Fore Will (origin at its finest)

reply to post by dzonatas

I love your new Charlie Chaplin-meets-Mount Fuji avatar look.

A meta-chemical reaction is similar to a chemical reaction, as the meta-physical is similar the physical. Is that hard to understand?

It is irrelevant. I didn't ask you what a 'metachemical reaction' is like; I asked you what it is. If this is the best you can do by way of explanation, then, obviously, you don't know.

Depends on what you consider "higher"... I just used a prefix.

And what did you mean by the prefix you used? 'Meta' means beyond (or higher), after, derived from or going along with. Which of those meanings had you in mind when you used the prefix? Which of those meanings is employed in the coinage 'metachemical'? Stop wriggling. Show some honesty, will you--and some backbone.

Depends on what you consider "subatomic"... I just used a prefix.

'Subatomic' is not a word that allows for any ambiguity of interpretation. Definition

Is this really the best you can do? :shk:

(Yours) is the "magical" definition of the word if you don't want to understand physics.

As Golden Boy has shown you, it is the dictionary definition. As for not wanting to understand physics--try me.

As for your treatment of the word...

When there is no math to explain the phenomena, they simply call it metaphysics. What has happened is that anything labeled "metaphysical" also gets considered "delusional mumbo-jumbo." It's as if someone tried to take the literally meaning of the prefix "meta" to not mean what it does when attached to the word "physical."

It is in no sense a definition--more of a tirade, really. A misinformed, misguided, miserable tirade against people who--according to you--use 'metaphysical' as a term of derogation.

Don't you even know what a definition is?

Here, read the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy and see what it has to tell you about the meaning of metaphysics.

Now that, Teller, is what I call a thought-provoking post.

Originally posted by The Teller
We cannot construct without thought so without thought there is less of a physical world around us.

Do you feel human thought constructs the world?

If we thought of the uses of fire first then the idea came before the physical. If we saw naturally occurring fire and had the idea to use it for our own benefit the idea still came first.

Our animal ancestors knew fire; long before they evolved into hominid apes, they knew it warms; they knew it burns. They probably knew the taste of roast meat, foraging among the ashes of brush and forest fires. If the question is 'which came first, fire or the idea fire?', then the answer must obviously be 'fire'.

Physical and metaphysical are intertwined. I can imagine a universe that I cannot see and it may or may not be there, but I can still see it so it is real.

If mental projection is all that is needed to make something real, the distinction between reality and fantasy is elided. The physical world, however, insists on restoring the distinction no matter how hard we fantasize. Yes, a hard rationalist position is impossible to defeat because one can always trump an empiricist by retreating further in the direction of solipsism. Unfortunately, this is something of a kamikaze move, and meanwhile the caravan of reality marches on.

Personally, I am a naturalist; I believe in an objective reality that acts in the same way on all entities and of which they are a part, but I do not necessarily accept that what is perceived is in any way the final ground of reality--merely how reality is interpreted by our type of organism.

As a species we can see things in our minds that we then search for in the physical world to make that thought become a real thing.

Can you substantiate this, please? Even Plato, the original rationalist, said we see things in the real world and then search in our minds for a preexisting template (the famous 'form') in which to realize it.

So everything that exists in our world that isn't of a natural cause is proof that we have a non physical self.

This may well be true, but where in the world does one find an entity that is not naturally caused? Could you, without reifying abstractions, describe such an entity?

[edit on 26/2/10 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by dzonatas

 

I love your new Charlie Chaplin-meets-Mount Fuji avatar look.

This single quote earned your place on my ignore list. Such ill-mannerism won't be tolerated: I'm pissed!! (political trolls and hacks)

It is irrelevant. I didn't ask you what a 'metachemical reaction' is like; I asked you what it is. If this is the best you can do by way of explanation, then, obviously, you don't know.

You didn't even consider it, which is example why we don't consider your side. It obvious you dismissed a very simple analogy. In the sense it is "beyond" the physical is the same as it is "beyond" the chemical.

You are stuck in your political ideology that anything meta-physical or meta-chemical is delusional. You made you position undeniable, which defeats being able to deny ignorance. I presented a simple case where it is not delusional, and you CHOOSE to not accept it and simply debate about with mannerism and decorum.

'Meta' means beyond (or higher), after, derived from or going along with.

People in computer science create "meta-" data structures and mechanics all the time. In the sense I applied the prefix to chemical structures and mechanics, I use it no differently.

Is this really the best you can do? :shk:

I only have debated a position on the OP-subject and tried to explain to you what these mean. Why do you want to derail this thread and make this about "me" and the "best I can do" and attempt any discretization... *any* -- do review that link above.

As Golden Boy has shown you, it is the dictionary definition.

Golden Boy is already on my ignore list, so I have no idea what posts that guy makes anymore. Given that guys knows of being on my ignore list from another thread and continues to respond to me across ATS, it's obvious derailment by you and that guy.

It is in no sense a definition--more of a tirade, really. A misinformed, misguided, miserable tirade against people who--according to you--use 'metaphysical' as a term of derogation.

You mean the entire "metaphysical" forum on ATS is purposely meant to be violent, vulgar, attack, or create some tirade against others on here? You mean you have absolutely no ability to simply debate about phenomena that even math can't explain? You mean you need it proven by math before you even speak of such phenomena?

Seriously, welcome to my ignore list.

Just to follow-up on the definition from Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (emphasis added):

Secondly, there are many philosophical problems that are now considered to be metaphysical problems (or at least partly metaphysical problems) that are in no way related to first causes or unchanging things; the problem of free will, for example, or the problem of the mental and the physical.

At least there are doctorates and philosophers of science that recognize the brain as at least partly metaphysical.

The conscience is a well-known anomaly in science, so from the same encyclopedia, and to back up with others have said already here about the conscience:

Through conscience and its related notion, synderesis, human beings discern what is right and wrong. While there are many medieval views about the nature of conscience, most views regard human beings as capable of knowing in general what ought to be done and applying this knowledge through conscience to particular decisions about action. The ability to act on the determinations of conscience is, moreover, tied to the development of the moral virtues, which in turn refines the functions of conscience.

Medieval Theories of Conscience

It is obvious the conscience itself is the entire pivotal point of debate from any personal position, and that is why it remains a well-known anomaly. There is still no science exactly where the conscience is located, yet people generally regard it as from the brain. Since the conscience itself is unproven, by stated anomaly, it is metaphysical. It is "beyond" physical proof.

However, even if you narrow done examples from standford's encylopedia, it still notes:

Twentieth-century coinages like ‘meta-language’ and ‘metaphilosophy’ encourage the impression that metaphysics is a study that somehow “goes beyond” physics, a study devoted to matters that transcend the mundane concerns of Newton and Einstein and Heisenberg. This impression is mistaken.

Metaphysics is not mistaken as in that it merely "goes beyond" physics, yet it is mistaken to think it "goes beyond" Newton and Einstein and Heisenberg. The very nature of mechanics learned in by physicals can still be applied to metaphysics, yet don't expect plain simple physical proof that doesn't involve metaphysical concepts.

I see metaphysics as the Physics 102 class that is "after" the Physics 101 class.

reply to post by dzonatas


You can't keep making up words, then putting people on ignore for merely trying to point out how you're misusing them. That's ridiculous.

Soon it'll be just you in your own little ATS, after having ignored everyone else.

reply to post by davesidious


Words are what is not distinct delimiters of space.

No words were made up. All suffixes, prefixes, and root words are all found in dictionaries.

You argument is without merit, and contains no details to back-up your accusation.

reply to post by Astyanax


I haven't shown dzonatas anything. As a result of this thread, she(?) has me on ignore.

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by dzonatas

 

I love your new Charlie Chaplin-meets-Mount Fuji avatar look.

This single quote earned your place on my ignore list. Such ill-mannerism won't be tolerated: I'm pissed!! (political trolls and hacks)

Uh.

What?

Is this some incredibly obscure insult that I haven't heard of before? Or something? Seriously, WTF?

As Golden Boy has shown you, it is the dictionary definition.

Golden Boy is already on my ignore list, so I have no idea what posts that guy makes anymore. Given that guys knows of being on my ignore list from another thread and continues to respond to me across ATS, it's obvious derailment by you and that guy.

Why is it that, whenever you are presented with an argument you cannot refute, you declare it to be a derail?

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Why is it that, whenever you are presented with an argument you cannot refute, you declare it to be a derail?

Your question is off-topic.

The answer is off-topic.

Any time you have the WILL to ask a question that leads off-topic, it is your attempt to WILL a derailment.

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Why is it that, whenever you are presented with an argument you cannot refute, you declare it to be a derail?

Your question is off-topic.

The answer is off-topic.

This question? Yes, it is, but it was meant as rhetorical, because I am (was?) on your ignore list. But the other things which you have claimed as off-topic are not. They are entirely on-topic.

ETA: Also, I didn't follow you to this thread. I was already here when you showed up.

[edit on 2/26/2010 by Golden Boy]

reply to post by dzonatas


Yes, but when you combine two pre-defined words to form a third word that already exists (unbeknownst to you), and then expect people to magically know you mean something other than the pre-existing word, is absurd.

This is not the first time you've been picked up on misusing words and denying their real meanings.

reply to post by davesidious


It's just lack of will power to want understand the complexities of words on those that complain who was first or last. Some just say neither and both fist and last happened at the same time, just as "it takes two..." yada yada.

Maybe you should wonder why you care so much about where words originate. Maybe wonder who's will it is that makes you want to put them in some ordinary history. Look at your reaction when you find things out of order at least by what you think. Maybe you are paranoid that somebody has will over your history.

If you try to will your history with someone else's history then an obvious conflict arises. That begs the questions if someone willed you to find a conflict, or maybe to question yourself if you can let two diametrically opposed truths to exist.

Maybe (unknown to you) there are other dictionaries you never knew about. Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean I have to agree to your science.

reply to post by dzonatas


Again, you can't make up definitions for words that differ from the dictionary's and then expect other people to understand what you mean, let alone get mad when they fail to.
Now, try actually answering the questions that have been put to you rather than attempting to hand-wave them away with insults.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Again, you can't make up definitions for words that differ from the dictionary's

Show the evidence where some word was made up from my own will.

expect other people to understand what you mean

Show the evidence where such expectation came from my own will.

let alone get mad when they fail to.

Show the evidence where I got mad alone from my own will.

Now, try actually answering the questions that have been put to you rather than attempting to hand-wave them away with insults.

Show the evidence that we are here to only answer your questions by your own will.

Maybe I should click on your bash points to get you to the RATS forum faster.

EDIT: if it has nothing to do about WILL.... then obviously you know how to use U2U and any avoidance of that is for some obvious greater cause you haven't made clear at all.

[edit on 26-2-2010 by dzonatas]

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Again, you can't make up definitions for words that differ from the dictionary's

Show the evidence where some word was made up from my own will.

Here.

expect other people to understand what you mean

Show the evidence where such expectation came from my own will.

Here.

let alone get mad when they fail to.

Show the evidence where I got mad alone from my own will.

Here.

Now, try actually answering the questions that have been put to you rather than attempting to hand-wave them away with insults.

Show the evidence that we are here to only answer your questions by your own will.

We're not. But if you're not going to participate in the discussion with honesty, why are you here?

EDIT: if it has nothing to do about WILL.... then obviously you know how to use U2U and any avoidance of that is for some obvious greater cause you haven't made clear at all.

I see the nonsense has descended into gobbledegook. Seriously? Making up important-sounding words doesn't make you sound knowledgeable, it makes you sound ignorant. Especially when you try to loop these fanciful words around to hitch them to the original post rather than acknowledging you've derailed like an Amtrak in the bayou.

Sometimes ATS makes me sad. Sometimes it makes me laugh. This time it's done both!

reply to post by Golden Boy


Seriously, how does that give you the reason to dispute: "The origin of existence is WILL" as stated in the OP.

You can agree with it or not.

If you think someone that takes different sides in a scientific manner is a liar, then direct your question towards those that invent science about that. At least I do not create multiple persona and use that multiple persona to pretend to be someone else, as to pretend is being dishonest. Guess it took WILL for you to believe who is being honest and who is being dishonest, as stated in the OP: "It takes a will to believe and think."

"LIVING is WILL."

Obviously, there is change and there is no change and either could be a force of will. As you asked: "Gravity does things. Does gravity have a will?"

It is either gravity has will or it is not gravity that has will.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


You'd die crying and laughing if you read the discussion between dzonatas and I about the meanings of the words/phrases "human", "humanoid", and "homo sapiens". Truly mind-blowing stuff!

Originally posted by Golden Boy

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Again, there is no evidence that there is anything more to consciousness than chemicals and brain activity. Until you provide evidence that there is something more, that we are not really studying consciousness, your claims are baseless.

Correlation is not causation.

So?

This isn't a matter of proof or evidence.

Yes, it is.

This is a matter of comprehension.

There is no scientific evidence for the existence of consciousness.

Yes, there is. I have showed it to you. Now present your evidence that it is non-physical.
Put up or shut up time.

I really don't know how else to explain it.
The evidence is all around you; it is a matter of understanding it.
The mind/consciousness can only be studied indirectly by studying correlations between brain activity, chemicals, and behavior.

It is important to understand the difference between correlation and causation.

Logically we assume that other entities have consciousness but you can NEVER prove scientifically that another entity has consciousness.

Consciousness is a fundamentally abstract idea, it is not something physical.

The brain synthesizes the message created by the senses.
Consciousness is the experience of this message.
The mind responds to this message. You are the mind.

When we study the brain physically we are only seeing one side of the equation.

After you understand this concept it is easy to see that consciousness is a synonym for freewill.