Philosophy Now Forum

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 9:37 am

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 9:31 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 9:21 am There is no "force of (free) will".

I couldn't care less about your mere assertion, fool.

It isn't my mere assertion, it is scientific fact.

Ah. The fool defends a mere assertion with a mere assertion, and contents himself with his foolishness.

Pray tell, fool, how science has disproven the force of (free) will. (Again: but, really, don't, because you can't and it wastes my time to respond to your foolishness).

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 9:21 am Your obvious dissatisfaction indicates that you have exhausted all valid arguments. Why don't you just acknowledge defeat?

And there it is. The hidden arrogance which I've been mirroring, knowing it was there all along. "Acknowledge defeat"? You're delusional, fool. In no possible world have you "won". You wrote:

"If your concept of free will is incapable of influencing your body or your surroundings in any way, it has no purpose"

I agreed, but pointed out that on my conception, free will is capable of influencing my body and surroundings. You then declared victory, because you are an utter fool who can't even follow an argument.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 9:48 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 9:37 am

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 9:31 am
I couldn't care less about your mere assertion, fool.

It isn't my mere assertion, it is scientific fact.

Ah. The fool defends a mere assertion with a mere assertion, and contents himself with his foolishness.

Pray tell, fool, how science has disproven the force of (free) will. (Again: but, really, don't, because you can't and it wastes my time to respond to your foolishness).

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 9:21 am Your obvious dissatisfaction indicates that you have exhausted all valid arguments. Why don't you just acknowledge defeat?

And there it is. The hidden arrogance which I've been mirroring, knowing it was there all along. "Acknowledge defeat"? You're delusional, fool. In no possible world have you "won". You wrote:

"If your concept of free will is incapable of influencing your body or your surroundings in any way, it has no purpose"

I agreed, but pointed out that on my conception, free will is capable of influencing my body and surroundings. You then declared victory, because you are an utter fool who can't even follow an argument.

You should look up the Dunning-Kruger effect.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 9:51 am You should look up the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Hahaha. Yeah, because, when all else fails, change the subject to one of the favourite talking points of your type. You fool. In other words, you don't have a rational argument, merely a diversionary tactic. The delicious irony is that you are one of the more delightful subjects of that effect. The other delicious irony is that for some reason you don't think I'm already aware of it.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 9:06 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 12:52 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Aug 27, 2022 11:02 am

Consciousness may not exist. Then again, it may. I'm fine with that. I have not yet discovered a definition of consciousness that piques my curiosity sufficiently to spend too much time on it.

I think therefore I am conscious.

You mean "I think therefore I think I am conscious"?

BigMike: "thinks therefore he thinks he is <what exactly> when he thinks? (not conscious of his thoughts?)

Understand that through time, intelligent beings, us humans ascribe definitions to words for us to have a common comprehension of such things, including consciousness:.. Defined as:- the state of understanding and realizing something:

So, what exactly do you have to offer other than the term above regarding consciousness when you do indeed "THINK"?

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 9:06 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 12:52 am The ability to think requires sensory input, qualia.
Imagine a brain from birth that had NO sensory input. Would you consider that brain to me a lump of matter with an inability to think?

A brain with no sensory input would not "think".

Agreed. So consciousness at times does not exist within a brain.. (UNLESS: It has the defined: state of understanding and realizing something:

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 9:06 am You lost me with the consciousness part. What are you trying to say?

That the conscious mind does exist, that it makes decisions based upon its sensory qualia inputs.

Your earlier statement:- "the brain doesn't make any conscious decisions." is ONLY correct when you acknowledge the existence of consciousness, acting upon the brain matter. ( and yes, perhaps requiring said brain matter)

I have to admit, that until God (that runs at the most finite scale beyond sub-atomic matter is involved) mind requires brain.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 9:57 am The delicious irony is that you are one of the more delightful subjects of that effect.

To elaborate:

BigMike gestures with strained hand motions: "Me know Newton. Me know first law of motion. Me clever. You unscientific! You dumb!"

Yes, yes, BigMike, you're a really, really smart guy who's, like sciency and stuff.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 10:01 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 9:06 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 12:52 am
I think therefore I am conscious.

You mean "I think therefore I think I am conscious"?

BigMike: "thinks therefore he thinks he is <what exactly> when he thinks? (not conscious of his thoughts?)

Understand that through time, intelligent beings, us humans ascribe definitions to words for us to have a common comprehension of such things, including consciousness:.. Defined as:- the state of understanding and realizing something:

This, of course, raises the concerns of what a state, understanding, and realization are.

So, what exactly do you have to offer other than the term above regarding consciousness when you do indeed "THINK"?

I have nothing to offer regarding what consciousness is or is not.

I have to admit, that until God (that runs at the most finite scale beyond sub-atomic matter is involved) mind requires brain.

There is no divine being.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 11:53 am There is no divine being.

Perhaps not, but there IS an intelligence behind the construct of what we perceive as reality that takes one of these forms:-

Either:-
1. God is divine and constructs our reality in real-time.

2. 'God' is A.I. - Artificial Intelligence - that we have evolved into a simulation (see simulation hypothesis) ..again, our reality is constructed in real-time.
NB. The reason we would evolve into a simulation is to conserve resources as entropy increases.

3. but, then it could also be this:- God is a combination of the above.

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=33214

Operating from the top down:-
- GOD/'GOD' (operating in real-time)
- PHYSICS
- CHEMISTRY
- BIOLOGY
- REALITY (human conscious perception)

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 9:48 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 9:37 am

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 9:31 am
I couldn't care less about your mere assertion, fool.

It isn't my mere assertion, it is scientific fact.

Ah. The fool defends a mere assertion with a mere assertion, and contents himself with his foolishness.

Pray tell, fool, how science has disproven the force of (free) will. (Again: but, really, don't, because you can't and it wastes my time to respond to your foolishness).

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 9:21 am Your obvious dissatisfaction indicates that you have exhausted all valid arguments. Why don't you just acknowledge defeat?

And there it is. The hidden arrogance which I've been mirroring, knowing it was there all along. "Acknowledge defeat"? You're delusional, fool. In no possible world have you "won". You wrote:

"If your concept of free will is incapable of influencing your body or your surroundings in any way, it has no purpose"

I agreed, but pointed out that on my conception, free will is capable of influencing my body and surroundings. You then declared victory, because you are an utter fool who can't even follow an argument.

Perhaps you need to increase your vocabulary. Here are some suggestions:

• idiot
• halfwit
• nincompoop
• blockhead
• buffoon
• dunce
• dolt
• ignoramus
• cretin
• imbecile
• dullard
• moron
• simpleton
• clod
• dope
• ninny
• chump
• dimwit
• nitwit
• goon
• dumbo
• dummy
• dum-dum

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 12:14 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 9:48 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 9:37 am
It isn't my mere assertion, it is scientific fact.

Ah. The fool defends a mere assertion with a mere assertion, and contents himself with his foolishness.

Pray tell, fool, how science has disproven the force of (free) will. (Again: but, really, don't, because you can't and it wastes my time to respond to your foolishness).

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 9:21 am Your obvious dissatisfaction indicates that you have exhausted all valid arguments. Why don't you just acknowledge defeat?

And there it is. The hidden arrogance which I've been mirroring, knowing it was there all along. "Acknowledge defeat"? You're delusional, fool. In no possible world have you "won". You wrote:

"If your concept of free will is incapable of influencing your body or your surroundings in any way, it has no purpose"

I agreed, but pointed out that on my conception, free will is capable of influencing my body and surroundings. You then declared victory, because you are an utter fool who can't even follow an argument.

Perhaps you need to increase your vocabulary. Here are some suggestions:

• idiot
• halfwit
• nincompoop
• blockhead
• buffoon
• dunce
• dolt
• ignoramus
• cretin
• imbecile
• dullard
• moron
• simpleton
• clod
• dope
• ninny
• chump
• dimwit
• nitwit
• goon
• dumbo
• dummy
• dum-dum

I prefer consistency, fool, but yes, synonyms apply just as well too.

He's having a psychotic episode?

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 12:18 pm He's having a psychotic episode?

Who's having what?

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 12:17 pm I prefer consistency, fool, but yes, synonyms apply just as well too.

I'll grant you that much. You are consistent.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 12:24 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 12:17 pm I prefer consistency, fool, but yes, synonyms apply just as well too.

I'll grant you that much. You are consistent.

Ah, well, BigMike, so are you - consistently foolish.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 12:23 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 12:18 pm He's having a psychotic episode?

Who's having what?

You

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 12:29 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 12:23 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 12:18 pm He's having a psychotic episode?

Who's having what?

You

Keep on cracking the jokes, my friend.