update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside

So according to freedom theory are the decision making capablities of a living mouse with a brain present and intact the same as or less than the decision making capabilities of a mouse with it's brain removed?In terms of freedom theory what, if any, is the difference between the two in terms of their ability to make decisions and choices?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

What does that mean?
Can you give a more specific practical example of the difference?

Well I would say that the brainless mouse is incapable of making decisions. It's dead. It has no brain.
Are you saying that according to freedom theory the dead, brainless mouse is now incapable of making decisions too?

You have repeatedly asserted that it is common sense and obvious that freedom is true. However I do not think many sane people would consider it common sense or obvious that dead mice with their brains removed continue to make choices and decisions.
Despite the fact that your asertions seem literally insane to me I am prepared to put that on hold for one moment to further investigate your thinking.Surely you must admit that the apparent and observable ability of living creatures with functioning brains to make choices and decisions beyond those of inanimate objects or dead brainless creatures? Do you indeed recognise this? Or not?How do you account for this via freedom theory?
If you cannot account for, or even acknowledge, all the observational evidence that brainless entities appear to exhibit less freedom than their brained conterparts via freedom theory is this not a fairly significant flaw in the theory as a whole?A theory of decisions that explains none of the observational evidence regarding the ability to make decisions. That is a pretty weak position wouldn't you agree?

Where? I have yet to see you directly answer a single question in this thread. You keep asserting this but it is false and it obviously demonstrates the exact opposite to that which you claim to be true.I can decide to go left or right. You can decide to go left or right. The living, functioning brain owning mouse can decide to go left or right. The thing we all have in common is that we all have functioning brains (well....arguably partially functional in your case)A toothbrush, a planet or a dead, de-brained mouse however give no observable indication of being able to decide to go left, right or anywhere else. These things do not have functioning brains.Can you see a pattern emerging here at all? Brains = Ability to decide to go left or right.
No brains = No ability to decide to go left or right.
Is this not what the obervable evidence suggests?Even using your own simplistic left/right example just demonstrates the opposite to everything you are asserting.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

None of this tackles the issue of why things with brains are observed to have considerably more freedom than those things that do not have brains.Not explaining this rather obvious observation would seem to be a particularly fundamental flaw in your theory.How do you address this?

The fact that you think that creationism is true regardless of evidence, regardless of argument, regardless of reason and regardless of any comprehension of anticipation theory is indeed very very very clear.What is less clear is what exactly you think freedom is, what it is freedom actually applies to and why any of this would conceivably support any creationist position?Your whole argument seems to amount to: I can decide to go left or right therefore creationism is true.The problem with this is that conventional science does not deny you the ability to decide to go left or right. In fact conventinal science suggests that you do have this ability to decide whilst a toothbrush or a dead brainless mouse do not. As observed.

Studies of brain damaged patients have shown that the ability to make decisions, and in particular moral and social decisions, can be severely impaired and altered by damage to the brain.This pretty conclusively supports the idea that decisions are a function of the brain and refutes your assertion that decisions "come from nothing".Case closed?

And what you are calling the freedoms of daily practical life are the decisions derived from brains.Not decisions from "nothing" and not choices pulled out the arse of a subjectively known supernatural aether as you have been suggesting. Brains. Which inanimate objects and molecules do not have.Your whole argument is a mass of quantum incomprehension, physical impossibility and back to front common sense. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The end of science as we know it.........
We'll see.

Ah yes. Lets not submit to that outrageously philosophical position borne of evidence and observation that brains have a rather important role to play in decision making.Let us instead follow Syamsu's common practical knowledge based approach. The one that concludes that toothbrushes make decisions, paperclips are capable of love and walnuts can decide between good and evil. It would be funny if it wasn't true. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

People have had heart transplants without any indication of a complete change of personality or moral outlook.People with brain damage have undergone large scale personality change and, decision making ability impairement and even radical changes in moral outlook.http://www.findcounseling.com/..._truths_about_morality.html To deny the role of brains in the decision making process is like explaining night and day without acknowledging the existence of the sun.Syamsu I think you need help.............

You have failed to make clear why you think it is that real science does not allow for alternate futures.

​

You have failed to demonstrate how the theory you advocate accounts for the very real predictability of simple physical systems.

​

You have failed to account for the fact that no decision that does not involve a physical brain has ever been observed.

​

You have failed to show how the theory you advocate can actually be meaningfully tested.

​

Your whole argument can be summed up thus: "I can choose to go left or right. Therefore anticipation theory is true. Therefore creationism is true". You have literally said no more than this in a thread of over 250 posts.

​

On the other hand you have demonstrated a complete inability to comprehend any interpretation of quantum theory, a complete lack of knowledge regarding evolutionary theory, a willful ignorance of the scientific method and an irrational dependence on the "subjective supernatural realm" dressed up as "common sense" in the most bizzarre way possible. The practical result of this is that you have claimed, in all seriousness during the course of this debate, that toothbrushes and walnuts make decisions, that paperclips are capable of love, that planets and coffee cups make moral choices and that dead brainless mice are indistinguishable from those fully functioning living members of the mouse fraternity in terms of their capacity to make decisions.

​

In short you have exemplified the creationist position by basking in ignorance, opposing a strawman version of the science that you oppose and clinging to bloody minded certainty despite the self evident stupidity and absurdity of your position. The only difference is that in this case the ridiculousness of your position is sooooo unbelievably plain as to be humiliating. I suspect that even the creationists who have witnessed your arguments think you are an embarrassment to the cause.

​

Anyway. I have a date with a very loving, benevolent and morally upstanding toaster. So I will have to leave you to your insanity.

​

WARNING: Abandon hope all ye who enter here. This thread is no place for rational human beings (or like minded chocolate bars)

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Time is not a series of decisions rather it is a series of instants. We have all experienced instants. So instants obviously exist. Decisions are a subjectively derived cause and effect amalgam of sequentially simultaneous instants by means of which the predetermined pathways of time are traversed. The scientific method is the unconscious subjugation of instants such that various instants can be analyzed from a pseudo objectified perspective. Thus the conclusions of science are reached.
Where freedom theory falls down is in the application of instants to the decision making capabilities of toothbrushes. Toothbrushes obviously cannot make decisions because they lack the capacity to instantantionalise reality. On the other hand coffee cups do have some decision making capacity as "coffee breaks" and other such "events" require the instantaneous sharing of parallel instants with conscious beings such as mice and humans. Overly caffeinated mice however should always be restrained unless their brains have first been removed. Otherwise instantational pulses will cause the increased immorality of planetary motions thus breaking the conservation of instantons which will in turn lead to a loss of spatial awareness. Instantly.Thus freedom theory has been demonstrated to be flawed. It is an approximation method to the true workings of instants theory.
I suggest that those advocates of freedom theory stop resisting the self evident existence of instants as experienced in person by every one of us and immerse themselves in this fascinating superior model.I am happy to answer any questions regarding this topic.

Why do you deny the existence and importance of instants when you are experiencing one now? And another. And another. Your resistance is irrational. You should seek to understand. Rejecting the reality of instants will not help you move forwards intellectually.You just need to make the paradigm shift from decisions to moments. Of course moments are the way in which we as decision making beings experience collections of instants within the limitations of our perception. If you make that transdimensional breakthrough then the collective moment of instantaneous realisation will manifest itself upon you.Consider for example the moment of conception. This profound moment in the timeline traversion of every living thing is a key collection of initiation instants. Of course some instants are more important than others. Some instants last longer than others in objective time. In the case of conception some moments are also all too instant. Alas. It is this relationship that you need to grasp in order to get beyond a mere approximation theory of decisons such that you can appreciate the true instantiated nature of time progression in a closed dimensional manifold space.If you are just willing to forego all reason, rationality and decsion making ability then you too will understand this all encomapssing concept.Feel free to ask any questions. I am here to help.Edited by Straggler, : Edited a sentance that made no sense

The consistency of simultaneaously consecutive instants or 'momentary lapse theory' as I like to call it is indeed a fascinating topic. How can one instant precede another whilst seemingly contradicting all prior and subsequent instants?The answer of course lies in perceptory moments and the angular momentum of thought. Especially in relation to the decision making process. Where the momentum of conscious thought is conserved (as it must be) an instant can lie outside of the moment such that the contradiction co-efficient is reversed and the "anti-instant" cancels out the momentarily perceived contradiction. The mathematicss of this is relatively simple and can be demonstrated if you are unable to derive this for yourself.As regards your secondary point I refer you to my previous post.For a simple overview of the founding principles of 'instants theory' see the link provided http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0206063