Page 105 of 422
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2022 10:13 pm
by Iwannaplato
BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 1:27 pm
What is it that you guys do not understand? Every force field is caused by physical matter and can only interact with it. A non-physical "mind" is incapable of generating force fields. We do not live in a fantasy world where things appear simply because we wish for them.
I don't know if I am one of the guys you mean, but what is it you don't understand about what I wrote?
I asked you what why you were bringing up telekinesis. I explained that even in a physicalist monism this cannot be ruled out. That scenario does not include a non-physical mind. And then you go ad hom for no reason. I don't think you understood my post or didn't care. Repeating a position does little.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2022 10:57 pm
by BigMike
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 10:13 pm
BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 1:27 pm
What is it that you guys do not understand? Every force field is caused by physical matter and can only interact with it. A non-physical "mind" is incapable of generating force fields. We do not live in a fantasy world where things appear simply because we wish for them.
I don't know if I am one of the guys you mean, but what is it you don't understand about what I wrote?
I asked you what why you were bringing up telekinesis. I explained that even in a physicalist monism this cannot be ruled out. That scenario does not include a non-physical mind. And then you go ad hom for no reason. I don't think you understood my post or didn't care. Repeating a position does little.
To be clear, I brought up psychokinesis, not telekinesis. I found the following comment by you ridiculous. It sounds like what a shaman says when they don't know what they're talking about. They are crazy about words like "energy," "field," "force," and "power" but they don't know what they mean.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 11:40 amI am claiming that bodies can create fields. So, perhaps some people's bodies can move things at a distance via a field we haven't discovered yet. IOW there is no way to rule out telekinises based on physicalist substance monism.
What kind of field are you talking about that might be the basis for telekinesis? Every force field we know of comes from physical particles and can only affect other physical particles of the "same kind". For example, electrically charged particles create the electromagnetic field, which only affects other electrically charged particles. Particles with no charge are not affected by the electromagnetic field in any way. In the same way, gravity is set up by things that have mass and can only affect other things that have mass. Gravity has zero effect on electricity per se.
Your made-up telekinesis field could only affect other particles that have the same physical properties as the particles that set it up (your "free will particles"). But having physical properties means that it is controlled by physical laws and is therefore not free.
You can't really believe in telekinesis since you don't have any proof of it. You just wish it were true. But the world doesn't work that way.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2022 12:59 am
by promethean75
"Just one little problem with that...science."
Yeah yeah I read it. Scientific shmientific.
Do sumthin for me. Google the search terms 'the big bang is wrong' and tell me how many pages of results you get. G'head.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2022 3:51 am
by bobmax
BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:15 pm
bobmax wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:12 pm
BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:03 pm
I don't think I understand what you mean. Are you having trouble grasping the concept of infinity?
The concept of infinity is very clear to me.
In fact it is the negation of the finite.
Infinite is that which has no end.
But Cantor elaborates the infinite...
This is what he does.
Don't you see any problem with that?
Nope
I would have bet on it.
You have lost awareness of the limit.
And this is because you have a god.
And this god is logical-rational thinking.
For you this god is the source of Truth!
You are under the influence of nihilism.
Inasmuch as the god of rational thought gives precisely this: nihilism.
Hallucination of rational thinking.
Infinity does not exist!
Infinity is, and is only, an idea.
A necessary idea, because it is the negation of the finite. But it's just an idea! It's just a denial.
And instead you delude yourself that you are treating it as a real thing...
Enjoy your stay in Cantor's paradise.
But it won't last, and waking up won't be pleasant.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2022 4:05 am
by bobmax
promethean75 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 8:59 pm
We're inna helluva situation here, philosophers.
Discuss.
You are right.
This happens due to the awareness of the limit.
In any direction we move trying to understand, we always meet the limit of the understandable.
We can realize that we have found a limit only if we remain open, without claiming to possess any truth.
The limit, when recognized as such, rejects us to ourselves.
It questions us.
The limit is an opportunity to start returning to ourselves.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2022 4:14 am
by bobmax
BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 10:57 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 10:13 pm
BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 1:27 pm
What is it that you guys do not understand? Every force field is caused by physical matter and can only interact with it. A non-physical "mind" is incapable of generating force fields. We do not live in a fantasy world where things appear simply because we wish for them.
I don't know if I am one of the guys you mean, but what is it you don't understand about what I wrote?
I asked you what why you were bringing up telekinesis. I explained that even in a physicalist monism this cannot be ruled out. That scenario does not include a non-physical mind. And then you go ad hom for no reason. I don't think you understood my post or didn't care. Repeating a position does little.
To be clear, I brought up psychokinesis, not telekinesis. I found the following comment by you ridiculous. It sounds like what a shaman says when they don't know what they're talking about. They are crazy about words like "energy," "field," "force," and "power" but they don't know what they mean.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 11:40 amI am claiming that bodies can create fields. So, perhaps some people's bodies can move things at a distance via a field we haven't discovered yet. IOW there is no way to rule out telekinises based on physicalist substance monism.
What kind of field are you talking about that might be the basis for telekinesis? Every force field we know of comes from physical particles and can only affect other physical particles of the "same kind". For example, electrically charged particles create the electromagnetic field, which only affects other electrically charged particles. Particles with no charge are not affected by the electromagnetic field in any way. In the same way, gravity is set up by things that have mass and can only affect other things that have mass. Gravity has zero effect on electricity per se.
Your made-up telekinesis field could only affect other particles that have the same physical properties as the particles that set it up (your "free will particles"). But having physical properties means that it is controlled by physical laws and is therefore not free.
You can't really believe in telekinesis since you don't have any proof of it. You just wish it were true. But the world doesn't work that way.
This is scientific superstition.
That is, the belief that current knowledge is Truth.
As if new forces can never be found in the future...
Not having in mind that every formula, every particle, every system, is only a provisional interpretation... it is pure superstition.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2022 8:01 am
by BigMike
promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 12:59 am
"Just one little problem with that...science."
Yeah yeah I read it. Scientific shmientific.
Do sumthin for me. Google the search terms 'the big bang is wrong' and tell me how many pages of results you get. G'head.
A $1,000,000 Nobel Prize in Physics is awaiting you. All you have to do is justify your claim.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2022 8:07 am
by BigMike
bobmax wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 4:14 am
BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 10:57 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 10:13 pm
I don't know if I am one of the guys you mean, but what is it you don't understand about what I wrote?
I asked you what why you were bringing up telekinesis. I explained that even in a physicalist monism this cannot be ruled out. That scenario does not include a non-physical mind. And then you go ad hom for no reason. I don't think you understood my post or didn't care. Repeating a position does little.
To be clear, I brought up psychokinesis, not telekinesis. I found the following comment by you ridiculous. It sounds like what a shaman says when they don't know what they're talking about. They are crazy about words like "energy," "field," "force," and "power" but they don't know what they mean.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 11:40 amI am claiming that bodies can create fields. So, perhaps some people's bodies can move things at a distance via a field we haven't discovered yet. IOW there is no way to rule out telekinises based on physicalist substance monism.
What kind of field are you talking about that might be the basis for telekinesis? Every force field we know of comes from physical particles and can only affect other physical particles of the "same kind". For example, electrically charged particles create the electromagnetic field, which only affects other electrically charged particles. Particles with no charge are not affected by the electromagnetic field in any way. In the same way, gravity is set up by things that have mass and can only affect other things that have mass. Gravity has zero effect on electricity per se.
Your made-up telekinesis field could only affect other particles that have the same physical properties as the particles that set it up (your "free will particles"). But having physical properties means that it is controlled by physical laws and is therefore not free.
You can't really believe in telekinesis since you don't have any proof of it. You just wish it were true. But the world doesn't work that way.
This is scientific superstition.
That is, the belief that current knowledge is Truth.
As if new forces can never be found in the future...
Not having in mind that every formula, every particle, every system, is only a provisional interpretation... it is pure superstition.
Why not join forces with
promethean75? You two could win the Nobel Prize together. A half-million dollars isn't bad either. All you have to do is put your two little heads together and prove your point.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2022 8:27 am
by bobmax
BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 8:07 am
Why not join forces with
promethean75? You two could win the Nobel Prize together. A half-million dollars isn't bad either. All you have to do is put your two little heads together and prove your point.
You talk about things without even having perceived their depth.
Your arrogant self-confidence proves it.
A scientist is such only insofar as he has faith in the Truth.
And precisely for this reason he renounces the claim to know the Truth.
That's why you are not a scientist.
But you pretend to be...
It is not worth continuing to read you.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2022 8:35 am
by BigMike
bobmax wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 4:14 am
As if new forces can never be found in the future...
Of course, no one can rule out the possibility that new forces will be discovered in the future. The problem is, as Newton pointed out, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In fact, physicists no longer like to use the word "force" preferring to call it what it is: an interaction. This is what makes the conservation laws of physics work so perfectly: energy, momentum, and the other conserved properties are exchanged through interaction. The object "exerting the force" transfers some of its moment and energy to another object; no energy or momentum is created or destroyed, only transferred.
Your "free will" must transfer momentum to an atom in your brain in order for it to move this way instead of that. That means your "free will" must have some momentum in the first place, which means it must be physical. As a result, it cannot be free. Free will is merely a mirage.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2022 8:37 am
by BigMike
bobmax wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 8:27 am
BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 8:07 am
Why not join forces with
promethean75? You two could win the Nobel Prize together. A half-million dollars isn't bad either. All you have to do is put your two little heads together and prove your point.
You talk about things without even having perceived their depth.
Your arrogant self-confidence proves it.
A scientist is such only insofar as he has faith in the Truth.
And precisely for this reason he renounces the claim to know the Truth.
That's why you are not a scientist.
But you pretend to be...
It is not worth continuing to read you.
You are a science denier. Remember how you used to think the sun was a god because it could move itself? Or when you thought the earth was flat because it appeared to be so?
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2022 8:52 am
by BigMike
I am the only one who provides supporting evidence for the claims I make. Others, like Bobmax, resort to simply insulting their opponents in order to defend their own empty and unfounded, and dare I say, stupid claims.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:40 am
by Belinda
BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 8:52 am
I am the only one who provides supporting evidence for the claims I make. Others, like Bobmax, resort to simply insulting their opponents in order to defend their own empty and unfounded, and dare I say, stupid claims.
The core of the dispute is whether or not scientists, or BigMike as scientist, believes nature is there to be discovered, or alternatively believe nature is possible but it's more likely to be a construct.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2022 11:10 am
by BigMike
Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:40 am
BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 8:52 am
I am the only one who provides supporting evidence for the claims I make. Others, like Bobmax, resort to simply insulting their opponents in order to defend their own empty and unfounded, and dare I say, stupid claims.
The core of the dispute is whether or not scientists, or BigMike as scientist, believes nature is there to be discovered, or alternatively believe nature is possible but it's more likely to be a construct.
Are you saying that the dispute is between those who believe nature, the physical universe, is real and those who believe it is a fantasy, a mental construct?
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2022 11:18 am
by Belinda
BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 11:10 am
Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:40 am
BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 8:52 am
I am the only one who provides supporting evidence for the claims I make. Others, like Bobmax, resort to simply insulting their opponents in order to defend their own empty and unfounded, and dare I say, stupid claims.
The core of the dispute is whether or not scientists, or BigMike as scientist, believes nature is there to be discovered, or alternatively believe nature is possible but it's more likely to be a construct.
Are you saying that the dispute is between those who believe nature, the physical universe, is real and those who believe it is a fantasy, a mental construct?
If you delete ' a fantasy' then Yes that is what I am saying.