Freewill or Fate

[Willamena]

Therefore what you do can't possibly be other than what god sees. God, knowing you will pick the banana over the grapefruit, precludes you from ever picking the grapefruit. In effect, the grapefruit never was an option. You were destined to pick the banana no matter what. No way could this scenario go any differently. Even before you were born you were destined to pick the banana. You determined nothing.

When you word it this way, you've effectively removed yourself and himself from the picture. They're still in the picture, we're just to pretend that they're not.

It's just a story. The story of objectivity.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

When you word it this way, you've effectively removed yourself and himself from the picture. They're still in the picture, we're just to pretend that they're not.

It's just a story. The story of objectivity.

Therefore the illusion of free will due to limited perception is true free will?

 

[Willamena]

Therefore the illusion of free will due to limited perception is true free will?

If we're all being sincere in our stories here, there's no untrue images.

The objective picture is one many people favour, that's clear, but it's not the bigger picture --we get to its picture by removing things (i.e. subectivity), by scaling down the bigger picture of which we are a part.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

If we're all being sincere in our stories here, there's no untrue images.

The objective picture is one many people favour, that's clear, but it's not the bigger picture --we get to its picture by removing things (i.e. subectivity), by scaling down the bigger picture of which we are a part.

How is objectivity the smaller picture? Each person's stories are subjective, therefore the larger picture would be the objective, universal one, right?

 

[Orias]

How is objectivity the smaller picture? Each person's stories are subjective, therefore the larger picture would be the objective, universal one, right?

Wrong, there is multiples of us.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Wrong, there is multiples of us.

Multiples of each individual or just truth in majority?

 

[Orias]

Multiples of each individual or just truth in majority?

I hope I didn't come off as condescending in the last post, I know that happens sometimes...

But what I was getting, is that the "universal objectivity" is only bound to what was here before we got here.

I think its pretty self explainitory, since the big picture is made of small details (pixels persay), which ultimately concludes the big picture subject to the slightest of change due to the smaller details that strafe in and out of existence.

 

[Willamena]

How is objectivity the smaller picture? Each person's stories are subjective, therefore the larger picture would be the objective, universal one, right?

We only pretend that it's larger, but it's no bigger than what we know and less than what we experience.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I hope I didn't come off as condescending in the last post, I know that happens sometimes...

But what I was getting, is that the "universal objectivity" is only bound to what was here before we got here.

I think its pretty self explainitory, since the big picture is made of small details (pixels persay), which ultimately concludes the big picture subject to the slightest of change due to the smaller details that strafe in and out of existence.

Slightest change in story perhaps, but the reality remains the same. At no time did the sun actually orbit the Earth. Perception is the effect of reality, and not the other way around.

We only pretend that it's larger, but it's no bigger than what we know and less than what we experience.

That may be, but a single person's experience doesn't not make it true for anyone but them, and even then that experience will sometimes conflict with objective records of the events.

 

[Willamena]

That may be, but a single person's experience doesn't not make it true for anyone but them, and even then that experience will sometimes conflict with objective records of the events.

Yet, it's all the world.

 

[atanu]

Illusions exist. If they didn't they could have no effect; as they do have an effect, they have a cause. I get that many people indulge the idea of "free will" as the ghost in the machine, but philosophically and realistically, it is simply the taking of ownership of actions. It is that single thought that reaches out, grabs an act, and brings it in and takes possession of it, makes it "mine." It is "free and independent choice" in that it is "my" choice. If it was anyone else's choice, or fate's choice, or determined by outside forces, then there's no opportunity to take possession of it. We don't own it, so there would be a "cost" (in belief, in rationalization, in realization) to take possession of it.

Is the idea that illusions exist an illusion?

The quoted para is brilliant -- at least I can understand it. For once you seem to have come down to my level.

 

[Willamena]

The quoted para is brilliant -- at least I can understand it. For once you seem to have come down to my level.

Down??
*lifts him up a bit* There.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Yet, it's all the world.

In a very very egocentric way, sure.

 

[Willamena]

In a very very egocentric way, sure.

Nevertheless, it's not exempt from the world.

A "bigger picture" that quietly ignores part of the picture isn't as "bigger" as it could, or even should, be.

 

[Orias]

Slightest change in story perhaps, but the reality remains the same. At no time did the sun actually orbit the Earth. Perception is the effect of reality, and not the other way around.

Change in story??? Not really, subjective stances have a way of staying consistent to those who apprehend their own subjective thoughts.

To those who are not capable of seeing the change occur may disagree.

Perception (a subjectivly based phenomena) is the effect of reality (an objectively based existence).


So can a dead man objectively say that he is dead, or do others need to subjectively perceive the occurance and come to a consensus or conclusion?

Perception is the effect of being, not reality, reality is the effect of perceiving, since last time I checked the only similarities in the reality I share with you is well...what we commonly think we "know", other than that I have plenty of other realities that would make you think twice abouting assuming that reality can be objectively quantified, since the very words we use are based off of the reality we created of symbols and images.

This reality is extremely common among us humans, but hardly pertains to the other remaining animals of the world.

If your saying existence can be objectively quantified, then sure we (most of us anyways) can agree that we all exist, but to extend this reality to anything beyond existence would be to make it subjective, since everyone exists in a manner that leads them to experience something in a way that perhaps no other person could experience or even fathom. Sure people can experience the "same" or something similar to what others may have experienced, but it only goes to show that no two experiences are described in the same manner, and that every peice of perception is unique to the perceiver.

"You saw a lightening bolt in the sky"
"I saw an extremely energetic flash of static electricity burst through the clouds"

We saw the same thing, and can agree on what we saw but not necessarily how we described it.



But then again, I have little faith in the words I attempt to communicate to you, since labels, words, and symbols are all objects of Man's creations, and we can already "see" the effect that these objects have had on the environment around us.

That may be, but a single person's experience doesn't not make it true for anyone but them, and even then that experience will sometimes conflict with objective records of the events.

So how can an objective truth apply to anyone if it can't be subjectively determined to apply to an individual?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Change in story??? Not really, subjective stances have a way of staying consistent to those who apprehend their own subjective thoughts.

To those who are not capable of seeing the change occur may disagree.

Perception (a subjectivly based phenomena) is the effect of reality (an objectively based existence).

So can a dead man objectively say that he is dead, or do others need to subjectively perceive the occurance and come to a consensus or conclusion?

This is tricky, since life itself is a bit blurry in the objective sense. The matter and energy is still all there, in a different form. I would be hesitant to say "life" exists anywhere other than the mind of the individual.

Perception is the effect of being, not reality, reality is the effect of perceiving, since last time I checked the only similarities in the reality I share with you is well...what we commonly think we "know", other than that I have plenty of other realities that would make you think twice about assuming that reality can be objectively quantified, since the very words we use are based off of the reality we created of symbols and images.

This reality is extremely common among us humans, but hardly pertains to the other remaining animals of the world.

Consistent stories about an experience doesn't make it the actual experience.

If your saying existence can be objectively quantified, then sure we (most of us anyways) can agree that we all exist, but to extend this reality to anything beyond existence would be to make it subjective, since everyone exists in a manner that leads them to experience something in a way that perhaps no other person could experience or even fathom. Sure people can experience the "same" or something similar to what others may have experienced, but it only goes to show that no two experiences are described in the same manner, and that every piece of perception is unique to the perceiver.

"You saw a lightening bolt in the sky"
"I saw an extremely energetic flash of static electricity burst through the clouds"

We saw the same thing, and can agree on what we saw but not necessarily how we described it.

This doesn't mean that what we experience is the true reality though, just the only one we know. I'd also be hesitant to say existence exists (if that is logically possible).

But then again, I have little faith in the words I attempt to communicate to you, since labels, words, and symbols are all objects of Man's creations, and we can already "see" the effect that these objects have had on the environment around us.

Yes they have an effect, but only through us. It's not as though one could say "this tree is on fire" and have it be so. Words describe events. We effect events.

So how can an objective truth apply to anyone if it can't be subjectively determined to apply to an individual?

I didn't realize we had to accept reality in order for it to affect us. I've certainly never seen someone tripping on acid actually fly.

Though, I am probably reading your words wrong.

 

[Orias]

This is tricky, since life itself is a bit blurry in the objective sense. The matter and energy is still all there, in a different form. I would be hesitant to say "life" exists anywhere other than the mind of the individual.

I completely agree.

People think that the label objectively defines the "object" that has attempted to be labeled.

But we have to, too, and two, we have the word star that can define those massive and heart jerking things in space but it can also define an over appreciated or "famous" person.

Consistent stories about an experience doesn't make it the actual experience.

That's exactly what I was getting at

This doesn't mean that what we experience is the true reality though, just the only one we know. I'd also be hesitant to say existence exists (if that is logically possible).

Seems you have found yourself on my side of the tabel now eh?

I agree here as well.

Yes they have an effect, but only through us. It's not as though one could say "this tree is on fire" and have it be so. Words describe events. We effect events.

EXACTLY.

So would you then say that this statement has been objectively quantified? Because this statement essentially contributes to the subjective side of the argument

I didn't realize we had to accept reality in order for it to affect us. I've certainly never seen someone tripping on acid actually fly.

Though, I am probably reading your words wrong.

That's not really what I was saying but it is close...

Basically what I was saying was...how can an objective position apply to a person who subjectively disagrees with the objects or positions "objectiveness"?

If this scene in play was truly "objective" there wouldn't be someone Opposing the subjective standards of it, or there wouldn't be someone there to question anothers experience of it.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

So, in essence, without an outside observation there's no distinction from the individual's subjective reality and what actually happened?

 

[Orias]

So, in essence, without an outside observation there's no distinction from the individual's subjective reality and what actually happened?

Pretty much, the observer should also realize that as humans, we are Natural actors and deceivers, and we can do whatever is necessary to gain the upper hand or momentary gratification.

Anyone can go to the massess and conclude anything, people will follow out of their imaginary starvation to be something more than what they actually are.

Outside observation or inside observation, people are never really sure of thoughts and visions that they see, thats why we have this thing called empathy (which in no way gives way to the concrete and objectional biases).

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Fair enough.

[/off-topic discussion]