Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Alexis Jacobi]

the determinations of which you are aware have already been decided within the subconscious.

What is the subconscious?

[Impenitent]

Nemo is the subconscious

-Imp

[henry quirk]

the determinations of which you are aware have already been decided within the subconscious.

What is the subconscious?

Pretty sure all he's talkin' about are autonomic processes; electro-chemical happenings; the snap of synapses.

Context is everything.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You're not a free will type.

I don't know what a a free will type is.. What I do know is that according to the neurosciences, free will is not possible because, as mentioned many times, the determinations of which you are aware have already been decided within the subconscious.

Like Wee Oliver begging for more gruel, I repeat the question:

“What is the subconscious?”

The reason being that that “someone” who is aware that there is a subconsciousness, is seeing from out of a perspective in consciousness.

To say that “subconsciousness” decides a particular choice is Freudian theory, no? And science is said to back up that theory when it states that a choice is made on another plane as if unchosen, right?

So, what is that plane?

And if there is a conscious self aware of that plane (where the decision is made) does that not imply right there that that conscious self might, would, could, can intervene and override so to speak by the unconscious impulse?

Note: I have been receiving what I can only describe as “information packets” sent from the akashic sphere where now, I understand, BigMike has been transferred.

[Dubious]

What I do know is that according to the neurosciences, free will is not possible.

Not true.

Scientifically true and logically true. Simply saying "not true" in no way negates the truth of it. For something to be not true requires reasons of its own. You provided none!

as mentioned many times, the determinations of which you are aware have already been decided within the subconscious.

Yeah, Mike foisted that up several times, an interpretation Libet himself sez is false.

No, Libet never said that! What he "suggested" was that free will could lie in its conscious veto power over what the brain initiates unconsciously. Through his own research, he never and could never negate the fact that the brain initiates events unconsciously.

Of course, this supposition doesn't make much sense either since the neural events which initiate an action follows the same procedure as those that prevent it. We only have ONE brain which follows the same intrinsic rules whether accepting or negating.

[Alexis Jacobi]

No, Libet never said that! What he "suggested" was that free will could lie in its conscious veto power over what the brain initiates unconsciously. Through his own research, he never and could never negate the fact that the brain initiates events unconsciously.

Of course, this supposition doesn't make much sense either since the neural events which initiate an action follows the same procedure as those that prevent it. We only have ONE brain which follows the same intrinsic rules whether accepting or negating.

I take it that this post of yours was composed by your unconscious self — and what a fine job of analysis it has done!

I wonder if I am right to say: your position is quite similar to that of BigMike insofar as there is obviously an aware, active, conscious being that is expressing itself and which purveys its understanding through the self-aware action … which is based in asserting that it does not have real agency and what declares rises out of “unconsciousness”.

Something strange is going on here.

I begin to believe that the “no freewill” position, even that presented by scientists, is best understood as an enormous mind-fuck.

Scientifically true and logically true.

Yet false. What a conundrum.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Is it possible, just possible, that for all the certainty of belief and conviction with which many people present or cloak their ideas and views, that the actual fact, the real, bottom line truth, is that they actually have no fucking idea what their own consciousness is and simply spout rhetorical and doctrinal positions that do not have real grounding?

It is an interesting and a bold position to take, don’t you think?

It is curious how our rhetorical constructs, built through language usage, and given energy through our “convictions” (i.e. sentiments), appear to us as real & truthful. We deceive ourselves in the first instance and then we proceed to pull the wool over the eyes of other people. An odd circularity here.

Our language then is “mantric”.

[Dubious]

No, Libet never said that! What he "suggested" was that free will could lie in its conscious veto power over what the brain initiates unconsciously. Through his own research, he never and could never negate the fact that the brain initiates events unconsciously.

Of course, this supposition doesn't make much sense either since the neural events which initiate an action follows the same procedure as those that prevent it. We only have ONE brain which follows the same intrinsic rules whether accepting or negating.

I take it that this post of yours was composed by your unconscious self — and what a fine job of analysis it has done!

I wonder if I am right to say: your position is quite similar to that of BigMike insofar as there is obviously an aware, active, conscious being that is expressing itself and which purveys its understanding through the self-aware action … which is based in asserting that it does not have real agency and what declares rises out of “unconsciousness”.

Something strange is going on here.

I begin to believe that the “no freewill” position, even that presented by scientists, is best understood as an enormous mind-fuck.

Scientifically true and logically true.

Yet false. What a conundrum.

For sure! What's amazing is the abundance of dumbfucks on this site of which you are one of the main ringleaders. You often mentioned in your earlier posts that you learned a lot from IC and clearly eager to prove exactly that.

But facts are facts. I didn't make it up and can only go by what the science says. So what would be more rational? Accepting your metaphysical hogwash or going by what the science says!

Personally, I could not care less whether or not we have free will or if there actually is such a thing. Nothing changes, life remains the same under whatever scenario you wish to apply.

Now go and screw yourself. As far as I'm concerned, you're one of the main mountebanks, charlatans and dissemblers on this site and have no wish to communicate with you on any subject or at any level. I don't need to put you on ignore. Based on the merit of your posts, that's easy enough to do without any such requirement.

[Alexis Jacobi]

“Personally, I could not care less whether or not we have free will or if there actually is such a thing. Nothing changes, life remains the same under whatever scenario you wish to apply.”

Touchy! But “you do you”.

There really is “such a thing” and the denial of it, in balanced science-lingo, in BigMike-style ideological hackery, or in your hopped-up prose, is a very real issue, and one of consequence. A great deal changes.

Now, leave me! I’m going to have a good, long cry!

moun·te·bank (moun′tə-băngk′)

[Italian montambanco, from the phrase monta im banco, one gets up onto the bench : monta, one gets up, third person sing. present tense of montare, to get up (from Vulgar Latin *montāre; see mount1) + in, on, onto (from Latin; see in-2) + banco, bench (variant of banca, from Old Italian, bench, table, from Old High German bank).]

[Alexis Jacobi]

You often mentioned in your earlier posts that you learned a lot from IC

Yes! Definitely. More than any other poster here. Even more recently.

In some areas I have definite disagreement, but he is far more thorough and far more knowledgeable than most in numerous important areas.

Credit where credit is due, right?

[seeds]

...he is far more thorough and far more knowledgeable than most in numerous important areas.

Credit where credit is due, right?

Absolutely!

However, what does it mean that the same can be said about ChatGPT?
_______

[Dubious]

Ah, the workings of the American psyche! An epic tale of the cataclysmically stupid!

[henry quirk]

You provided none!

You obviously haven't read this thread.

I could not care less whether or not we have free will or if there actually is such a thing.

I don't believe you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But facts are facts. I didn't make it up and can only go by what the science says. So what would be more rational? Accepting your metaphysical hogwash or going by what the science says!

No Dubious, facts are not simply facts. The term “fact” as used today, and as you and dearly departed BigMike use it, should more realistically be described in terms of its function as obscuration. Your assembly of “facts” actually function (in your mind) as a counter to knowledge and understanding which are not ever mere facts, as if a vast quantity of those facts builds up to be anything intellectually substantial.

Also, “you” did in certain ways make it up. And in this interesting thread that quality of invention — weaving together sets of “facts” to create an ideological position, a declared framework, with political and social recommendations, and really a praxis — all this was clearly demonstrated by His Bigness.

Were you paying attention? It seems not. And this makes me very angry.

I have led many a horse to water and despite the saying on the matter I can and I will force you to drink! So stop this useless whinnying! Force feeding is at times necessary and I am not beneath it if it helps to advance my (righteous) position.

Your entire problem (and that of BigMike) is in your category errors.

It is clearly and obviously more rational to recognize and understand that intellect perceives metaphysical categories and, when they are assimilated and assent given to their principles, that man’s higher life comes to exist.

This is a “fact” — to use your brutish term — but truthfully it is a broad realization.

Dubious, I do not enjoy merely beating up on you. But I will do it if needed and if your mindless masochism demands it. But what I am after is your eventual growth! There’s a beautiful butterfly within that desiccated mental structure you call “you”. It can be liberated with the right stimulus. You must try to cooperate!

“Fake it till you make it” is a good concept for you to work under right now.

[Dubious]

You provided none!

You obviously haven't read this thread.

I could not care less whether or not we have free will or if there actually is such a thing.

I don't believe you.

As if I give a shit whether some dumbfucked American believes me or not!