It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by dzonatas
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
At least I do not create multiple persona and use that multiple persona to pretend to be someone else
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.
Originally posted by Jezus
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.
Originally posted by Golden Boy
Logically we assume that other entities have consciousness but you can NEVER prove scientifically that another entity has consciousness.
Yes, you can. I have explained how.
Originally posted by Golden Boy
It is important to understand the difference between bare assertion and evidence.
Really. I do understand what you are referring to. I understand the fallacy that you are accusing me of. But, in this case, there is zero evidence that the correlation and the causation are not one and the same. You claim that the chemical reactions are a product of consciousness, but all the evidence claims that they are. If you say that they are not, present evidence to that effect.
Originally posted by Golden Boy
I never said that it did. You asked for evidence of the things that I claimed you did. I supplied it. It had nothing to do with the topic, and you yourself said that it didn't.
Oh, no. I don't think that those who take the opposite side is a liar. I think that people who lie are liars.
Okay, seriously. Why do you think I'm a sockpuppet?
I did dispute that will is the "ultimate origin", and that nothing can be done without will. You are strawmanning.
And there is absolutely zero evidence that gravity has a will. So why believe that it does?
Soon it'll be just you in your own little ATS, after having ignored everyone else.
Originally posted by Jezus
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 synonym for freewill.
Originally posted by Astyanax
A causal relationship between events A and B implies that A causes B or vice versa.
Now this can happen two ways:
How We See
Give us your honest opinion. Doesn't this sound a lot like special pleading?
Consciousness is a synonym for freewill.
You are wrong. It is, if it exists, the possessor of free will. But does even free will exist? The reluctance of all you will-powered folk to respond to my first post in this thread suggests the question is, to say the least, problematic.
Originally posted by dzonatas
Besides the attempt example you tried to give, there was the obvious fallacy where the observed can't be the observer.
Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by dzonatas
Actually, you can easily see the mirror by the imperfections in it. No mirror is 100% reflective. But I'm sure you're using some definition of the words "mirror" or "reflection" or "not" that no one else is
, so my point is most likely moot.
Originally posted by Astyanax
Logically we assume that other entities have consciousness but you can NEVER prove scientifically that another entity has consciousness.
Neither can you prove, even to yourself, that you are conscious. Cogito, ergo sum was comprehensively debunked by Nietzsche and others centuries ago.
Originally posted by Astyanax
What this implies for your argument is that a key assumption is invalidated. Consciousness cannot be proved to exist; therefore you are invoking an imaginary entity in order to explain a physical process--even though the process can be explained just fine without it!
Originally posted by Astyanax
Consciousness is a synonym for freewill.
You are wrong. It is, if it exists, the possessor of free will. But does even free will exist? The reluctance of all you will-powered folk to respond to my first post in this thread suggests the question is, to say the least, problematic.
Originally posted by davesidious
You're kidding, right?
You want proof that mirrors are not 100% reflective?
99.999% reflective
I feel dumber.