update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside

I don't know more about it then yourself.

You should be able to answer that question yourself by now. If toothbrushes decide then dead brainless mice decide too. Perhaps this is incorrect, it doesn't really seem to matter to the point at issue. They decide their state themselves or a decider decides their state for them, creationism would still be true, because freedom would still be true.

that was already asked and answered a couple of times.You still seem to be stuck with a concept of freedom that is not spiritual, that inhibits your understanding. The thing can go left or right, the decision is free, so theres nothing predetermining either way. So what decides is spiritual, and can only be known subjectively. You just need to follow common knowledge, in which goodness and badness for instance can make a decision, while we know we cant know good and bad objectively. So you see a brain does not decide at all really, nothing decides, that is objective fact.

The decision comes from nothing and nowhere, as I have said repeatedly, which is a scientific fact proven by anticipation theory.As before, the logic does not work any other way, because we can't have anything at all predetermining the decision, because then it wouldn't actually be a decision, then it would be forced and not free. So nothing, zero, does not predetermine, and therefore it is suitable for decisions to be there.And you all very well know that the cutting edge science of love as brainfunction is pseudoscience. The rule for science not to speak about what ought and ought not is a dead letter with a science of love. Why is it that many of those sciencefans do not follow daily rites in sustaining faith, sustaining their subjective opinion about what ought and ought not ?

As said before, creationism would still be true if inanimate things did not decide, because freedom would still be real.so inanimate things don't decide, only brains decide, creationism is trueinanimate things decide, brains also decide, creationism is trueI hope this is clear to you now after telling you 4 times or so.

Yes you are just not reading my posts. Professor Dubois really is a notable scientist, and it really is a first for some scientist to explain free will mathematically like that. So regardless of the merit of my argument, you should not blunder into something that is new and respected in science with your I've seen it all before attitude.post 50 - the decision comes from nothing, ie there is no brain, or knowledge, or any substance or process at the origin, there is instead nothingpost 63 - And to observe anything in consideration of it coming from nothing by decision from the spiritual domainpost 199 - That means we must trace back the likelyhood of the elephant coming to be to zero, finding all decisions along the way

You need to just use common knowledge and go with the flow. Since I can go left or right, then it's not a logical function for me to go left, I did not predetermine to go left, neither did I predetermine to go right. So that is why strictly speaking the decision comes from nothing, and just for convience sake we talk about the thing itself deciding, but actually the thing is being decided.So objectively speaking nothing decides, and subjectively speaking what decides is in the spiritual domain ie goodness, badness etc.

In the hierarchy of knowledge subjective knowledge or faith is highest. Statements such as "my parents love me" etc. That postmodernism is apparently subjective, well that makes it more valuable then science, potentially. So I think your criticism of postmodernism is misplaced.Reality works with freedom, or so to say, reality is less efficient then you think apparently. But on the other hand reality is more efficient by freedom, because according to the theory things are simply left undecided in a state of alternatives untill a decider comes along to decide their state. And even more efficient is the universe because first kinds are created in it, basic forms, as described before. So when you compare a single description of a basic form, and you have about a zillion descriptions of forms, then freedom theory wins out Occam's razor.Although this is irrellevant since you just have to follow the evidence of how things are.To see the difference, the choices will statistically follow a map of results, which map is different then the map of all possibles.I've seen the DNA anticipation theory applied just for the development of the organism into adulthood, the anticipatory properties of DNA guide the development of the creature to adulthood. I don't know about directed mutations.

I think you misread. Natural selection is not relevant in development, the supposed anticipatory aspect of DNA guides the development.Personally I think that natural selection does not exist at all, it is invalid. For natural selection to be valid there need to be actual "comparisons" made in nature on the basis of being a slightly different organisms as another. So it is not enough anymore to have some useful description as a science theory, according to anticipation theory hard science must reflect the actual way information is processed in nature exactly.And there won't be any new science after anticipation theory, since it is based on final causes. In principle using anticipation theory we will extract all possible information from the universe, so after anticipation theory is finished then comes the final judgement for science.And what you are all calling nonsense is in essence the simple knowledge of freedom as it is used in daily life on a practical basis.I suggest you try to think of a similar situations in your life where you had to go through a lot of options, but still guided your choices. Use your practical knowledge to try to get a handle on something which is basically inevitable in scientific progress.

You should explore common practical knowledge about freedom, find the structure in it, see if that structure works, it does, dont go philosophizing about brains.

I already explained in the thread. The most important thing to notice is that the alternatives are in the future.People dont actually use your knowledge on a practical basis, it is mere philosophy. People dont talk about being brainbroken, they talk about being heartbroken. So that indicates that your braintheory is just philosophy with no practical use. So as before, explore the knowledge you actually use yourself. That knowledge has a structure, that structure works. As explained in the thread but you should investigate yourself.

Your philosophy is not consistent with your practical common knowledge. Why fantasize about how freedom might work, when you have practical knowledge of freedom that already works. So just find the general principles in the common knowledge, they work, your theory simply does not work.

As before, I can go left or right, the alternatives are in the future. Now it is pretty more important to acknowledge this time principle, rather then the brain. We are interested in general principles, not particulars. So the structure is x has alternative futures, the act of realizing the one instead of the other is a decision. etc.

Right, I should look for more tightly evidenced examples of anticipation theory, such as about an harmonic oscilator, slime moulds, mercurys perihelion as ive seen mentioned on the internet. And then I will just reference these examples as a basis in the more broad and speculative researchprogram of creationism. But why oh why you all oppose such reasoning as with the creation of the elephant still remains a deep mystery to me. Your opposition says direct evidence means nothing, which is unexplainable. You have direct experience of alternatives in the future, and yet here you go asking me......nullifying direct experience, and supposedly that is the scientific thing to do.

As mentioned before, the debate hinges on whether the alternatives are in the future, or if they are in the present. When they are in the future, then creationism is true, and when they are in the present then materialism is true. Or so to say either everything is by decision, or everything is by causes. Currently mainstream-science has alternatives in the present, except this new science of anticipation theory. But you previously said you believed alternatives are in the future, so then your are just arguing in favor of creationism.Or perhaps you want to have 2 separate time functions in the universe, one time which only works from the past, or present and contains the future in itself leading to perfect predictability, and one in which tme progresses by a decision on alternatives in the future. That leads to a historical view of the universe of unique events and imperfect predictability.Now we all know that the last is true, that creationism is true, and why anybody would oppose that is some kind of philosophical game they are playing for God only knows what benefit.