What I apply for myself, I wouldn’t necessarily apply to all of humanity.

Well, I don’t like seeing myself as a victim of circumstance. I’m aware that a majority of what is “myself” is a construction and I’ve been in the process of deconstructing myself to figure out “what’s left” for some time.

But I try not to deal in Universals with humans too much.

What I apply for myself, I wouldn’t necessarily apply to all of humanity.

Free will allows for both free will and no-free-will beliefs to co-exist.

No-free-will restricts the situation to “no-free-will” or “delusional” (or illusion if someone is nice). I don’t care for that set of options.

==

Oh, not on convenience. I’m intellectually honest, but I don’t play logic games using the same scripted analogies with people often. I _can_ but they can be tiresome.

==

Phrases like, “So you admit”, “That’s a fallacy”, bringing 2+2=something into it – these are common scripts that you’re using, I like getting past the common scripts and have a conversation. I’ve been in this roleplay many times. Most common is when I tell people I’m agnostic. You should see the script-reading I hear then.

==

Re: agnostic – Yes, I knew it would. We’d tussle for an hour down the same road. I know it well. It strikes me that perhaps *you* might not have as free of a will, but perhaps I do. Of course, you will argue that I do not know what it means. I know the game. Played many times. I know your lines, but I go off-script and usually end up being referred to as “disingenuous” or the script is, “I’m tired / bored / of dealing with…[insert insult]”

How’s that for an effective paragraph? I’ve just saved us both a lot of typing smile emoticon

==

I find the straightest path is to see each other as people across the glass divide. THAT is the most efficient because it doesn’t matter whether we agree or disagree on this topic: it’s just something to do on the Internet instead of sleeping.

=

But I’ll play if you like.

==

I haven’t seen perfection. I’m awed by a lot of things but perfections depend on my expectations which are likely just a byproduct of my cognitive systems simplifying my observations and experiences of the world around me and myself.

==

It’s all in the realm of pure speculation both in the question and in anybody’s choice of answers. It’s fundamentally an absurd question that I wrote to bring people out into a discussion. It has so many flaws to it but mostly the limitations of “thought experiment”. All thought experiments are fictional and likewise, was the question and likewise , all of our answers.

==

Oh please do! That will be fun. But you can do it without the irritation now smile emoticon I’m always up for a learning experience, and i never know who is my next teacher.

==

Wait, then is it possible that you NEED to be irritated by a very wrong question in order to produce an output?

I _am_ quite serious about the question by the way, because I’m agnostic and for me, it is PERFECTLY in the realm of possibility that we might be able to figure out an answer to:

“What computer language did God use to program logic into the fabric of the Universe?”

==

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


− three = 6

Leave a Reply