Hey, drink works, too.

Wish I could partake in either. Alas, 'tis not to be.

 

I figured they needed a little help so, I threw another log on the fire

 

I figured they needed a little help so, I threw another log on the fire

I think they may need the kind of help that you can't give. Of course, the same could be said of me.

 

There is no such thing as 'your current reality'.
There is just reality. That's where we all are, at present.

And none of us can be anywhere else......

Ok, ok, So, current…...http://www.definitions.net/definition/current and reality ….https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=What+is+the+meaning+of+reality&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

What would be your definition of "Current Reality?"

 

Ok, ok, So, current…...http://www.definitions.net/definition/current and reality ….https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=What+is+the+meaning+of+reality&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

What would be your definition of "Current Reality?"

And how would it differe from the definition of "Voltage Reality"?

I guess by the resistance of someone to changing their point of view.

 

And how would it differe from the definition of "Voltage Reality"?

I guess by the resistance of someone to changing their point of view.

You caught me

Yes, but that's not where I was throwing my line

 

And how would it differe from the definition of "Voltage Reality"?

I guess by the resistance of someone to changing their point of view.

If this evolves me you and math, I'm done

I would like to know what the answer to my question would be?

I am curious

 

There is no such thing as 'your current reality'.
There is just reality. That's where we all are, at present.

And none of us can be anywhere else......

Have you never seen those documentaries on human perception? Where they stage an incident, and then interview different people that "saw" it?

Almost everyone sees something different, even down to describing a person wearing different colour clothing etc.

Even if you and I were in the exact same situation at the same time, your reality and my reality would be very different.

 

Have you never seen those documentaries on human perception? Where they stage an incident, and then interview different people that "saw" it?

Almost everyone sees something different, even down to describing a person wearing different colour clothing etc.

Even if you and I were in the exact same situation at the same time, your reality and my reality would be very different.

This would seem to be a matter of semantics. What is "reality"? Is it objective, or it is perception?

For instance, let's say that someone walks by and you think it's a man and I think it's a woman. What is the "reality"? I would say that, barring transvestites and such, that the reality is that they are one or the other and what you and I think has no bearing on which it is.

 

"For instance, let's say that someone walks by and you think it's a man and I think it's a woman. What is the "reality"?"



Having 100 years experience in such things, I would definitely know beyond a doubt, what is Female and what is Male.

However, I played in some nightclubs; where it would be harder.

Pun intended.

 

Have you never seen those documentaries on human perception? Where they stage an incident, and then interview different people that "saw" it?

Almost everyone sees something different, even down to describing a person wearing different colour clothing etc.

Even if you and I were in the exact same situation at the same time, your reality and my reality would be very different.

No -- a variable perception of reality is a human frailty. Doesn't affect what is actually true...

 

If that is truly what you believe, then do the following: Go out to the edge of a busy street and step in the path of the next oncoming bus or large truck. Or go lay down on a set of train tracks. After all, doing so has absolutely no effect on what is going to happen since whatever happens was destined to happen no matter what you choose to do.

Ok, what if I tell you that you are destined to post this qeuestion. and adam555 destined not to do it?

Actually, we learned. By experiential learning, by seeing others crossing in the road without any looking will probably be IN HOSPITAL OR DEAD later.

Now, why do we learn? We learn everyday. But are we going to choose what we're going to learn?

Actually, if there isn't free will. Then which started everything? That's the first mover or Unmoved mover

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover

 

You are assuming that the same variables can only lead to the exact same choice. You have no basis for that assumption. Now, I'm willing to admit that I have no basis for the assumption that living creatures, even faced with the same variables in the same states, have the capacity to choose from among a wide selection of options available to them.

There is no way to prove either assertion. If I were to show you a long list of situations in which someone (or some animal) found itself in essentially the same situation but took a variety of actions, you would just point out that the situations were only "essentially" the same. If I then found studies in which they went to great effort to make the situations identical, you would just point out that there are millions of variables, such as the exact odor that was present or the exact amount of light that was making it to the brain if, for no other reason, than the eyes were blinking at slightly different times relative to when the information was being taking in and processed.

I guess it really comes down to this: If you want to believe that you are incapable of thinking and that you have no say in choosing to believe that you have no say in controlling the actions you take, then fine.

Yes, that's exactly the crux of the matter; you summarized it pretty well in the first sentence.

You are absolutely right; there's no way of proving either way. And that's exactly why I said from the beginning that I don't really know if we have free will; I lean towards the "no", but there is no way for me to be absolutely sure.

The reason I lean towards the "no", is because I believe it's quite likely that our brain works like a computer -a highly advanced and complicated biological computer- and when this computer is feed the exact same variables to the exact same program, it has no choice but to come to the exact same conclusions. This can't be proven experimentally, because as you say, 2 different persons will never be in the exact same situation; just their nature and life experiences will set them miles apart. And of course, there is no way to travel in time and see if any event would turn out different; though I really doubt it would.

Now, if someone comes up and robs you and beats you to a pulp and murders the person you are with, are you going to take the attitude that they had no choice in the matter and that you don't care whether they are arrested or not or stand trial or not because it was all preordained that this person commit this act even before the big bang happened?

Conversely, I'm assuming that you will just accept that it was preordained that I don't take that attitude towards you should you get drunk and smash into me and the person I am with and try to claim that you had no choice.

Personally, I choose to reject that as nothing more than ultimate victim excuse philosophy. And, yes, I CHOOSE to reject it. Now, you can claim all day long that I had no actual say in the matter and neither of us can prove the other wrong (or right).

No, that's not at all what I meant before. I would definitely want the guy who did this locked, and I would want that for 3 main reasons: first, so that he couldn't do it again; second, to dissuade others from doing it; and third, because according to my nature, I would get some satisfaction out of his suffering.

That is how we do things right now: we allow the unhealthy environment necessary for crime to exist (e.g. poverty, scarcity, competitiveness, violence, ignorance, etc.) and then we punish the criminals. There would be absolutely no point in just one person (me) acting differently; it's something that the whole system should change.

What we should do -since we know that a person's life experiences and his circumstances are what drives him to be a criminal, rather than choice- is to create a healthy environment where crime would be virtually impossible.

That's what I meant.

 

Have you never seen those documentaries on human perception? Where they stage an incident, and then interview different people that "saw" it?

Almost everyone sees something different, even down to describing a person wearing different colour clothing etc.

Even if you and I were in the exact same situation at the same time, your reality and my reality would be very different.

I might be shooting myself in the foot here; but, did you also heard the theory about parallel universes?

It seems that since string theory more and more physicists believe that every time we make a choice reality splits into parallel universes with all the possible outcomes. So according to their theory there is a parallel universe where I never wrote this, another where I wrote something else, this one, and so on and so forth.

 

Yes, that's exactly the crux of the matter; you summarized it pretty well in the first sentence.

You are absolutely right; there's no way of proving either way. And that's exactly why I said from the beginning that I don't really know if we have free will; I lean towards the "no", but there is no way for me to be absolutely sure.

The reason I lean towards the "no", is because I believe it's quite likely that our brain works like a computer -a highly advanced and complicated biological computer- and when this computer is feed the exact same variables to the exact same program, it has no choice but to come to the exact same conclusions. This can't be proven experimentally, because as you say, 2 different persons will never be in the exact same situation; just their nature and life experiences will set them miles apart. And of course, there is no way to travel in time and see if any event would turn out different; though I really doubt it would.



No, that's not at all what I meant before. I would definitely want the guy who did this locked, and I would want that for 3 main reasons: first, so that he couldn't do it again; second, to dissuade others from doing it; and third, because according to my nature, I would get some satisfaction out of his suffering.

That is how we do things right now: we allow the unhealthy environment necessary for crime to exist (e.g. poverty, scarcity, competitiveness, violence, ignorance, etc.) and then we punish the criminals. There would be absolutely no point in just one person (me) acting differently; it's something that the whole system should change.

What we should do -since we know that a person's life experiences and his circumstances are what drives him to be a criminal, rather than choice- is to create a healthy environment where crime would be virtually impossible.

That's what I meant.

And, in my opinion, it's a pipe dream. There are tons of examples where people grow up in the worst environments yet choose to not go down the path that so many people around them are taking. Similarly, there are plenty of others that that grew up in "healthy" environments and did choose to go down that path when most of those around them did not.

The best you can hope for is to reduce the problem, but there will never be a shortage of people that will want to commit crimes for a variety of reasons, including greed, laziness, cruelty, envy, and plenty more.

A great point is made by David Weber in a few of his novels. To paraphrase, he says that you can't make the universe perfect. That doesn't absolve us of the obligation to try to make it better than it is, but we must keep in mind that trying too hard to make it perfect will only result in making it worse.

 

Ok, ok, So, current…...http://www.definitions.net/definition/current and reality ….https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=What+is+the+meaning+of+reality&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

What would be your definition of "Current Reality?"

To quote directly from your second link...'the state of things as they actually exist'..

It is what it is... and there's nothing you - or I - can do to change it..

 

The reason I lean towards the "no", is because I believe it's quite likely that our brain works like a computer -a highly advanced and complicated biological computer- and when this computer is feed the exact same variables to the exact same program, it has no choice but to come to the exact same conclusions. This can't be proven experimentally, because as you say, 2 different persons will never be in the exact same situation; just their nature and life experiences will set them miles apart. And of course, there is no way to travel in time and see if any event would turn out different; though I really doubt it would.

So do you not believe in the probablistic nature of quantum mechanics?

 

Ok, what if I tell you that you are destined to post this qeuestion. and adam555 destined not to do it?

Then I would say that you have no basis for making that claim, but that I could be wrong.

Actually, we learned. By experiential learning, by seeing others crossing in the road without any looking will probably be IN HOSPITAL OR DEAD later.

I've never seen anyone cross the road without looking and get whacked. But I've seen lots of people cross the road and not get whacked. So why don't we all -- or a very large fraction of us -- learn from our experiences and learn to cross the road without looking? After all, which should be the more powerful learning experience, having someone tell you that if you don't look both ways you'll get hit by a car, or seeing people time after time not looking both ways and yet not getting hit by a car.

Now, why do we learn? We learn everyday. But are we going to choose what we're going to learn?

I would say that we choose what we learn all the time -- certainly not about everything, but about many things. I chose to learn about electrical engineering. I chose not to learn about ballet dancing.

Actually, if there isn't free will. Then which started everything? That's the first mover or Unmoved mover

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover

Frankly, sounds mostly like prattle and babble to me.

 

To quote directly from your second link...'the state of things as they actually exist'..

It is what it is... and there's nothing you - or I - can do to change it..

(1/2) the question. By your definition.

Here let me help you…..

"Present"

 

So do you not believe in the probablistic nature of quantum mechanics?

Of course I believe... that's a fact; something that has been experimental proven beyond any doubt. I think there would be no transistors without that property.

But the question is: the fact that we can't know with 100% accuracy the position and momentum of a subatomic particle, doesn't mean that if we went back in time that particle would have the exact same position and momentum. What I'm trying to say is: even though the nature of quantum mechanics is probabilistic, and therefore we can't predicted it, it doesn't mean that each particle wasn't always meant to act as it does.