EAGLE Netlist conversion

[R. Steve Walz]

Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Two: Consequences have nothing
whatsoever to do with the philosophical question of so-called "free
will".

That's your opinion.
--------------------

No. It's the truth, they are orthogonal. Consequences are what happens,
not what you do or don't do about it or why. If they were related we
could control not only what we think, but what happens, and we can't.
We can't change what we think, or even WANT to, and we can't change
its effects on others.

Yet you propose that "criminals"
suffer torture (consequences) as "warnings" to others.
--------------

It's the only useful or appropriate part of punishment.
Deterence is a time-honored process that can effect what
others do.

If
those others are incapable of deciding whether to take those
warnings seriously, there's no point other than satisfying
your perverse enjoyment of others' pain.
-------------------

You're confused. I said we cannot change what WE think, but what
we are forced to do by causation/fate affects the behavior and
thoughts of others. They also affect OUR behavior and thoughts
and we cannot prevent it.

Also, no one can relieve a being of their fate, or the consequences
of that fate. If you effect their fate that is YOUR fate to do so,
it is caused as theirs is caused, by physical laws.

And there's no point in your saying anything at all
except as a predictable output of your mental "state
machine", such as the following:
------------------------------------

Yup.
I can't help but say what I say,
and neither can you if my words change you.

There is only one future for us, just as there is only one tomorrow
that follows today, just as there have been only one tomorrow for
each previous yesterday.

You cannot merely "decide" to do other than you had previously
thought that you would, that was CAUSED by internal processes in
you beyond your awareness and manipulation; you have no fucking
control of that at all.

There is NO such thing as "your will". The thoughts you think own
and produce you, you not you "control" them. The thoughts you have
include your entire notion of you, thus they PRODUCE the entire aware
construct you being aware of who and what you are.

They arise due to your past and the processes your mind does with
that past according to physical laws that it follows, the chemistry
of the brain is every bit as Determined as any other physical
phenomenon which cannot disobey physical law.

To prove this to yourself, that you do not control your thoughts
but that they "think" you into being, simply note that you are unable
to voluntarily change what you believe right now, even the tiniest
belief, except that it may change in a manner totally beyond your
ability to stop it doing so. Not only do you not WANT to change it,
and would have to lie to say you did, but if it changed due to other
causation you would also not be able to stop it! Note that you cannot
even change whether you WANT to change it or not, OR stop THAT if it
is determined to change! And so on, it's elephants all the way down,
and none of them are yours!

Um, if I have no free will, how can I lie?
-------------------------------

You can't unless you're going to.

And don't EVEN try to give me some bullshit about QM "rescuing" "free
will" from Determinism, it never happened, and the morons who claim
it did are NOT even reputable physicists!

Kindly don't pre-blame me for others' foolishness.
-------------------------------------

Okay.

Nothing like this had ever done before. And this was the
point at which it was discovered that Pain Hurts.

That's the Lesson of Consequences All had to learn.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with anything you're trying to say.
---------------------------------

Sure it does, we are conditioned to respond by our experiences.

You're somewhat out of your depth here.
Mark L. Fergerson
-----------------------

Desperate pretense doesn't become you.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Mark Fergerson wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

You are getting close, but there are beings who are experiencing
the feeling of being at the bottom of a well with no way out.
He cries for help, and all the blessed ones walk by and yell
down at him, "Just pull yourself up by your bootstraps, like
we did."

I should also point out that dying horribly may be _the
only way out_, because the being involved deliberately
painted itself into that corner in order to learn not to do
it again next time around, or didn't get it last time
around. Did we go over reincarnation yet?
------------------

You're assuming the existence of some "meta-life" where we decide what
happens in our next life. That also assumes a being and memories
outside of what is called life, and an experience of desiring purpose
there.

Spirit couldn't give a shit less, because spirit is the fucking
aether. It's the infinite, infinitely rigid, electrical matrix that
thinks it's the boss, and thinks it knows best what Will is supposed
to do, but it has been wrong about this since before the beginning of
time.

Good thing, too. Yes, suffering came into existence as a
direct consequence of Original Separation, but as I said,
that's the Lesson All learned by it. But Rich, don't you see
that it's also the _only_ lesson All could learn at that
point, because that's the only degree of freedom it had?

Since then, we timebounds have learned all sorts of other
lessons that we take back with us when we reintegrate.
--------------------------

The occurrence of which is altogether unproven. In fact what is
indicated by known experience is merely that we die and existence
continues "elseWho" in others who arise as we arose, and feel they
are the Self just as we have.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

snip Steve's incomprehension of his doublespeak infatuation
with renaming dogma as "Truth"
-----------------------

That's not a reasoned logical response, that's just cowardly
vacuous name-calling.

Nothing I say needs any proof at all, it's all
structural argument
that is based only on the common human experience.


Yet another unsubstantiable claim.

It needs no "substantiation", it is simply what I said I
always
intend to do. It is statement of my own principles.

"Principles". IOW asumptions not relatable to objective
reality. You will not define "common human experience"
because there is no such thing.
------------------------------

Of course there is, or else wecouldn't even be talking like this.
YOU just don't LIKE me arguing from WHAT WE BOTH KNOW because
it doesn't help YOU lie!

Your experience is not
mine, and vice versa. Be extremely careful trying to refute
that statement; you'll be reduced to using "spurious
factoids".

I need no such thing.

Then attempt to do so without them. Explicate precisely
what your and my experiences have in common.
-----------------------------------

Quit deleting what I said and then it will appear precisely in your
posts where you keep asking for it and make you look stupid.

In fact I personally refuse to believe or even hold
anything to be
important that cannot be argued solely from structure
without any
assertion of spurious factoids.

That's nice. That kind of "reasoning" must rest on
untestable assumptions. That kind of structuredstructure an
"opinion".

At some point all rests on assumptions. I consider mine
as necessary
and part of the fabric of existence. You have been warped
by your
upbringing so as to deny them.

Your assumptions are fantasies not based on reality.
------------------

A solitary statement that I'm wrong does not constitute any actual
argument, nor even a convertsation, let alone a debate!

Anything that is merely evidenciary can always be
disingenuously
contradicted by anyone Evil enough to wish to do so,
and any kind
of evidence can be undermined by enough repetitious
deceit unless
offered in a majority-respected peer-reviewed setting
where Evil
is simply denied a voice.

Since you accept no evidence at all contradictory to your
position, I must assume that since there is also none valid
to support your position, that it is exactly equal to any
other such position; namely, it's an "opinion".

Opinion is what you have. Certainty is what I have.

"Certainty" based on fantasy. You have nothing else to
base it on.
-------------------------

But you offer no actual argument to that effect, you seem not to
grasp that any syllogism needs assertions prior to any predicate.

It's like knowing how to count and do the arithmetic. You
won't learn, and so you speak in inequalities
and haven't the vaguest idea why those are unacceptable.

I refuse to "learn" to lie and call it truth.
--------------------------------

Nobody is asking you to learn lies, because once you learn them
they aren't lies!

The only cure for Evil is to stifle or kill it.

Yep, since you can't out-argue anyone, stifle or kill
them.

I simply say that it is futile to argue with an
oppressor, since he isn't really listening.

You most certainly are not.
-----------------------------------

I just did.

Say, I was wrong; you're not a fan of Lenin at all.
Actually, you're a fan of Stalin.

Nonsense. He has nothing in common with me except a means
that you
wouldn't want me to use, but which all humans finally
have to.

You've already said you prefer to watch it on TV rather
than dirty your own precious hands. How typically elitist.
-------------------------------

No, just lazy and unwilling to be repetitious.

Examine what is said and why, not who says what.

Great. Provide cites to support your opinions in future.

Disingenous. As I have said, that is disreputable and
invalid.

Then your opinion has exactly no greater weight than
anyone else's, by your own criteria.

By my criteria, mine does.

Your criteria have no weight other than what you give
them; since you've provided no objective basis for
determining their valiidity, why should anyone bother to
take you seriously?
-----------------------------

There is no "objective" basis for anything that is transferable
to an idiot like you. Truth is non-transferable, this is the
reason for killing people.

You misdefine "doublespeak" to suit your ends. Nothing I
say is
confusing or confounding to anyone. YOU simply don't LIKE
it, and
are LYING because you don't like me besting you so easily
with my
words!!

Your words have only the meaning you assign to them.
Hence you see them as unassailable. The rest of us take the
trouble to agree on what "true" and "false" mean first.
---------------------------

If the only meaning my words have were what I assigned, you
wouldn't even have grasped that I spoke, and you would not
have responded.

Of course, for this to work, you must continue to
characterize anyone who disagrees with you as "evil". You
sound more and more like a preacher.

If preachers speak against obvious evil, sure, you'd
probably think
that. Your chosen sin is inequality and oppression of
others, you
really know you are supporting Evil, and you even know
WHY it's
Evil, you just wish to continue to DO it ANYWAY! If you
dislike
people pointing up your crimes, you sure won't like me!

You are so very pompously full of shit. You completely
fail to see your substitution of rational discussion with
the assumption of evil on everyone's part but yours.
----------------

Everyone? You're lying to assert that.

This is the difference between religion and science. In
the latter, agreement comes from the presentation and
examination of _all_ evidence for a given POV, both
supportive and contradictory.

Any Peer-Review forum that permits your intentionally
creative
mischaracterizations violates all principles of Science
and Truth.

Yet your preferred "intentionally creative
mischaracterizations" such as Rather's,

He didn't use any such thing. Liar.

He most certainly did, specifically when he characterized
his sources as "unimpeachable".
--------------------------------

He thought so at the time, so he wasn't lying. Lying is telling
somethingyou KNOW to be untrue.

and your insistence
that anyone not agreeing with you is evil, are OK. Right. So
much for Science and Truth under your watch.

You who wish to twist perspective and deceive will
receive the Truth,
and you will NOT like it!

Yet more baseless threats.
-----------------------------------

Nonsense. Prediction.

Rather is comparable to a Baptist tent preacher pounding
his Bible on a lectern, ignoring or shouting down
doubters,
then turning his flock against them with pitchforks and
torches lest his lies be exposed.

Rather told the Truth. He simply didn't yet have the
evidence.

He lied. There is ample evidence of it, and exactly none
to support the contents of the faked documents he presented.

What he said was True, he simply didn't have evidence of
it yet.
He didn't know that at the time.

To repeat, when he most certainly knew the documents were
fakes because it had been independently proved so, he did
not say so.
---------------------------------------

He DID!
How long do you think program material for anything is in the pipes?

You are one of his faithful because you believe his lies,
and accept his excuses for lying.

I don't like him or the media at ALL, *I* think they're
WAY TOO
RIGHTIST!!!

Don't try to change the subject; we're talking about
Rather's lies.

He never lied. That you say he did is YOUR lie.

Oh, right. Your definitions of "Truth" and "lie" again.
--------------------

Nope, dictionary.
When you KNOW something isn't true, you're lying.
Until you do, you're NOT LYING!

The way we are changed from external influences is
from within,

You used to say that we cannot change our minds from
within at all. Lying again, or changed your mind?

We cannot, through ANY act of supposed "will",
change what we
believe, not even the smallest thing. But other
things from within
and from without will change us, even if against our
"will".

This is either your opinion or a lie.

You do not specify the enumeration of our choices in
that regard.

You already did.

You don't GET to.

I see. I am not allowed to participate. I am merely to be
killed.
--------------------------

No, you simply don't receive tacit appointment as arbitrator of truth.

Please present
objectively verifiable evidence so I may discern which.

You are not capable of such discernment, so it isn't
appropriate.

Oh, right; I'm too stupid. That's a popular fallback in
formal debating; oh, wait, no it isn't.

This isn't a debate. That you're too stupid is merely True.

I see. You have no evidence.
-----------------------------------

No one needs "evidence" for much of anything. Fully 99.9% of what
people do and believe they do based on the structural argument
in favor of it, not "evidence". History has been based on what
people did because they liked the idea, not because it was "proved".

And whether some "evidence", which is falsified half the time, and
mistaken most of the other half, is useful is a very spurious concept.

Nonsense. You cannot lift yourself into the air, and
you cannot
encompasse your own nature with your awareness. Any
believed
control is easily proved to be illusory.

Then kindly present a brief, concise proof.

Goedel's Theorem, look it up.

I am aware of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, and it
simply does not apply to the real world as universally as
you'd like it to.

Nope, wrong. Take us through it, why don't you, and I'll
point out how!!

You cited Godel; present your proof. I'll show you your
mistake(s).
---------------------------

You questioned it, show us you're not blowing it out your ass.

Betcha won't, or that you'll try to gloss over it
disingenuously!

Give it your best shot.
-------------------------

As I said. You're blowing it out your ass.

Hold on, I did read it. It comprised four of the five
points on the Bush site.

Yeah, except in the opposite direction.

Uh, no. Same identical points.

So you'd like to pretend that there was no reason to
see these men
as adversaries? You're an idiot!

Of course there's no reason for them to be adversaries;
they're from the same socioeconomic stratum, members
of the
same "secret society", and have much the same ends in
mind.
Their political platforms were conveniences of the moment
and will have as much effect on their subsequent
policies as
past examples, which is to say none.

Up to a point you're correct, but then you neglect
their differences.

There are no significant differences between _them_. The
only significant differences in their political lives is the
agendas of their handlers.

Insipid nonsense.
I wish Kerry HAD handlers, he needed some.

The only time we likely heard from Kerry was his
concession speech; it was the sole self-consistent statement
he made during the entire election cycle. Oh, wait;
self-consistency has no place in your "Truth".
----------------------------------

Nonsense, Kerry has virtually nothing to do with me anyway,
your disingenuity and slander are irrelevant.

And where the hell do _you_ get off whining about
toss-off slurs, you Evil, posturing, deceitful,
disingenuous, lying, dogshitting, incapable of discernment,
nonsense-prating idiot?

I use them against Evil, you against Good and Truth.
That's the ultimate difference!

According to your own, unrelatable-to-reality definitions.
--------------------------------

According to principles easy to state.
And you REALLY don't like how easy it is to do that!
That's why you've hung on this long with your disingenuous failure
to actually address any issue.

As for the name-calling, Steve, do you really take the
American political dog-and-pony shows seriously?

I have one well beyond it that I do, of which the
American version
is but a sick weak semblance. But the two sides are NOT
the same,
one is quite a bit better (less Evil) than the other!

Sigh. Care to be a little less vague?

Your perception is vague, I was clear.

Your first sentence is vague. To what do you refer, your
"ideal Democratic vote"? That has nothing to do with the
dog-and-pony shows I referred to. Try to stay on point.
-------------------------------------

The fact that American democracy is partially subverted has
nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of it that is not.

The fact that American issues are misrepresented by
Republicans has nothing to do with their actual Truth.

Tax the rich back to the level of the rest of us.
Require any business to pay each person working
the SAME per hour.

Dammit Steve, do you have to keep repeating the
same old
zero-sum bullshit?

Ain't bullshit. At any moment the economy is finite,

There's your problem, trying to apply calculus to
economics.

Actually econonists have been doing that since shortly
after Leibniz
and Newton.

Yup. And they're all wrong.

Rightists are.

So are Leftists, for the same exact reasons.
------------------------------

Leftists don't bother, they simply destroy what you fancy as
"economics". You see, what you call "economics" is merely the
machinations of organized crime to us, which should be rooted
out like cancer. Any scientific approach to what we will replace
it all with is so entirely different than your grasp of economics
that it bears no appreciable resemblance. Gone is "investment",
"interest", "principle", "speculation", etc.

You make the same mistake every economist from
Adam Smith onward makes; you willfully ignore the fact
that
value and cost are in constant flux WRT each other.

Labor is the only cost, value is that labor. Any other
assertion
is merely connivance to steal.

In your fantasy world only.

In the real world that will destroy yours.

If, as you constantly indicate, you take no action to
realize it, it'll remain a fantasy. Which channel will you
watch your fantasy on?
-------------------------------

Whenever that is, no one can stop an idea whose time has come.
One guy promoting it is irrelevant till the people want it, and
then they'll hunt it up like discovering a rock star in Omaha!

FTM, in your stated ideal economy, a made object's value
must decline over time.

Nope.

You said exactly that. Want me to Google it up?

Whatever *I* said, YOU misinterpreted it.
Typical.

I see. No point in showing you your own words. What
will you do, claim I edited them?
--------------------------------------

Now you're just lying and threatening to lie again.

Labor is equal, no matter the tools, and it must be paid
equally per hour. THAT is the moral right! WHAT and HOW MUCH
they produce
is irrelevant, they worked the same hours!

Speaking of Godel...

Did you forget that we were talking about whether or not
your ideal economy was "finite"? We now have two sets of
otherwise identical objects, to be paid for in
hour-equivalents. Yet the "cost" of making them is different.
-----------------------------------

Nope. Cost is labor, nothing else.
Labor is the constant, the "speed of light" to economy.

Wage *IS* labor-hours. That's NOT irrelevant.

So is price, according to you. Yet you have an
irresolvable situation above.
------------------------------

Liar. Price is cost is labor hours. Period.
The only actual exchange between two humans that is possible is
equal labor hours, hour for hour, all else is theft.

So, why do Dems lie?

Lies and Truth are NOT opposites. Most so-called
opposites are NOT,
upon closer examination. When lies are told to oppose
the Truth,
that is the only time they're Evil.

Doublespeak bullshit.

Nope, advanced Boolean algebra.

Right. I lie, I'm Evil. You lie, you're not, _by your
definition_. Boole never said anything like that.
-------------------------

What I said was advanced Boolean which says that something must
exist BEFORE it has a value, ala Claude Shannon.

What you mischaracterized was unrelated to anything.

You propose the same old thing; set up your Ideal
Socialism on lies, and it will go the same way.

No, that's merely you posturing disingenuously.

Now you're merely parroting Kerry's wife.

Irrelevant, she didn't run, and is mildly insane.

She claimed that anyone who disagreed with her husband
was stupid, and you're doing the same for yourself. Simple
elitism.

She happened to be right.

The worst thing about your arrogance is that you can't
even see it.

Equality cannot BE arrogance. When we are all equal we
can discuss
your fantasy of our "arrogance" in wanting what is OURS!

You now claim to know what I want. What arrogance.
-------------------------------------------

I make no claims other than obviousness. If the shoe fits...
If you are not egalitarian, then you're a criminal, there is nothing
else you can be.

By Democratic vote, of course, the sub-committees are
merely advisory
executive/research organs.

Ah, the "local committes" now pop back into existence,
under a new name.

Gee, now you're pretending that you're rewriting the
future with
your deceit. First you lie about what I said, then
accuse me of
changing my mind when I have to correct you.

No, I didn't. You claimed that your precious committees
will make all decisions "according to democratic vote",
includoing who does what for how long. I simply got the name
wrong. Don't be disingenuous.

The Majority Democracy decides, the committees work FOR them
and do their bidding!

Yeah, we've been over that, except you left out the bit
about local/whatever committees having to apply policy.
------------------------------------

Decided by the whole Majority.

And if their research indicates there are too many people
doing your preferred job, and not enough nightsoil
carriers?
What will you do, move away? You never did answer me
when I
asked you about that the first time. Suppose the committee
decides you're too valuable to allow to move away?

Everyone gets to do SOME of their preferred job if
qualified.
They must also do SOME of the other things that need doing.

And who decides how much "some" is? Not the individual
involved; sounds like slavery to the
committee-of-the-moment.

Everyone gets their share, they sign up, it is divided
equally.
No committee is required, it is a principle.

You still haven't adressd my basic question. Suppose you
want to live elsewhere, and the local/whatever committee
thinks you're too valuable to allow to leave. What happens?
--------------------------------

You have to train your replacement. People have to live.

If you are specifically skilled you will be required to
train
your replacement. Your education is a contract to use
it for
the society. Just like astudent loan.

Ah, right. Nobody will be permitted to get an education
on their own hook obviously, else they can't be enslaved to
your system.

You can go to the library if you please, but you will be
paid only
if you take the tests, and then you are subject to the
will of the
society that tests and certifies you if your skills are
critically
needed. Even this society has laws that say that if you
have been
notified that you'rea criticalworker, that you can be
forced to report to work in all emergencies. Back when I was
an EMT I was so
notified.

No. At some point you had to volunteer for this duty.
Does your Ideal Sociialism allow for volunteerism, or does
it "volunteer" your services to The State for you?
---------------------------------------

If you volunteer to study to be a doctor, or volunteer as an
emergency worker, then you are subject to the State, without
which that work for you could not exist and care of everyone
could not be offered. The State sometimes has to draft people.

If you work at a hospital to this day and a national, state,
or local medical emergency is declared, I guarantee you will
go to work and remain there or they will come and get you with
police and give you the choice, work or jail. And it won't
matter if you try to quit, what your family plans were, or
whether it's your vacation or your day off. That's the LAW NOW!
If you don't know about this ask a cop! He has to as well!

How can any State function if everyone does all the same
jobs? Shit's gonna pile up real quick.

You're becoming confused.
The jobs are all different, but they just PAY the same.

Well, now that the "sub-committees" are back in
existence, no problem.

All you're doing now is attempting to confuse issues.

The "committees" are unrelated to the topic here, but
since you had
nothing else you simply decided to be deceptive.

You might simply have corrected my misnaming of your
precious committees. But no, you have to feel superior.

They are not "precious", and you misnamed them
intentionally to be an ass.

Yet again, I must be Evil since I do not slavishly agree
with you.
------------------------------------

Agreeing with me particularly is unimportant.
Ceding to people what they deserve by rights is their business,
and they will finally extract it from you.

Please secede ASAP. Then try
living on the resources within your borders.

One: You haven't the vaguest idea who I am or what I do.

I don't give a flying fuck.

Preety well sums you up.

Actually, it pretty much sums up your Ideal Socialism.
Who you are and what you do has no bearing on whether or not
California could subsist, much less prosper, on what
resources exist within its borders.
-----------------------------------------

Whether I exist or am a response engine written by a committee is
unimportant to the content I am promoting. California can do fine,
as can most areas. Trade with other regions is a luxury, not an
absolute need.

BTW, have you reconsidered your claims about the
Which reminds me; what will you do for electricity? You
_do_ realize that across-national-border tariffs for power
transmission are somewhat different from interstate case?
The nearest Nuke plant to you is, I think, Palo Verde here
in AZ.
-------------------

No, guess again, Diablo Canyon, San Onofre, Avila Beach, and
San Clemente. And 2% of our power comes from wind farms.

If you hypocrities had built it in your backyard
instead of juggling regulations so it got built here, you
could keep it. However, I s'pose AZ can find uses for its
total output.
-----------------------------

You could starve and turn all your lights on.

Oh, and had you no reply to this part:

But NON-profit, publically owned utilities span the nation.

Because they're _prevented by law_ from making profit.

A practice we need to expand to EVERY industry in the land!

Then from where comes the added capital to pay for
improvements? NOWHERE!

Mark L. Fergerson
--------------------------------------------

Costs are passed to consumers, even foreseeable future costs.
But that's not profit, that is cost. And new facilities are
costed by increase to current prices for everything. If it
were profit it would go to the rich for NO WORK. It doesn't.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Mark Fergerson]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Two: Consequences have nothing
whatsoever to do with the philosophical question of so-called "free
will".

That's your opinion.

No. It's the truth, they are orthogonal. Consequences are what happens,
not what you do or don't do about it or why. If they were related we
could control not only what we think, but what happens, and we can't.
We can't change what we think, or even WANT to, and we can't change
its effects on others.

They are directly related; I was talking about the
consequences of choice while you're apparently talking about
the consequences of physical interactions. I see them as
being related thusly:

In your Newtonian metaphysics (feel free to correct my
misinterpretations/assumptions as you are forced by your
programming to see fit), what we do is completely and
strictly predetermined since the Big Bang; free will is
apparently an illusion possibly generated by the fact that
we can't see the entire chain of interlocked causal
sequences between then and now. There can be no consequences
of choice because there is no choice. What will happen will
happen, and that's it, both for objective physical events
and subjective mentational events, for the same reasons.

If strict predeterminism is not in force, free will can
exist in that we can examine the _possible_ consequences of
potential actions in order to decide which, if any, to take
within the limits of physical law. This is the point at
which certain woo-woo types try to drag QM in by making
consciousness and choice a result of uncertainty in brain
mechanisms like microtubules, but I'm not one of them. I'll
go as far as saying that QM allows strict determinism to
have a "fuzzy" basis on the macro level where we live, but
no farther.

Strict philosophical (and/or physical) predeterminism
means there are no options and never were.

In the specific case I was talking about, an entity with
no awareness of time can have no conception of causality;
making the First Decision to split (yielding a part or parts
that can experience time) could not be pre-assessed in terms
of risks and benefits because there is no way to have a
previous basis on which to make that assessment. Once that
decision is made and acted on, then and only then can
consequences of that choice occur. OTOH it can also have no
pre-programming which forces it to act one way or the other;
that's the basis of Original Free Will.

Yet you propose that "criminals"
suffer torture (consequences) as "warnings" to others.

It's the only useful or appropriate part of punishment.

Within your general worldview AIUI there can be no
"utility" since whether or not it has any effect is
predetermined, hence those to whom it is aimed are
unaffected by _it_ taken as a separate input. They are
affected by the entirety of what went before.

"Appropriateness" is a value judgement; my values say
that it's a waste of time and resources. Just smoke
incurable criminals economically and get on with life.
Physically torturing those you perceive as economic
torturers is simplistic vengeance which merely propagates
the idea that torture and vengeance are useful concepts in
and of themselves, applicable wherever one can justify their
use.

Yes, you've justified them _your_ way, but others may do
so in other ways. Setting precedents is risky business.

Deterence is a time-honored process that can effect what
others do.

If
those others are incapable of deciding whether to take those
warnings seriously, there's no point other than satisfying
your perverse enjoyment of others' pain.

You're confused. I said we cannot change what WE think, but what
we are forced to do by causation/fate affects the behavior and
thoughts of others. They also affect OUR behavior and thoughts
and we cannot prevent it.

Again, IUIC you're saying that we're simply automatons
rigidly following an interlocking cascade of strictly
deterministic causal sequences which some of us believe we
can affect, and some don't.

< BTW, would you care to explain how, in that context, the
latter distinction in belief can occur at all, without just
saying "because it had to"? Or did I answer that above?>

Hence the only place and time to try to change anyone's
behavior, or to place blame for their past behaviors, is the
Big Bang (or First Cause of your choice).

Deterrence is thus entirely dependent on, and as illusory
as is free will; those to whom it is aimed will either
respond or not as they are programmed. They _cannot_ choose
to heed or ignore such warnings; local causality is
completely predetermined since the Big Bang.

Specifying torture as a "punishment" is equally futile.
No threat will deter those who cannot choose to be deterred.

Also, no one can relieve a being of their fate, or the consequences
of that fate. If you effect their fate that is YOUR fate to do so,
it is caused as theirs is caused, by physical laws.

And there's no point in your saying anything at all
except as a predictable output of your mental "state
machine", such as the following:

Yup.
I can't help but say what I say,
and neither can you if my words change you.

Conversely, neither can your words have any effect if
they weren't going to. The soil upon which your verbal seeds
are cast is either fertile or barren determined by a factor
totally outside your control or anyone else's; they will
sprout or not regardless of how many times you cast them.

There is only one future for us, just as there is only one tomorrow
that follows today, just as there have been only one tomorrow for
each previous yesterday.

You cannot merely "decide" to do other than you had previously
thought that you would, that was CAUSED by internal processes in
you beyond your awareness and manipulation; you have no fucking
control of that at all.

There is NO such thing as "your will". The thoughts you think own
and produce you, you not you "control" them. The thoughts you have
include your entire notion of you, thus they PRODUCE the entire aware
construct you being aware of who and what you are.

They arise due to your past and the processes your mind does with
that past according to physical laws that it follows, the chemistry
of the brain is every bit as Determined as any other physical
phenomenon which cannot disobey physical law.

To prove this to yourself, that you do not control your thoughts
but that they "think" you into being, simply note that you are unable
to voluntarily change what you believe right now, even the tiniest
belief, except that it may change in a manner totally beyond your
ability to stop it doing so. Not only do you not WANT to change it,
and would have to lie to say you did, but if it changed due to other
causation you would also not be able to stop it! Note that you cannot
even change whether you WANT to change it or not, OR stop THAT if it
is determined to change! And so on, it's elephants all the way down,
and none of them are yours!

Um, if I have no free will, how can I lie?

You can't unless you're going to.

Okay, definitional mismatch here. To me, the verb "to
lie" means to tell an untruth _deliberately_, as in
deliberating whether or not to do so, then deciding to do
so. That final step requires that I have self-directable intent.

In your Newtonian metaphysics, I _cannot_ lie in that
sense since I have no volition other than the illusory sort
predetermined by my experiences etc. If I'm going to tell an
untruth, it's a simple direct consequence of the cascade of
events that shaped my experiences etc., not because I choose
to. Such an act would, as you say, be a violation of
physical law as blatant as a physical object exceeding c in
vacuo.

If you can watch a logic gate produce a "false" output
and call it a liar, then you can call a human a liar. In no
other Newtonian sense can a human lie.

Hence there's no fault to be found, no point in placing
blame except as above, no point in "punishment", no hope for
deterrence to work.

Nothing like this had ever done before. And this was the
point at which it was discovered that Pain Hurts.

That's the Lesson of Consequences All had to learn.

Speaking of confusion, you made both the following
statements without intervening input from me:

That has nothing whatsoever to do with anything you're trying to say.

Sure it does, we are conditioned to respond by our experiences.

You're replying to yourself there. I think I see why you
originally made the first statement, and why you realized
the position implied therein had to be modified to maintain
your self-consistency. Care to explain why _you_ think you
did it?

You're somewhat out of your depth here.

Desperate pretense doesn't become you.

Neither desperation nor pretense. This is
MetaphysicsLand, and Newton is a set of waterwings keeping
you out of the deeper, more interesting parts.

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:38:19 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

Mark Fergerson wrote:

snip

Once again, there is no bottom. You just think there is because of
the limited perspective from your POV. Why else would you try to
linearize such a concept?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Somehow the spacing got upfucked. It was s'posed to
underscore "try to linearize".

No, no, no, no, no. It's not linear at all. The reason I say that
there is a bottom is because you can't get any denser than a proton
without dropping out of space entirely. For Will, this means eternal
death.

That way the following makes slightly more sense:

Poor choice of words; perhaps "think there's a singularity of that
kind relevant to"?

I refuse to blame alcohol or herbs, but I have absolutely no idea what
you're trying to say here.

I was trying to point out the inappropriateness of using
terms like "top" or "bottom" in a nonlinear, nondelineable
context.

But by the time this goes around and comes around, I'll probably be on yet
another level again. %-> I think I've topped out at seven dimensions, but
after all, how many do you need?

Guess it depends on what I've recently ingested...

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Pig Bladder]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 07:27:56 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

keith wrote:
Walz is pissed at the world. If it were $.29 he'd be
pissed at anythign
he didn't have. Commies are like that. ;-)
Keith

Actually, IN EFFECT I want LESS than I already have.

So give it away and torture yourself to death, since
that's your oft-prescribed punishment for excessive
accumulation of material wealth.
-----------------------------
I'm on the side of good,

And you were told this by....?
--
The Pig Bladder From Uranus, still waiting for
some hot babe to ask what my favorite planet is.

 

[Pig Bladder]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 08:01:55 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 08:31:54 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Tom Seim wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message news:<41A04596.7677@armory.com>...
Tom Seim wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer <null@example.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.11.20.02.01.44.925063@neodruid.org>...
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:08:20 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 21:15:24 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
[rich vs. poor stuff]

But spending isn't primarily what rich people do. Poor people think
about all the things they would buy if they were rich. But the essence
of being rich is *not* spending. A billionaire may have three houses
and ten cars, but not 3000 houses and 10,000 cars.

Well, yeah, but here's the thing. To the guy who has no hope of
ever having even one house that he can ever call his own, that
second or third house that the billionaire just conjures up
with a flip of his wrist really, really rankles.

Would they also be pissed off at a millionaire that owns only one
(really nice) house?
----------------
You mean like with ten thousand rooms? If they don't have any and he
made them build it and then made them live there and pay rent?
Betcher fuckin' ass!

-Steve

Ten thousand rooms? Have you ever seen such a house? If such a thing,
were it to exist, would be out of the price range of a millionaire.
-----------------------
Even so, we're talking about mass deprivation. My analogy is accurate.
Don't be an ass who takes metaphor serioiusly to dodge the argument.

So, when do you plan to heal your own denials, which are, after all, the
cause of your victims' plight?

Inquiring minds want to know.
Rich
-----------------
No victim. No denials. Lies.

Heh. This is precisely what denial is.

This is THREE of them, one on top of the other.

Heal Thyself.

Or not - it's your call, after all. But watch out when your victims come
for their pound of flesh. Be sure you're armed to the teeth.
--
The Pig Bladder From Uranus, still waiting for
some hot babe to ask what my favorite planet is.

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 04:45:25 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Two: Consequences have nothing
whatsoever to do with the philosophical question of so-called "free
will".

That's your opinion.
--------------------
No. It's the truth, they are orthogonal. Consequences are what happens,
not what you do or don't do about it or why. If they were related we
could control not only what we think, but what happens, and we can't.
We can't change what we think,

WHAAAAAT!!????!?!?!

Who in Hell told you this? That's about the _only_ thing that you have
absolute, unconditional, iron-fisted control over. Your thoughts are
_entirely_ of your own making - there isn't anyplace else for them to have
come from.

Just unjudge. Undecide. Undeny.

For the imprints, you might need some assistance.

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 08:58:51 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Mark Fergerson wrote:
R. Steve Walz wrote:
....
You're somewhat out of your depth here.

Desperate pretense doesn't become you.

Neither desperation nor pretense. This is
MetaphysicsLand, and Newton is a set of waterwings keeping
you out of the deeper, more interesting parts.

MetaphysicsLand? Heh. "Welcome to the Future" also seems to work here.

How high above Flatland do you actually have to _be_ to see inside of
everything there?[0]

;^j
Rich

[0] Answer - not very high at all - according to the maths, any non-zero
amount introduces an entire dimension.

 

[Mark Fergerson]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

<brevity snips here and there>

Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

snip Steve's incomprehension of his doublespeak infatuation
with renaming dogma as "Truth"

That's not a reasoned logical response, that's just cowardly
vacuous name-calling.

I don't see how any kind of "reasoned logical response"
is possible with someone who casually redefines "truth" and
"lie" for their convenience. It makes it very difficult to
map your statements to reality.

Nothing I say needs any proof at all, it's all
structural argument
that is based only on the common human experience.

Yet another unsubstantiable claim.

It needs no "substantiation", it is simply what I said I
always
intend to do. It is statement of my own principles.

"Principles". IOW asumptions not relatable to objective
reality. You will not define "common human experience"
because there is no such thing.

Of course there is, or else wecouldn't even be talking like this.

No, that's a result of cognitive mapping in what appears
to be common. Actually, we have no conception of what's
going on in each other's mind, which should have been
obvious from our first converstaion some years ago.

You claim there's a body of "common human experience" on
which you base the structure of your principles, yet you
will not explicate that alleged body.

YOU just don't LIKE me arguing from WHAT WE BOTH KNOW because
it doesn't help YOU lie!

You still have not specified any alleged experiences we
have in common.

Your experience is not
mine, and vice versa. Be extremely careful trying to refute
that statement; you'll be reduced to using "spurious
factoids".

I need no such thing.

Then attempt to do so without them. Explicate precisely
what your and my experiences have in common.

Quit deleting what I said and then it will appear precisely in your
posts where you keep asking for it and make you look stupid.

I am uninterested in appearing smart or stupid. I'm
trying to get you to say what you claimed you could. What
I've deleted did not contain any such thing.

In fact I personally refuse to believe or even hold
anything to be
important that cannot be argued solely from structure
without any
assertion of spurious factoids.

Your assumptions are fantasies not based on reality.

A solitary statement that I'm wrong does not constitute any actual
argument, nor even a convertsation, let alone a debate!

Then demonstrate exactly where your assumptions rest on
_objective_ (i. e. not subject to interpretation) reality
instead of simply asserting your beliefs to be true.

Since you accept no evidence at all contradictory to your
position, I must assume that since there is also none valid
to support your position, that it is exactly equal to any
other such position; namely, it's an "opinion".

Opinion is what you have. Certainty is what I have.

"Certainty" based on fantasy. You have nothing else to
base it on.

But you offer no actual argument to that effect, you seem not to
grasp that any syllogism needs assertions prior to any predicate.

Assertions are fine for a non-science like mathematics,
but anything intended to have real-world utility must
eventually be shown to correlate with isolatable
observables. Even mathematicians admit that their putput
must be tested against reality. Where are your correlations?

It's like knowing how to count and do the arithmetic. You
won't learn, and so you speak in inequalities
and haven't the vaguest idea why those are unacceptable.

I refuse to "learn" to lie and call it truth.

Nobody is asking you to learn lies, because once you learn them
they aren't lies!

Saying frinst that Rather is right for perpetuating
falsehoods in a "good cause" is still accepting lies as truth.

I simply say that it is futile to argue with an
oppressor, since he isn't really listening.

You most certainly are not.

I just did.

No, you filter everything through your preconceptions.
You insist on mishearing what I say because you've assumed
that I'm Evil personified simply because I dare point out
flaws in your reaoning, some of them very basic.

Then you assume that I do so because I hate you or some
such foolishness because I use words that so easily push
your buttons. I don't know you well enough _to_ hate you. I
do know enough about the brutal, inhuman kind of Socialism
you propose to hate it, though.

Stop allowing your buttons to be pushed, stop trying to
push mine (calling me idiot, stupid, Evil, etc), and we
might actually get somewhere. One of the first buttons
you'll have to superglue is the one that makes you think
you're Right. You don't know it all any more than anyone
else does, and absolutism will get you nowhere.

<re: torturing "criminals" to death>

You've already said you prefer to watch it on TV rather
than dirty your own precious hands. How typically elitist.

No, just lazy and unwilling to be repetitious.

Oh, you've already tortured a Capitalist to death?

<snip>

Your criteria have no weight other than what you give
them; since you've provided no objective basis for
determining their valiidity, why should anyone bother to
take you seriously?

There is no "objective" basis for anything that is transferable
to an idiot like you. Truth is non-transferable, this is the
reason for killing people.

Odd, you seem to think that repetition of your premises
will result in others taking them as true.

<snip>

Your words have only the meaning you assign to them.
Hence you see them as unassailable. The rest of us take the
trouble to agree on what "true" and "false" mean first.

If the only meaning my words have were what I assigned, you
wouldn't even have grasped that I spoke, and you would not
have responded.

No, the problem is that many of your "meanings" and mine
are not the same. The reason I respond is to try to get our
mutual mappings to conform to something objectively verifiable.

You are so very pompously full of shit. You completely
fail to see your substitution of rational discussion with
the assumption of evil on everyone's part but yours.

Everyone? You're lying to assert that.

Overemphasizing perhaps. What "non evildoer" percentage
of the total population do you perceive out there?

To tak an extremely limited sample, how many
like-thinkers do you count in the sci. newsgroups hierarchy?

Yet your preferred "intentionally creative
mischaracterizations" such as Rather's,

He didn't use any such thing. Liar.

He most certainly did, specifically when he characterized
his sources as "unimpeachable".

He thought so at the time, so he wasn't lying. Lying is telling
somethingyou KNOW to be untrue.

No. He presented his source as unimpeachable with full
foreknowledge of that source's prejudices, which
conveniently matched his (and yours). Otherwise he'd have
hedged his ass off, if he'd presented anything at all. But
that would require him to attempt to be objective.

Having a prejudice about something is _not_ the same as
"knowing" it, unless you use "know" to mean "accept without
evidence".

and your insistence
that anyone not agreeing with you is evil, are OK. Right. So
much for Science and Truth under your watch.

You who wish to twist perspective and deceive will
receive the Truth,
and you will NOT like it!

Yet more baseless threats.

Nonsense. Prediction.

Still sounds exactly like a tent preacher.

Rather told the Truth. He simply didn't yet have the
evidence.

He lied. There is ample evidence of it, and exactly none
to support the contents of the faked documents he presented.

What he said was True, he simply didn't have evidence of
it yet.
He didn't know that at the time.

To repeat, when he most certainly knew the documents were
fakes because it had been independently proved so, he did
not say so.

He DID!

No, he did not. He and his supporters within the network
strung it out much longer than was necessary to establish
the counterevidence's credibility, at the end claiming it
wasn't credible by dismissing its sources as "disgruntled
employee's rumblings", "Bushite propaganda", and "internet
rumors".

How long did he take to even mention that counterevidence
had been found? He waited until it was no longer deniable,
instead of reporting on it.

How long did he take before he admitted that evidence's
credibility? He still hasn't.

How long do you think program material for anything is in the pipes?

Not too long for critical updates and corrections to be
aired immediately. You're flailing to find excuses for a
medium that prides itself on being more up-to-the-minute
than newspapers because you refuse to admit its liberal bias.

You are one of his faithful because you believe his lies,
and accept his excuses for lying.

I don't like him or the media at ALL, *I* think they're
WAY TOO
RIGHTIST!!!

Don't try to change the subject; we're talking about
Rather's lies.

He never lied. That you say he did is YOUR lie.

Oh, right. Your definitions of "Truth" and "lie" again.

Nope, dictionary.
When you KNOW something isn't true, you're lying.

That's my point. He knew while he said otherwise.

Until you do, you're NOT LYING!

Which he was.

The way we are changed from external influences is
from within,

You used to say that we cannot change our minds from
within at all. Lying again, or changed your mind?

We cannot, through ANY act of supposed "will",
change what we
believe, not even the smallest thing. But other
things from within
and from without will change us, even if against our
"will".

This is either your opinion or a lie.

You do not specify the enumeration of our choices in
that regard.

You already did.

You don't GET to.

I see. I am not allowed to participate. I am merely to be
killed.

No, you simply don't receive tacit appointment as arbitrator of truth.

See, that's the thing; neither do you. That's why I keep
asking for objective evidence for your claims.

I see. You have no evidence.

No one needs "evidence" for much of anything. Fully 99.9% of what
people do and believe they do based on the structural argument
in favor of it, not "evidence". History has been based on what
people did because they liked the idea, not because it was "proved".

So, you actually expect me to "like" your unsupported
claims whole-hog, and take your word for everything else?

Not gonna happen. If you've been paying attention over
the years, you'd recognize that we have many points of
agreement and a very few bones over which to contend. You
keep redefining words to maintain your position while I keep
trying to get you to see what _I_ mean without having to
redefine anything.

And whether some "evidence", which is falsified half the time, and
mistaken most of the other half, is useful is a very spurious concept.

Then present unfalsified, unmistakable evidence.

Nonsense. You cannot lift yourself into the air, and
you cannot
encompasse your own nature with your awareness. Any
believed
control is easily proved to be illusory.

Then kindly present a brief, concise proof.

Goedel's Theorem, look it up.

I am aware of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, and it
simply does not apply to the real world as universally as
you'd like it to.

Nope, wrong. Take us through it, why don't you, and I'll
point out how!!

You cited Godel; present your proof. I'll show you your
mistake(s).

You questioned it, show us you're not blowing it out your ass.

Quit dancing. You claimed Godel's Incompleteness Theorem
was applicable to the question of free will. Now you require
me to figure out what your proof might consist of, then
refute it. I'm not a mind-reader, nor will I do your work
for you. Present your proof if you have one. You sound so
confident that it's unassailable, it should roll easily off
your fingertips.

Betcha won't, or that you'll try to gloss over it
disingenuously!

Give it your best shot.

As I said. You're blowing it out your ass.

May I quote you?

"That's not a reasoned logical response, that's just
cowardly vacuous name-calling."

Stop waffling and present your proof.

I wish Kerry HAD handlers, he needed some.

The only time we likely heard from Kerry was his
concession speech; it was the sole self-consistent statement
he made during the entire election cycle. Oh, wait;
self-consistency has no place in your "Truth".

Nonsense, Kerry has virtually nothing to do with me anyway,

Except that you desperately wanted him to win. Why do you
defend him so vociferously? Why hitch your wagon to his star
if you thought no subsequent benefits to your agenda would
follow?

And where the hell do _you_ get off whining about
toss-off slurs, you Evil, posturing, deceitful,
disingenuous, lying, dogshitting, incapable of discernment,
nonsense-prating idiot?

I use them against Evil, you against Good and Truth.
That's the ultimate difference!

According to your own, unrelatable-to-reality definitions.

According to principles easy to state.

Except that you have to redefine truth, Truth, lying, and
Lying to do so.

And you REALLY don't like how easy it is to do that!

What I don't like is your self-dishonesty.

That's why you've hung on this long with your disingenuous failure
to actually address any issue.

Yeah, yeah, like your desire to start a State based on
telling falsehoods for "good causes".

The fact that American democracy is partially subverted has
nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of it that is not.

I see. Where on the literal Earth do you imagine
Democracy exists unfettered?

The fact that American issues are misrepresented by
Republicans has nothing to do with their actual Truth.

How about the similar relationship for Democrat
misrepresentations? Please don't reflexively assert that
they have none; previously you stated unequivocally that:

the two sides are NOT the same, one is quite a bit
better (less Evil) than the other!

If you'd simply acknowledge the inherent relativism in
this statement you wouldn't have to keep scrambling to
justify your apparent absolutism in so many other areas.
That'd allow you to admit that Rather is a blatant liar
despite his favorable (to you) political leanings, and that
Kerry is as dangerous as any other politician for reasons
specific to his and his handlers' own unpublicized agendas.

Then you could see that lying, for whatever "good
reason", is the insidious rust in any political structure.

Incorporating awareness of the plain dirty fact of human
frailty is not a bug of politicoeconomic systems, but a
feature _if_ it's done preventatively. Historically none has
even come close. Your intent to treat it with a sledgehammer
will not work any better than say the Inquisition did.

I keep talking to you about these things not to raise
your hackles, but in hopes that you may actually do better
than what's gone before. But that can't happen until you
adopt a more realistic assessment of human nature and the
fallibility of your "heroes".

There's your problem, trying to apply calculus to
economics.

Actually econonists have been doing that since shortly
after Leibniz
and Newton.

Yup. And they're all wrong.

Rightists are.

So are Leftists, for the same exact reasons.

Leftists don't bother, they simply destroy what you fancy as
"economics". You see, what you call "economics" is merely the
machinations of organized crime to us, which should be rooted
out like cancer. Any scientific approach to what we will replace
it all with is so entirely different than your grasp of economics
that it bears no appreciable resemblance. Gone is "investment",
"interest", "principle", "speculation", etc.

Your sweeping quantization of labor=value is equally
destructive in the long run.

In the real world that will destroy yours.

If, as you constantly indicate, you take no action to
realize it, it'll remain a fantasy. Which channel will you
watch your fantasy on?

Whenever that is, no one can stop an idea whose time has come.
One guy promoting it is irrelevant till the people want it, and
then they'll hunt it up like discovering a rock star in Omaha!

No. According to your own Newtonian metaphysics people
will want what they want when they want it, and nothing you
say will make the slightest whit of difference.

FTM, in your stated ideal economy, a made object's value
must decline over time.

Nope.

You said exactly that. Want me to Google it up?

Whatever *I* said, YOU misinterpreted it.
Typical.

I see. No point in showing you your own words. What
will you do, claim I edited them?

Now you're just lying and threatening to lie again.

You could save a lot of face by simply admitting that
your views evolve over time as details crop up that need to
be worked out and integrated. Sometimes that means
readjusting things all the way down to the foundation. Get
over it already.

Labor is equal, no matter the tools, and it must be paid
equally per hour. THAT is the moral right! WHAT and HOW MUCH
they produce
is irrelevant, they worked the same hours!

Speaking of Godel...

Did you forget that we were talking about whether or not
your ideal economy was "finite"? We now have two sets of
otherwise identical objects, to be paid for in
hour-equivalents. Yet the "cost" of making them is different.

Nope. Cost is labor, nothing else.
Labor is the constant, the "speed of light" to economy.

Here is a widget manufactured in factory "A", using a
specific technology that requires three man-hours to make
one widget.

There is an otherwise identical widget from factory "B"
which uses better technology allowing one to be made with
only two man-hours.

How is each priced? They cannot be given the same price
arbitraily because somebody's getting screwed; either the
maker or the buyers.

Here's a possible answer. You simply make sure that
markets are segregated so that the two products cannot be
bought at the same place, preventing "unfair competition".
That would be unwieldy because equalizing trade between the
two markets would be impossible and invite black
marketeering. Finding, processing, and "punishing" the
participants would be a waste of resources, thus this is not
to be preferred.

Let me propose a better answer. Both are priced at the
higher wage-equivalent so that the excess for the "cheaper"
widget can go to upgrading factory "A". After both are
producing equally, the output of both can be priced at the
lower value.

This is not profiteering, weaseling, or sidestepping
anything. It is taking reality into account by accepting
that it simply is not possible to quantize everything
immediately and permanently; some quantities will be in a
state of flux. Investment capital, no matter what name you
give it, must be raised somehow unless the State grants
itself unlimited credit (a very dangerous practice) and what
in the current economy might be called short-term
price-gouging is a viable solution that harms no-one.

Wage *IS* labor-hours. That's NOT irrelevant.

So is price, according to you. Yet you have an
irresolvable situation above.

Liar. Price is cost is labor hours. Period.
The only actual exchange between two humans that is possible is
equal labor hours, hour for hour, all else is theft.

I'm waiting to see if you had another solution in mind.

So, why do Dems lie?

Lies and Truth are NOT opposites. Most so-called
opposites are NOT,
upon closer examination. When lies are told to oppose
the Truth,
that is the only time they're Evil.

Doublespeak bullshit.

Nope, advanced Boolean algebra.

Right. I lie, I'm Evil. You lie, you're not, _by your
definition_. Boole never said anything like that.

What I said was advanced Boolean which says that something must
exist BEFORE it has a value, ala Claude Shannon.

We've finally gotten to valuation.

What you mischaracterized was unrelated to anything.

Except that you define Truth, lies, and Evil by your
preassumed values which won't hold still. If you ever get
around to re-examining them _objectively_ all those problems
will vanish.

Equality cannot BE arrogance. When we are all equal we
can discuss
your fantasy of our "arrogance" in wanting what is OURS!

You now claim to know what I want. What arrogance.

I make no claims other than obviousness. If the shoe fits...

Obvious to you, through your preconceptive filters. You
have no idea who I am or what I do.

If you are not egalitarian, then you're a criminal, there is nothing
else you can be.

If I ain't uncritically fur ye, I'm agin ye. Where else
have I heard that lately?

The Majority Democracy decides, the committees work FOR them
and do their bidding!

Yeah, we've been over that, except you left out the bit
about local/whatever committees having to apply policy.

Decided by the whole Majority.

The decisions thus arrived at and acted on are made with
old data. How to cope with unforeseen changes? Inadequate
flexibility.

You still haven't adressd my basic question. Suppose you
want to live elsewhere, and the local/whatever committee
thinks you're too valuable to allow to leave. What happens?

You have to train your replacement. People have to live.

Suppose like most of us, you're better at doing your job
than teaching it? Are you billed for a professional
teacher's time to train your replacement?

Does your Ideal Sociialism allow for volunteerism, or does
it "volunteer" your services to The State for you?

If you volunteer to study to be a doctor, or volunteer as an
emergency worker, then you are subject to the State, without
which that work for you could not exist and care of everyone
could not be offered. The State sometimes has to draft people.

Just like every other State. You'd better have a much
better system of aptitude testing than ever existed before
in place beforehand.

If you work at a hospital to this day and a national, state,
or local medical emergency is declared, I guarantee you will
go to work and remain there or they will come and get you with
police and give you the choice, work or jail. And it won't
matter if you try to quit, what your family plans were, or
whether it's your vacation or your day off. That's the LAW NOW!
If you don't know about this ask a cop! He has to as well!

Yes, I know that. It's also explicitly explained to
pre-med students.

You would have this apply to _all_ classes of labor?

<snip>

Yet again, I must be Evil since I do not slavishly agree
with you.

Agreeing with me particularly is unimportant.
Ceding to people what they deserve by rights is their business,
and they will finally extract it from you.

Yet again, you assume I'm withholding something from
somebody. Elsewhere you justify your "hoarding" by claiming
"stewardship" of the excess you admit you keep beyond your
needs. This is simple hypocrisy. Either admit it, or admit
that living in the current economy _forces_ you to
participate in "Evil" practices.

Please secede ASAP. Then try
living on the resources within your borders.

One: You haven't the vaguest idea who I am or what I do.

I don't give a flying fuck.

Preety well sums you up.

Actually, it pretty much sums up your Ideal Socialism.
Who you are and what you do has no bearing on whether or not
California could subsist, much less prosper, on what
resources exist within its borders.

Whether I exist or am a response engine written by a committee is
unimportant to the content I am promoting. California can do fine,
as can most areas. Trade with other regions is a luxury, not an
absolute need.

Except for fresh water, which California is way too short
of internally to support anything like its current
population or the high technology its economy depends on.

Not to mention a shitload of manufacuring subsectors it
has outsourced to the point it cannot make most of its
consumer goods, even necessities. BTW I do not mean to imply
that this is specific to California. The issue was whether
or not (and has developed to how well) California could do
on its internal resources.

BTW, have you reconsidered your claims about the

Oh, a reminder; the bit you "accidentally" snipped out
was your misconception of the source of irrigation water for
the Imperial Valley.

Which reminds me; what will you do for electricity? You
_do_ realize that across-national-border tariffs for power
transmission are somewhat different from interstate case?
The nearest Nuke plant to you is, I think, Palo Verde here
in AZ.

No, guess again, Diablo Canyon, San Onofre, Avila Beach, and
San Clemente. And 2% of our power comes from wind farms.

Yet you're perenially short of electricity, and overuse
of air conditioning is not the culprit.

If you hypocrities had built it in your backyard
instead of juggling regulations so it got built here, you
could keep it. However, I s'pose AZ can find uses for its
total output.

You could starve and turn all your lights on.

If we kept our water, you'd have to buy more food from us
than you have to now.

Oh, and had you no reply to this part:

But NON-profit, publically owned utilities span the nation.

Because they're _prevented by law_ from making profit.

A practice we need to expand to EVERY industry in the land!

Then from where comes the added capital to pay for
improvements? NOWHERE!

Costs are passed to consumers, even foreseeable future costs.

What about unforeseen costs? Remember our discussion of
the dangers of JIT delivery and the need to "put things by"
for emergencies? The need to upgrade factories can hardly be
foreseen when labor-saving technologies are constantly being
invented, and nobody, not even you I hope, will seriously
consider suppressing such things in the name of "equalization".

But that's not profit, that is cost. And new facilities are
costed by increase to current prices for everything. If it
were profit it would go to the rich for NO WORK. It doesn't.

I didn't use the word "profit" in my last sentence, I
said "capital to pay for improvements". Profit is where that
capital comes from in our current economy. As for public
utilities, they have to raise capital by increasing
taxation, or raising the price at which they sell the bonds
they are financed with. If fewer people buy the bonds, no
capital is available.

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 04:45:25 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:


Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:


Two: Consequences have nothing
whatsoever to do with the philosophical question of so-called "free
will".

That's your opinion.

No. It's the truth, they are orthogonal. Consequences are what happens,
not what you do or don't do about it or why. If they were related we
could control not only what we think, but what happens, and we can't.
We can't change what we think,

WHAAAAAT!!????!?!?!

Who in Hell told you this? That's about the _only_ thing that you have
absolute, unconditional, iron-fisted control over. Your thoughts are
_entirely_ of your own making - there isn't anyplace else for them to have
come from.

ISTM it's a prerequisite for slave mentalities in
general. "You're incapable of making up your own mind, so
let GovernMommy do it for you".

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Pig Bladder]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:07:13 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Mark Fergerson wrote:
R. Steve Walz wrote:
....
Opinion is what you have. Certainty is what I have.

"Certainty" based on fantasy. You have nothing else to
base it on.

But you offer no actual argument to that effect, you seem not to
grasp that any syllogism needs assertions prior to any predicate.

Assertions are fine for a non-science like mathematics,
but anything intended to have real-world utility must
eventually be shown to correlate with isolatable
observables. Even mathematicians admit that their putput
must be tested against reality. Where are your correlations?

I test my own putput against reality almost every night. How about you?
--
The Pig Bladder From Uranus, still waiting for
some hot babe to ask what my favorite planet is.

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:42:39 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 04:45:25 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:


Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:


Two: Consequences have nothing
whatsoever to do with the philosophical question of so-called "free
will".

That's your opinion.

No. It's the truth, they are orthogonal. Consequences are what happens,
not what you do or don't do about it or why. If they were related we
could control not only what we think, but what happens, and we can't.
We can't change what we think,

WHAAAAAT!!????!?!?!

Who in Hell told you this? That's about the _only_ thing that you have
absolute, unconditional, iron-fisted control over. Your thoughts are
_entirely_ of your own making - there isn't anyplace else for them to have
come from.

ISTM it's a prerequisite for slave mentalities in
general. "You're incapable of making up your own mind, so
let GovernMommy do it for you".

It's more insidious than that. By denying one's own will, one cuts oneself
off from the only faculty one has with which to tell right from wrong.

;^j
Rich

(Please see http://www.godchannel.com for an in-depth understanding of how
reality really works.)

 

[keith]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 19:04:43 -0300, YD wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 07:28:23 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 04:18:20 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:


schnipps

All it takes is to make theft of all types illegal and unfair wealth
acquisition simply won't be allowed.

So when are you going to get off your dead ass, kwitcherbellyachin,
and do something about it?

Dumb Fuck.

Good Luck!
Rich
-------------
I am, shithead. You start by talking.


For how long have you been talking, and for how much longer will you
keep talking before finally getting off your ass and actually do
something about it? You know, Viva La Revolución and all that.

....can't do that! That would require the consent of the majority. ...or
it's representatives in the Polit Buro. They haven't yet met for this
hemisphere. ...and Castro (Stevie's hero) couldn't get a visa to exist
out side of Manhattan.

--
Keith

 

[Blair P. Houghton]

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:21:46 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:56:21 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
Don't waste your money supporting the French enemy. Buy American or
Aussie !-)

Your money doesn't support the French anyway. At least, not
more than 70% of what it used to, ever since George "Economic
Disaster" Bush took over the dollar.

"So your $300 bribe from the Junta
is worth only $210 now. And it only
cost 1200 American lives. Happy?"

Poor clueless Democrat. Are you having any trouble buying _anything_
at a good price?

Yes; I can't seem to find a Republican with any integrity anywhere.

"Oh, and I'm not a Democrat."

Ooooh! Ooooh! Kidney punching!

No, that one was in the throat. These would be in the kidneys:

Poor clueless Democrat. Are you having any trouble buying _anything_
at a good price?

Meat.
Oil.
Houses.
Cars.
Tomatoes.
Leading-edge video cards.
Auto insurance.
Health insurance.

--Blair
"But lottery tickets aren't going up, so
the American Dream is still within all
our reach..."

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Two: Consequences have nothing
whatsoever to do with the philosophical question of so-called "free
will".

That's your opinion.

No. It's the truth, they are orthogonal. Consequences are what happens,
not what you do or don't do about it or why. If they were related we
could control not only what we think, but what happens, and we can't.
We can't change what we think, or even WANT to, and we can't change
its effects on others.

They are directly related; I was talking about the
consequences of choice while you're apparently talking about
the consequences of physical interactions. I see them as
being related thusly:
-----------------------

We do not have "choice".

In your Newtonian metaphysics (feel free to correct my
misinterpretations/assumptions
------------------------

That this has anything to do with Newton v Einstein/QM is an unworthy
pretense. There is no such distinction in the physics, both are equally
Deterministic in sharing Theory of Science.

as you are forced by your
programming to see fit)
---------------------------

It's not "programming" in any psychological sense of it being something
one can one can "resist by effort", in fact there is NO such thing as
that.

, what we do is completely and
strictly predetermined since the Big Bang;
---------------------

The "Big Bang" is a none experiential fiction. Time that is not
experienced is, of course, not of an experiential nature, it is
strictly theoretical and of a different nature than experiencable
time.

free will is
apparently an illusion possibly generated by the fact that
we can't see the entire chain of interlocked causal
sequences between then and now. There can be no consequences
of choice because there is no choice. What will happen will
happen, and that's it, both for objective physical events
and subjective mentational events, for the same reasons.
--------------------------------

No, what we have is the problem if being able to conceive of
a hypothetical, which is part and parcel of our partial awareness.
We are not fully "self-aware". We are able to be somewhat aware of
the tenses of experience, past to the present as memory and then
a hypotheesis of many potential futures, and that is the rub, that
we conceive of many futures as similarly possible, when that is due
merely to our ignorance of the actual solitary outcome and what it
will be. This "God-view" is what leads us astray, just as it leads
us to erroneously believe that we know "God's Will" and the weird
viciousnesses that religion is capable of perpetrating on each other.
To conceive of many futures is to pretend we can choose them, when
we cannot. All they are is possible outcomes we pretend to model
on an equal footing to "plan" our lives, when that is a pretense,
because by the time we are aware of them, our mind is made up anyway.
They are merely the manner in which we justify our mindset, no more.

"What we are" makes the "choices", but they are not truly choices
but cause and effect, it is our deepest nature, but "what we are"
is NOT either our awareness alone or its preferences.

Our thoughts ARE us, but we are not them, we do NOT produce nor do
we govern them! Instead, they PRODUCE *US*! When we pretend that
the product, namely our nature, is something our nature controls,
we have simply inverted cause and effect out of hubris. To speak
of the "us" as controlling what we are is to pretend we can decide
what to believe. We cannot change the tiniest of our beliefs.

If we could, life itself would not be possible, and here's why!!:
If we could decide what we would fully and completely believe,
in ANY degree, we would be able to change where we believe we
were, and where we exist, and we could become totally and completely
deluded into a phony reality that we develop at random from an
unrelated infinity of possibles, and we would almost immediately
upon being granted this potential, become psychotic and become
totally out of touch with our common reality. We would step off
the "cliff" of awareness into something totally beyond a rule-based
universe. This would actually be the end of awareness, because no
awareness of a random changing condition would be useful, and thus
awareness would dissociate, it would not persist.

Of course Buddhists say that the very few totally random choices
where rule-based Life Systems are "chosen" accidentally is how
Aware Life comes into Being and "we" arise to awareness anyway,
but still, what you are calling "Choice" is ACTUALLY the door OUT
of Life, choice is the very ANTITHESIS of Life. Choice is spinning
the Big Wheel, supposed "choice" then can be seen as Non-Choice,
and random, where the chosen and fixed is Our Life, and apparent
"choice" that is Deterministic Experience of a Life that we cannot
control.

The Very Nature of Experience is NOT GETTING WHAT YOU WANT. This
is what makes what we CALL "Awareness" at all important, as it
arises from a need to deal with adversity, and without adversity
Awareness has no purpose and need not exist. If we got everything
we wanted then our "Awareness" would atrophy and deselect both
personally, as wewouldn't need or use it, and thus also it would
be deselected evolutionarily.

If strict predeterminism is not in force,
------------------

The term in philosophy is Determinism. "Predeterminism" is the
"creation science" slanted buzzword used by phonies in the field
who come from the soft-headed religious pseudo-universities.

free will can
exist in that we can examine the _possible_ consequences of
potential actions in order to decide which, if any, to take
within the limits of physical law.
---------------------

Within the limits of physical law there aren't any such, because
your brain is also in the universe and gives rise to your thoughts,
thus your choices. The only alternative is to hypothesize some
alternate realm where congitation occurs and is not governed by
biochemistry and physics and can do something "for some other
reason" not well-presented by you. Let's see you try to show that
other realm and its rules and nature! Hmmmm?

This is where most people raised in the western Xtian world of
blame/guilt/shame-based religion and the mistaken belief that people
"choose" everything, find that their principles are self-contradictory!
They can either flee the question altogether at this point and rely
on what they feel "more comfortable" believing, even if they have to
do it vaguely and without clarity, or they find that the whole system
of words they have used in most parts of life to discuss these issues
are actually internally inconsistent!!

This is the point at
which certain woo-woo types try to drag QM in by making
consciousness and choice a result of uncertainty in brain
mechanisms like microtubules, but I'm not one of them. I'll
go as far as saying that QM allows strict determinism to
have a "fuzzy" basis on the macro level where we live, but
no farther.
-----------------------------------

Okay. Acceptable. But there is no other "level". Smaller than
you can see is no more than a hypotehtical, a way of talking
about rules and what we see on "macro"-screens and displays,
and NOT some "Real" place things happen. Things ONLY REALLY
happen inside LIVES!!

Strict philosophical (and/or physical) predeterminism
means there are no options and never were.
-------------------------------------

Options are chosen by processes outside and before awareness.

The trained physicist in me will wonder why you think that is
important, like seeing a medieval peasant in a riot chasing a
lost paper "Indulgence" across the plaza and getting stomped
for it. Even if the world is Deterministic it doesn't change
its Nature at all, and if you examined it closely you'd realize
this and relax a little, nothing has changed, the walls did
not come apart, we can have a Deterministic world and still be
deluded by this illusion of "choice" that occurs because of our
Awareness of hypotheticals, we simply have to be a lot nicer to
each other, because we are ALL victims of our Lives, in a sense.
And what we do to protect ourselves must be tempered with this
knowledge. In fact, what we do to perfect Humanity MUST become
INFORMED by this principle, that individually we do not choose,
and that we only are changed by the efforts of one another, and
that this happens against our supposed "Free Will" most often!!!

In fact, what many call "Free Will" is no more than either mental
inertia, or an excuse to blame people different than onseself for
everything their Life has made them and avoid Social Responsibility
for it, or AT LEAST public tax liability for it!!

Now the degree to which people are informed of this is of course
beyond their control, but people tend to improve society by random
selection that is achieved by this collective "Brownian motion"
advancement, where improvement is retained by its success and
failure is rejected by group awareness of it, and by our group
effect on deterministic individuals, each one trspped in lives
that they do not control, with perhaps the only improving input
to their lives coming from those others around them accidentally
discovering better ways to live and think!

In the specific case I was talking about, an entity with
no awareness of time can have no conception of causality;
making the First Decision to split (yielding a part or parts
that can experience time) could not be pre-assessed in terms
of risks and benefits because there is no way to have a
previous basis on which to make that assessment. Once that
decision is made and acted on, then and only then can
consequences of that choice occur. OTOH it can also have no
pre-programming which forces it to act one way or the other;
that's the basis of Original Free Will.
----------------------------------------

There is no such thing, there is only happenstance.

That is not consciousness, that is primordial schizm of Self and
Other that causes consciousness. The belief in Self is Awareness.
It arises accidentally, when it arises, and it only arises sometimes.

But it does not grant us any ability to choose "whatever", we
simply make the choices that we are forced by our beliefs to make.

Yet you propose that "criminals"
suffer torture (consequences) as "warnings" to others.

It's the only useful or appropriate part of punishment.

Within your general worldview AIUI there can be no
"utility" since whether or not it has any effect is
predetermined, hence those to whom it is aimed are
unaffected by _it_ taken as a separate input. They are
affected by the entirety of what went before.
---------------------------------

Everyone who sees a bad outcome befall another will be altered
by the knowledge, and this deterence is a "Good Thing"(tm).
If your society is persuaded to engineer this bad outcome to
deter a behavior, then it can be beneficial.

"Appropriateness" is a value judgement; my values say
that it's a waste of time and resources. Just smoke
incurable criminals economically and get on with life.
--------------------------------

To do so without informing others who might be dissuadable is
folly.

Physically torturing those you perceive as economic
torturers is simplistic vengeance which merely propagates
the idea that torture and vengeance are useful concepts in
and of themselves, applicable wherever one can justify their
use.
----------------------

They ARE. They deter, they dissuade, they even satisfy, and
that can preserve the peace and calm the victims and prevent
future crime, and vengeance for that crime. What can dissuade
anyone from profiteering ever again any better than seeing
someone who did shrieking on the 50 yard line at halftime being
tortured to death before 10,000 people? Chilling effect!

Yes, you've justified them _your_ way, but others may do
so in other ways. Setting precedents is risky business.
--------------------------------

Nope, horror comes from people taking vengeance. Not from
"precedent". Without justified vengeance desired from previous
victimization, no one could be interested in horror. It's
unappetizing without hatred. But with hatred it is heart-warming
and exhilirating.

Deterence is a time-honored process that can effect what
others do.

If
those others are incapable of deciding whether to take those
warnings seriously, there's no point other than satisfying
your perverse enjoyment of others' pain.

You're confused. I said we cannot change what WE think, but what
we are forced to do by causation/fate affects the behavior and
thoughts of others. They also affect OUR behavior and thoughts
and we cannot prevent it.

Again, IUIC you're saying that we're simply automatons
rigidly following an interlocking cascade of strictly
deterministic causal sequences which some of us believe we
can affect, and some don't.
----------------------------

Oh everyone mistakenly believes they choose, but that's only
when they choose what they are destined to choose, every single
one of them. They can't have effect unless by affecting others
but this is because they cannot help but do and say what they
do and say.

Plain "automatons" are not aware. But, you see, we are not merely
automatons, but AWARE automatons who STILL WILL do nothing other
than what we are destined to DO by cause and effect! Awareness
changes what we'll do, but not the fact that it is deterministic.

BTW, would you care to explain how, in that context, the
latter distinction in belief can occur at all, without just
saying "because it had to"? Or did I answer that above?

Hence the only place and time to try to change anyone's
behavior, or to place blame for their past behaviors, is the
Big Bang (or First Cause of your choice).
----------------------------

Sounds like baloney to me.

Deterrence is thus entirely dependent on, and as illusory
as is free will; those to whom it is aimed will either
respond or not as they are programmed. They _cannot_ choose
to heed or ignore such warnings; local causality is
completely predetermined since the Big Bang.
-----------------------------------

There was no "big bang", quit rattling on about it like an adolescent
with a catch-phrase. It's unrelated to life since our birth, which
seems what you're trying to say, but whether it's since birth or
life since we woke up this morning, perhaps having been someone else
yesterday and not realizing this, it doesn't matter. Life ONLY occurs
to one person at a time, that is the denomination in which the "coin"
of Life is struck, one Life at a time. No "big-bang" ever happened to
any BEING, thus its form of "happening" is totally specious, and it
is actually unrelated to any understandable or experiencable "time".

What happens to us looking backward from any moment of our Life cannot
BE changed, and its effect on what we are IS what we are, until more
experience alters it, and thus we do what we are destined to do, until
something talks us into something else, and till it does we have
nothing but our mind's cogitations upon that Past to determine what
we are. And even our mind only does what it will do chemically, and
physically, atom by atom, the same as the surrounding world, it is
as determined as any other physics experiment. Pretending we "decide"
is merely the recognition that we ARE ALREADY DECIDED!! Pretending
there were other "choices" we "could" have made is nothing but a lie
to give us a sense of control, or an ignorance of the process by
which we presented them and made them look unpalatble as compared to
our "chosen" "decision", while at the same time trying to pretend
they were palatable enough to "choose" INSTEAD of what we "decided".
We had already decided irretrievably, before organizing fully our
justifiaction for it, and we could NOT have changed our "decision".

Specifying torture as a "punishment" is equally futile.
No threat will deter those who cannot choose to be deterred.
---------------------------------------

People do not "choose" to be deterred, they are affected against
their desires, against any "will" they supposedly control, they
are terrified and will alter their public acts so that such does
not befall them. Even those interested in terrorist acts will
rethink their next move, quite possibly deciding to wait and not
do something that might result in them shrieking their life out
publically on some torture stage. They might be able to handle
capital punishment, nothing more than death by anesthesia, an
easy way to go, but torture?

Torture is VERY useful in conbating religious terrorists. If they
have to experience unbelievably painful prolonged hell to get to
some alleged heaven and 77 houri virgins or whatever, they will
think it out several more times before proceding, or not procede.

Without horrible prolonged, unimaginable painful torture, to some
totally poor bastard in the third world with no future to speak of,
death is not some horrible choice. The same is true in the ghetto,
which is why kids there shoot each other for little or nothing.

Also, no one can relieve a being of their fate, or the consequences
of that fate. If you effect their fate that is YOUR fate to do so,
it is caused as theirs is caused, by physical laws.

And there's no point in your saying anything at all
except as a predictable output of your mental "state
machine", such as the following:

Yup.
I can't help but say what I say,
and neither can you if my words change you.

Conversely, neither can your words have any effect if
they weren't going to. The soil upon which your verbal seeds
are cast is either fertile or barren determined by a factor
totally outside your control or anyone else's; they will
sprout or not regardless of how many times you cast them.
---------------------------------

No, each cast, of course, casts more possible effects.
You know that, quit posturing. You just told a lie and you knew it.

There is only one future for us, just as there is only one tomorrow
that follows today, just as there have been only one tomorrow for
each previous yesterday.

You cannot merely "decide" to do other than you had previously
thought that you would, that was CAUSED by internal processes in
you beyond your awareness and manipulation; you have no fucking
control of that at all.

There is NO such thing as "your will". The thoughts you think own
and produce you, you not you "control" them. The thoughts you have
include your entire notion of you, thus they PRODUCE the entire aware
construct you being aware of who and what you are.

They arise due to your past and the processes your mind does with
that past according to physical laws that it follows, the chemistry
of the brain is every bit as Determined as any other physical
phenomenon which cannot disobey physical law.

To prove this to yourself, that you do not control your thoughts
but that they "think" you into being, simply note that you are unable
to voluntarily change what you believe right now, even the tiniest
belief, except that it may change in a manner totally beyond your
ability to stop it doing so. Not only do you not WANT to change it,
and would have to lie to say you did, but if it changed due to other
causation you would also not be able to stop it! Note that you cannot
even change whether you WANT to change it or not, OR stop THAT if it
is determined to change! And so on, it's elephants all the way down,
and none of them are yours!

Um, if I have no free will, how can I lie?

You can't unless you're going to.

Okay, definitional mismatch here. To me, the verb "to
lie" means to tell an untruth _deliberately_, as in
deliberating whether or not to do so, then deciding to do
so. That final step requires that I have self-directable intent.
-----------------------------------

It's called disingenuity. It's a left-handed favor to you to accuse
you of telling falsehood intentionally to deceive, rather than accuse
you of merely being stupid. Even without "free will" you can have
the motive to deceive intentionally.

In your Newtonian metaphysics,
------------------------

That this has anything to do with Newton v Einstein/QM is an unworthy
pretense. There is no such distinction in the physics, both are equally
Deterministic in sharing Theory of Science which is Deterministic.

I _cannot_ lie in that
sense since I have no volition other than the illusory sort
predetermined by my experiences etc. If I'm going to tell an
untruth, it's a simple direct consequence of the cascade of
events that shaped my experiences etc., not because I choose
to. Such an act would, as you say, be a violation of
physical law as blatant as a physical object exceeding c in
vacuo.
-----------------

But still, whether you can help it or not, you're lying and a liar.
Of course you can't help it, who would actually WANT to be a liar!!!

If you can watch a logic gate produce a "false" output
and call it a liar, then you can call a human a liar. In no
other Newtonian sense can a human lie.
----------------------------------

You know what lies are, and you know that a large enough logic array
with sequential feedback can conceal data intentfully. They're called
secure encryption systems.

Hence there's no fault to be found, no point in placing
blame except as above, no point in "punishment", no hope for
deterrence to work.
--------------------------------------

Blame, no, death and/or torture as deterence, yes. Re-education if
possible, even by force.

Desperate pretense doesn't become you.

Neither desperation nor pretense. This is
MetaphysicsLand, and Newton is a set of waterwings keeping
you out of the deeper, more interesting parts.

Mark L. Fergerson
---------------------------

Quit disingenuous posturing. You know you can't defend that, you
even insist you don't re: QM. You know this has nothing whatsoever
to do with Newton v Einstein/QM.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 04:45:25 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Two: Consequences have nothing
whatsoever to do with the philosophical question of so-called "free
will".

That's your opinion.
--------------------
No. It's the truth, they are orthogonal. Consequences are what happens,
not what you do or don't do about it or why. If they were related we
could control not only what we think, but what happens, and we can't.
We can't change what we think,

WHAAAAAT!!????!?!?!

Who in Hell told you this?
-------------

No one HAD to.

That's about the _only_ thing that you have
absolute, unconditional, iron-fisted control over. Your thoughts are
_entirely_ of your own making - there isn't anyplace else for them to have
come from.
----------------

And so you fancy that your education and upbringing had nothing to do
with it at all?? Amazing. You're a simpleton.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Mark Fergerson wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 04:45:25 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

No. It's the truth, they are orthogonal. Consequences are what happens,
not what you do or don't do about it or why. If they were related we
could control not only what we think, but what happens, and we can't.
We can't change what we think,

WHAAAAAT!!????!?!?!

Who in Hell told you this? That's about the _only_ thing that you have
absolute, unconditional, iron-fisted control over. Your thoughts are
_entirely_ of your own making - there isn't anyplace else for them to have
come from.

ISTM it's a prerequisite for slave mentalities in
general. "You're incapable of making up your own mind, so
let GovernMommy do it for you".

Mark L. Fergerson
--------------------------

This is Rightist paranoia, born of religious brainwashing.
Religion becomes gummint for them, a love/hate sado-masochistic
attraction/repulsion.

The question of "free will" v Determinism has nothing whatsoever
to do with some social slavery, every slavemaster knows it is
comforting for slaves to BELIEVE they control their lives.

Realizing people do not is the way OUT of slavery.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:42:39 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 04:45:25 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:


Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:


Two: Consequences have nothing
whatsoever to do with the philosophical question of so-called "free
will".

That's your opinion.

No. It's the truth, they are orthogonal. Consequences are what happens,
not what you do or don't do about it or why. If they were related we
could control not only what we think, but what happens, and we can't.
We can't change what we think,

WHAAAAAT!!????!?!?!

Who in Hell told you this? That's about the _only_ thing that you have
absolute, unconditional, iron-fisted control over. Your thoughts are
_entirely_ of your own making - there isn't anyplace else for them to have
come from.

ISTM it's a prerequisite for slave mentalities in
general. "You're incapable of making up your own mind, so
let GovernMommy do it for you".

It's more insidious than that. By denying one's own will, one cuts oneself
off from the only faculty one has with which to tell right from wrong.

;^j
Rich
---------------------------

So who do you want to stone today, bible thumpah!??

People who think they decide, think they know right from wrong.
But they don't. These are the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Pig Bladder wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 07:27:56 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

keith wrote:
Walz is pissed at the world. If it were $.29 he'd be
pissed at anythign
he didn't have. Commies are like that. ;-)
Keith

Actually, IN EFFECT I want LESS than I already have.

So give it away and torture yourself to death, since
that's your oft-prescribed punishment for excessive
accumulation of material wealth.
-----------------------------
I'm on the side of good,

And you were told this by....?
----------------------------------

My conscience.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public