhere I asked the question: If a tree falls in a wood and a human does not see it do you think the forest creates give a damn.
And did the that supernova only happen when we saw it, or did it happen millions of years before humans ever existed?

You do agree that the only way we know the world is on a subjective level---yes? If so, how on earth can you be so sure that there is a physical reality out there that is not a subjective simulation? Vibrations are not sound until they affect an eardrum, sound is the irritation of the eardrum by the vibrations. Vibrations which when they find an eye are color, do not exist otherwise in the real world. Why on earth would you assume the vibrations that come in contact with a biological subject as objects are any more real than sound or color?

What can I tell you, its quantum absurd/weird. You've done terrible things to that delightful story of the tree falling in the forest! Tell me, does that tree that falls in the forest make a sound in the absence of all biological consciousness, not an ear to be found?

If you are a solipsist then you want to believe it is silent. But when objects fall they create sound waves.
Your question about the tree is self-defeating since you have already accepted that the tree has fallen.
Quantum weirdness is not an answer. No one saw the asteroid that hit the earth 65mbp, yet all those fossils are there. You know and I know that they do not magically appear as they are dug up. So, stop being silly and work out a more viable metaphysic to account for what you really know to be true.

Again, vibrational waves without an ear or an eye do not constitute sound or color, they need biology. I have no idea what your example of the asteroid is supposed to prove, that there were life forms before the asteroid, if we were alive in those times, we would have seen creatures why would we not then now see the remains of creatures? If objects were subjective simulations, we, I would suspect, would recognize their lifeless bodies.

If you believe there is a physical reality beyond what subjective consciousness provides, then enlighten me as to how you know this.

It's called evidence.
It's exactly the same way I know anything exists, even you.

So, for you, everything is just as it appears---yes? I think that is called naïve realism.

I never stated that the universe is not abundant with energy, in fact science now tells us that is all there is. That supernova you are worried about is energy and you are now seeing the light from its occurrence. Just as there is no sound or color in the real world in the absence of a conscious subject, so too, there are no objects in the real world in the absence of a conscious subject. Just as Spinoza pointed out to us how we come to know the world of objects by the alterations they make to our biological senses, the physical world is the said reactions of the energies that alter those biological senses and apparent reality is a biological readout, a melody known only to the biological subject. Experience creates its own reality of things relative to its biological well-being constituted of the energies that surround us. All things are energies, frequencies and vibrations, it's absurd, weird, dreamlike, and wonderous.

blah.

A scholarly assessment---lol!!

[Sculptor]

You do agree that the only way we know the world is on a subjective level---yes? If so, how on earth can you be so sure that there is a physical reality out there that is not a subjective simulation? Vibrations are not sound until they affect an eardrum, sound is the irritation of the eardrum by the vibrations. Vibrations which when they find an eye are color, do not exist otherwise in the real world. Why on earth would you assume the vibrations that come in contact with a biological subject as objects are any more real than sound or color?

What can I tell you, its quantum absurd/weird. You've done terrible things to that delightful story of the tree falling in the forest! Tell me, does that tree that falls in the forest make a sound in the absence of all biological consciousness, not an ear to be found?

If you are a solipsist then you want to believe it is silent. But when objects fall they create sound waves.
Your question about the tree is self-defeating since you have already accepted that the tree has fallen.
Quantum weirdness is not an answer. No one saw the asteroid that hit the earth 65mbp, yet all those fossils are there. You know and I know that they do not magically appear as they are dug up. So, stop being silly and work out a more viable metaphysic to account for what you really know to be true.

Again, vibrational waves without an ear or an eye do not constitute sound or color, they need biology. I have no idea what your example of the asteroid is supposed to prove, that there were life forms before the asteroid, if we were alive in those times, we would have seen creatures why would we not then now see the remains of creatures? If objects were subjective simulations, we, I would suspect, would recognize their lifeless bodies.

If you believe there is a physical reality beyond what subjective consciousness provides, then enlighten me as to how you know this.

It's called evidence.
It's exactly the same way I know anything exists, even you.

So, for you, everything is just as it appears---yes? I think that is called naïve realism.

I never stated that the universe is not abundant with energy, in fact science now tells us that is all there is. That supernova you are worried about is energy and you are now seeing the light from its occurrence. Just as there is no sound or color in the real world in the absence of a conscious subject, so too, there are no objects in the real world in the absence of a conscious subject. Just as Spinoza pointed out to us how we come to know the world of objects by the alterations they make to our biological senses, the physical world is the said reactions of the energies that alter those biological senses and apparent reality is a biological readout, a melody known only to the biological subject. Experience creates its own reality of things relative to its biological well-being constituted of the energies that surround us. All things are energies, frequencies and vibrations, it's absurd, weird, dreamlike, and wonderous.

blah.

A scholarly assessment---lol!!

When reading a fantasy novel , an academic assessment of unrequired.
Enjoy your vibrations.

[popeye1945]

If you are a solipsist then you want to believe it is silent. But when objects fall they create sound waves.
Your question about the tree is self-defeating since you have already accepted that the tree has fallen.
Quantum weirdness is not an answer. No one saw the asteroid that hit the earth 65mbp, yet all those fossils are there. You know and I know that they do not magically appear as they are dug up. So, stop being silly and work out a more viable metaphysic to account for what you really know to be true.

It's called evidence.
It's exactly the same way I know anything exists, even you.


blah.

A scholarly assessment---lol!!

When reading a fantasy novel , an academic assessment of unrequired.
Enjoy your vibrations.

Experts like yourself have nothing to learn. It's all vibrations.

[Iwannaplato]

Change itself is integral to existence in this world of time and relativity. This world of time and relativity is all we can know, as we ourselves are temporal and relative beings.

The baby does not breathe because he chooses to do so but because he must; he is immersed in change.
Biology presumes change ; that's to say biology presumes the dynamic of determinism as process in time.
An adult human can choose whether or not to eat or drink (voluntary activities) because the adult human can choose to stop his life.

I wasn't looking at choice, but more the dichotomy active/reactive. I dont' think it makes sense to look at us as merely reactive. I think it's a clever use of the term. But I think we, along with everything else in the universe, are both active and reactive. Affecting and affected. We have our motions and changes and other things have their motions and changes. Theirs affect us, ours affect theirs. The whole thing is flowing forward in time, changing.

[popeye1945]

Change itself is integral to existence in this world of time and relativity. This world of time and relativity is all we can know, as we ourselves are temporal and relative beings.

The baby does not breathe because he chooses to do so but because he must; he is immersed in change.
Biology presumes change; that's to say biology presumes the dynamic of determinism as a process in time.
An adult human can choose whether or not to eat or drink (voluntary activities) because the adult human can choose to stop his life.

I wasn't looking at choice, but more the dichotomy active/reactive. I don't think it makes sense to look at us as merely reactive. I think it's a clever use of the term. But I think we, along with everything else in the universe, are both active and reactive. Affecting and affected. We have our motions and changes and other things have their motions and changes. Theirs affect us, ours affect theirs. The whole thing is flowing forward in time, changing.

I would like to get this straight, so as to move forward or abandon the concept. So, I think we all need to define the terms we are using so as to know how to meet on the same page. The reason I say there is no such thing as human action is, organisms respond to their environment as cause, and there is no such thing as an unmotivated response which to me means it's a reaction, and to me reaction is active, it just not action, action meaning spontaneous unmotivated movement to affect change in the environment. If you find yourselves in disagreement, please give me an example of human action. I would like to resolve this roadblock one way or another.

[Sculptor]

A scholarly assessment---lol!!

When reading a fantasy novel , an academic assessment of unrequired.
Enjoy your vibrations.

Experts like yourself have nothing to learn. It's all vibrations.

Well your the expert at vibrators.

If no one can hear your vibrator do you still get an orgasm?

[popeye1945]

When reading a fantasy novel , an academic assessment of unrequired.
Enjoy your vibrations.

Experts like yourself have nothing to learn. It's all vibrations.

Well your the expert at vibrators.

If no one can hear your vibrator do you still get an orgasm?

That's the spirit!!