Seeing Things Differently -DanP the apologist excuse.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

We can exercise our free will to do better.

You only think that because you’re in superposition, and this is the you that chose that action while infinite you’s chose not to and are still retarded.

- Doc

[Dr Exiled]

MG is here as a missionary - prepare, invite and follow up - anything out of his "mission" is off limits. He is so dedicated. He is definitely AP material.

Go forth in Christ, MG.

This comment demonstrates how folks can completely misrepresent someone’s intentions. Honestly? It is what happens during these discussions (focus on me rather than serious discussion) that I find uninteresting and then leave for a period of time. Then I have high hopes that things might change and we can show each other grace and forbearance…and I find myself disappointed again.

That is why you get very few regular type Mormon folks around here. You nit pick, find fault, and go all holier than thou. That doesn’t lead to productive exchange of ideas. Go back and read my posts starting at the beginning and determine where things went south. It was when ‘grace’ was taken away from the discussion and fault finding and innuendo took its place.

We could do better.

drumdude gave it shot. Res Ipsa also did until he became offended over one small and mild facetious comment I made…and then Morley came in and made a mountain out of a mole hill. Things went downhill after that.

Sensitive souls. Or is it for show?

Again, we could do better. But we all have to be on the same page and show forbearance with one another.

Imwashingmypirate, I have enjoyed your comments and insights. I was hoping/thinking you might get some more response but I think others were focused on me. Anyway, I think you have an interesting approach to free will and it’s limitations.

Regards,
MG

I think the problem is how you come across to people here. There is this presumption that yours is the better way when your proof is lacking and has as its basis feelings, not facts and analysis. Then you push it on everyone, like your selling something, just like a missionary would do.

[Res Ipsa]

…you indicated that your responses were an answer to my questions and then prodded me to respond to your A.I. copy and pastes.

Of course I’m going to answer your questions. And I would expect you to do the same.

After all, this is a discussion board.

But we don’t have to lower ourselves in the way we treat each other. We can exercise our free will to do better.

Regards,
MG

Your last couple of responses to Morely are among the most disingenuous responses I've seen on this board. The stark contrast between your kumbaya words and your behavior reveals the former as simply a manipulative pretense. Many folks here have invested their own time and thought into discussions with you, while it turns out you've been passing off chat GPTs words and analysis as your own. SMH.

[MG 2.0]

Of course I’m going to answer your questions. And I would expect you to do the same.

After all, this is a discussion board.

But we don’t have to lower ourselves in the way we treat each other. We can exercise our free will to do better.

Regards,
MG

Your last couple of responses to Morely are among the most disingenuous responses I've seen on this board.

I don’t see it that way. And I realize that we’re going to see it differently. And that’s OK.

The stark contrast between your kumbaya words and your behavior reveals the former as simply a manipulative pretense.

It’s not.

Many folks here have invested their own time and thought into discussions with you…

That is true. You especially, I might add. The thing to remember is that it works both ways. I also see it as ME having invested MY own time and thought into discussions with you and others. There have been many times in which I’ve felt it a waste of my time to reply to certain posters. But I have done so with the hope of being able to find common ground and respect going both ways. It’s not a one way street.

…while it turns out you've been passing off chat GPTs words and analysis as your own.

I haven’t passed it off as my own to the best of my knowledge. I’ve used it as reference material which I have then added to with my own comments/thoughts. I do NOT see that as being a ‘cheat’ or using ‘weasel words’ as some might be apt to think. The A.I. can be used as a great resource to quickly retrieve information that can add meat to the discussion. If you go back to one of my posts you can see that my A.I. reference actually gives three reasons as to how and why using A.I. in a forum such as this can be beneficial.

I can understand why some folks might be opposed to its use especially when the information obtained might not line up with a particular agenda that they may have. Or for some other reason.

I observe that there are some (pseudo?)sensitive souls around here who look for opportunities to take umbrage and become offended and then in one form or another lash out at the ‘other’.

Res Ipsa, this is one of those posts I’m referring to in which in some respects I feel like it’s a waste of time. Things will probably not change. But I feel obliged to respond to your post even though I think you’ve got it wrong.

I, just like you I would assume, have a desire to protect my good name without it being besmirched by false accusations and innuendo. Unfortunately I find myself spending WAY too much time doing that. This a major reason I am hesitant about participation on this board where there seems to be an inordinate amount of tribal mentality and ‘packing the room’. I am probably a glutton for punishment seemingly for subjecting myself to the constant barrage that comes my way but fortunately I’m of a disposition where I can take it or leave it to a large extent.

But it does sadden me that we can’t get past these predictable he said, she said kinds of things.

Well, enough on that.

I think Imwashingmypirate has had some worthwhile contributions to this thread. I would be interested in reading some more thoughtful responses to her. She does have an interesting twist on things.

I apologize if there are those that see my defense of free will as somehow attacking the house that has been built by those such as yourself who may see it as an attack on some of your foundational beliefs and elements of your worldview. But hey, that’s what this board is SUPPOSED to be about, right?

So maybe no apology is really necessary.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

You are the best evidence against the existence of free will. You just can't help being a dick:

I apologize if there are those that see my defense of free will as somehow attacking the house that has been built by those such as yourself who may see it as an attack on some of your foundational beliefs and elements of your worldview. But heh, that’s what this board is SUPPOSED to be about, right?

You don't even know what my opinion on the issue of free will is.

[MG 2.0]

You don't even know what my opinion on the issue of free will is.

Chime in then! If I’ve got you pegged wrong, by all means straighten me out.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

You are the best evidence against the existence of free will.

Well, that’s deep. C’mon, Res Ipsa, you can do better than that.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

There is this presumption that yours is the better way when your proof is lacking and has as its basis feelings, not facts and analysis. Then you push it on everyone, like your selling something, just like a missionary would do.

I disagree with your analysis and conclusion. In this thread as it has evolved into a discussion on free will I have presented my thoughts/opinions and additional information that can be used as food for thought from A.I. knowledge retrieval systems.

Not sure what you mean by “your proof is lacking”. If that is true I think you should be a bit more specific and then add your own proof to show that your opinion is based in fact and not innuendo.

If presenting my opinion and arguments is considered to be to pushy, then well, I don’t know how to convince you otherwise. I’m NOT a missionary trying to push you towards baptism as much as you might like to think.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Within a system their is an element of free will in that frame of reference if you will. But to an observer outside of that system, the free will isn't there because you can see the outside elements that come into play..

This is interesting. Some won’t like this but I plugged your statement into Pi A.I..

Here’s what I got:

The concept of free will can be thought of as relative to the frame of reference, or the level of information available to the observer.

Within a system, an individual may appear to have free will because they can make choices and act based on their own desires and beliefs. However, from an outside perspective, those actions may appear deterministic because the observer can see all of the factors that influenced the individual's behavior, including environmental, social, and biological factors.

This is similar to the concept of "Laplace's Demon," which posits that if a hypothetical being had perfect knowledge of all the particles in the universe and the laws that govern them, they would be able to predict the future with perfect accuracy. In such a scenario, free will would not exist.

Someone else here with more knowledge and expertise than me might be able to elaborate on Laplace’s Demon but to me it looks like the “hypothetical being” could be referred to as God. In and through all things knowing the end from the beginning. Even though we feel as though we have free will (and do as a matter of fact for all intents and purposes…accountability, guilt, joy in choosing right over wrong, etc….we do), God might be able to see it all from a perspective in which free will is redefined or calibrated differently.

Although I can’t say right this minute what that definition might be.

I know there have been some interesting discussions along the way as to whether or not God has free will.

Thanks for spurring me on to further thought, pirate.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

Within a system their is an element of free will in that frame of reference if you will. But to an observer outside of that system, the free will isn't there because you can see the outside elements that come into play..

This is interesting. Some won’t like this but I plugged your statement into Pi A.I..

Here’s what I got:

The concept of free will can be thought of as relative to the frame of reference, or the level of information available to the observer.

Within a system, an individual may appear to have free will because they can make choices and act based on their own desires and beliefs. However, from an outside perspective, those actions may appear deterministic because the observer can see all of the factors that influenced the individual's behavior, including environmental, social, and biological factors.

This is similar to the concept of "Laplace's Demon," which posits that if a hypothetical being had perfect knowledge of all the particles in the universe and the laws that govern them, they would be able to predict the future with perfect accuracy. In such a scenario, free will would not exist.

Someone else here with more knowledge and expertise than me might be able to elaborate on Laplace’s Demon but to me it looks like the “hypothetical being” could be referred to as God. In and through all things knowing the end from the beginning. Even though we feel as though we have free will (and do as a matter of fact for all intents and purposes…accountability, guilt, joy in choosing right over wrong, etc….we do), God might be able to see it all from a perspective in which free will is redefined or calibrated differently.

Although I can’t say right this minute what that definition might be.

I know there have been some interesting discussions along the way as to whether or not God has free will.

Thanks for spurring me on to further thought, pirate.

Regards,
MG

It's worth noting that Laplace was before our understanding of quantum randomness - that the universe is not a completely deterministic set of small billiard balls bumping into each other. There is uncertainty and randomness baked in, such that even a perfected human like the Mormon God would not be able to see the future. One of many reasons Joseph Smith got it wrong.