Seeing Things Differently -DanP the apologist excuse.

[Marcus]

As I do for you and others who have lost their belief/faith in the church. I give you the benefit of a doubt that you’re coming from a good place. A place of stability in your personal life where you are happy and fulfilled. Over the years I’ve heard narratives from people that have left the church and they have, in one way or the other, been damaged or hurt. You’ve seen/heard those stories.

So when I’m here on this board I don’t know (because of the nature of writing vs. listening and seeing) whether or not I’m communicating with someone who is carrying around some real hurt and pain and may not have healed completely.

You say you have. I will take you at your word. Your comments in reference to your brother caused me to consider whether there might be some ‘familial connection’ that might be unresolved in regards to friction connected with church activity/belief. You said that I reminded you of your brother in four different ways.

But I’m not your literal brother.

In my mind I felt that there might be some unresolved trauma or ‘bad blood’ (even though you love your brother) that is still in a state of flux or has not been resolved and so some of that is either consciously or unconsciously transferred in your dealings with someone on a board who you do NOT know but you may associate with your brother.

Some assumptions there, yes.

This my reconsidered and edited response from yesterday.

I told IHQ that the reason that I engage you is that you remind me of my brother. From the above, it seems that you're trying to weaponize that statement. Since you're pushing me to elaborate on this, here it is.

I don't have unresolved issues or bad blood with my brother. All I'll say here is that he has acknowledged issues with his communication style, substance, and methods. Though he's not LDS, his politics and view of the world are similar to those you've presented here.

I agree with you that you are not my literal brother.

You did get a bit jumbled up in recognizing what I was saying in regards to being ‘defensive’ and admitting that you were in a state of confusion. Last night was a Friday night, end of the week, and I semi jokingly asked if you might have had one too many. Somewhat in jest.

The problem with a forum like this is we all bring something to the room as I said earlier in the thread. This will impact how we see and hear the ‘other’. You’ve said a number of times now that you KNOW me.

Yes, I do know the version of you that you present to everyone here. I know what you're going to say and how you're going to say it. You never surprise. But I do agree with you on this: The other you that's not here--I don't know him.

And no, I didn't get jumbled. But I may have incorrectly interpreted what you were trying to say. (Or I may have been jerking your chain the tiniest bit. I don't remember for sure.)

You came into the thread accusing me of ma lfeasance in my communications with Res Ipsa. Essentially you made a mountain out of a molehill. I was being facetious. Period. And mildly at that. This comment which you ‘brought to the table’ then steered things slightly off course. You then came back and started belly aching about my use of A.I.. I believe I was doing so appropriately. But you hunkered down.

I didn't accuse you of malfeasance. I essentially told you that you were being an ass.

Whenever you screw up, you say that folks are blowing things out of proportion, not reading between the lines, or hating all religionists. In your world, an obvious deception (if performed by you) becomes a 'technicality.'

The thread then went sideways. THAT bothered me, yes. What was a good discussion, with Imwashingmypirate chiming in, became a discussion on A.I. and its pros and cons. You could have simply started a new thread on A.I. usage on message boards. But again, you hunkered down and steered a good conversation off course.

It wasn't about A.I.'s pros and cons. It was about how you were misusing A.I. as evidence.

I have nothing against A.I.. In many ways, I've found it to be incredibly helpful. In January, I finished up a three month project where I used a paid-for A.I. program every day. Without it, I may not have been able to finish the work on time. Because I'm familiar with them, however, I know A.I. chatbot limitations.

So it is what is is and here we are. The conversation devolved into a he said and he said back and forth which is a WASTE of your time and mine.

Not a waste of time for me. I have all the time in the world.

This has happened so many times I’ve lost count. The number of times that one poster or another comes into a thread to make it all about MG has been disappointing. Many good conversations have been disrupted and sidetracked because of tribal considerations and the tendency to polarize.

It's not about you. It's about your behavior. You can't expect to strut into a room, loudly break wind, and not expect be called out for it. Though, as you say, everyone in the room may have different perceptions, they can still all smell a fart.

Again, as I’ve mentioned over and over again, the only way to get past this is to look at the ‘other’ and give him/her the benefit of a doubt, exercise some grace, and pay attention to the content of the discussion rather than finding a reason to shoot the messenger.

The way you folks continually do this with DCP is disheartening, to say the least, and in the kindest way possible.

Pish. I'm so kind and good to you that, like Enoch of old, I'm in danger of translation. I've found that I have to avoid high places, just to keep from being taken straight into heaven.

As to DCP, perhaps you'll be good enough to make a list of the times I've ragged on him, so I'll know what you're talking about?

Anyway, Daniel and his friends are welcome to participate here, anytime. They don't have to stand on the other side of the street and shout insults.

Thank you for hanging in there. You deserve sainthood.

Pish. I'm so kind and good to you that, like Enoch of old, I'm in danger of translation. I've found that I have to avoid high places, just to keep from being taken straight into heaven.

That is a FACT!!!

[Gadianton]

Do animals have free will? Do bacteria have free will? Would free will exist without consciousness?

I've never heard of free will posited without consciousness, but consciousness doesn't necessarily mean free will. Consciousness is necessary but not sufficient for free will. A nervous system is necessary but not sufficient for consciousness. Of course, free will and consciousness are both nebulous ideas that nobody agrees on what they are.

Hard determinists probably believe in consciousness, they just call it "epiphenomenal". You think you're making decisions, but you're not. So no free will.

To see how crazy it is, David Chalmers is a secular naturalist (nice term for atheist) who rejects physicalism or materialism, and believes consciousness is very real, but is an epiphenomenalist. So when Dan and MG talk about reductionism and on and on, they are dated by a couple hundred years and don't appreciate just how many positions there are; they have one position in mind, nihilism and just assume everyone is a nihilist who doesn't believe in their brand of God.

If I were going to make my case for the existence of free will, here's my argument.

When I hit my hand with a hammer, it's exceptionally good feedback for my survival. Other experiences require a finer-grained approach, but because I have free will, I can make all these calculations and make decisions, and if I'm wrong, I'm going to experience more hardship and pain. It seems like organisms that evolve with consciousness and free will have a survival advantage -- the ability to make more complex decisions and extreme punishment for being wrong.

If I'm determined to pull my hand away from the hammer swinging down such that we say no free will, if the experience is epiphenomenal only, what on earth is the point of all the terrible pain? It's really a cruel baseline reality if there is no evolutionary point to the horrors of human experience not to mentions animals, if it's all epiphenomenal.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

... if the experience is epiphenomenal only, what on earth is the point of all the terrible pain? It's really a cruel baseline reality if there is no evolutionary point to the horrors of human experience not to mentions animals, if it's all epiphenomenal.

Well, you can’t “F” if you’re dead.

- Doc

[Morley]

If I were going to make my case for the existence of free will, here's my argument.

When I hit my hand with a hammer, it's exceptionally good feedback for my survival. Other experiences require a finer-grained approach, but because I have free will, I can make all these calculations and make decisions, and if I'm wrong, I'm going to experience more hardship and pain. It seems like organisms that evolve with consciousness and free will have a survival advantage -- the ability to make more complex decisions and extreme punishment for being wrong.

If I'm determined to pull my hand away from the hammer swinging down such that we say no free will, if the experience is epiphenomenal only, what on earth is the point of all the terrible pain? It's really a cruel baseline reality if there is no evolutionary point to the horrors of human experience not to mentions animals, if it's all epiphenomenal.

I think that what you're alluding to is that this is pretty much the same rationale that some give for the existence of God and the hope for heaven in the hereafter. What is the point of the terrible pain that is life if there is no reward, no rest, no justice, after we die? It's the case of letting what we 'would like to happen' defining what our beliefs as to what is real.

[Morley]

... if the experience is epiphenomenal only, what on earth is the point of all the terrible pain? It's really a cruel baseline reality if there is no evolutionary point to the horrors of human experience not to mentions animals, if it's all epiphenomenal.

Well, you can’t “F” if you’re dead.

- Doc

Exactly. And if you can't copulate, your species dies. Evolution doesn't care about your pain or suffering, it just wants you to make more babies.

Humans have raised caged chickens for generation upon generation. Biologically, they're a very successful animal, as there are hundreds of million of them alive today. For all of that, they live miserable lives. Biology doesn't care if you're so unhappy that you want to peck your neighbor's eyes out.



edit: But then, apparently neither does God. That's why he gave those chickens free will and the hope of poultry heaven.

[MG 2.0]

A religious definition of free will does not fit in with the world view of many on this board. I suppose that this, at least in part, is one of the reasons many folks find themselves saying (choose to say) that free will doesn’t exist.

And yet simply by making that choice they are exercising agency to choose.

Regards,
MG

LDS theology doesn't require you to believe in free will; LDS doctrine teaches that there is moral agency. There's a distinction between free will in all aspects and moral agency.

And just because you can choose to do something doesn't mean your decisions aren't without limitations. You have to take into account your state of consciousness, the things that come to your mind, the things you remember, and your chemistry. How many times have you said, "I should've thought of that"?

Yes, throughout the thread I’ve mentioned that free will has its limits placed on it.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

In terms of economic opportunity, sure, you have more choice than someone in deep Africa. However, in terms of opportunity to develop upon moral lines, I'm not so sure. If this life is a test, deep Africa will almost certainly test your mettle with greater rigor than Centerville Utah. While life isn't a breeze anywhere, a nice middle-class life doesn't present all the moral dilemmas that you'd face under mob rule and poverty. It's easy to keep the commandment not to steal if you've always had enough.

Anyway, I appreciate that you gave your own definition. There were no glaring contradictions and so I think you did a good job, given what you consider free will to be.

Again, limitations which we have discussed. Some have more opportunities and options, some have less.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Do animals have free will? Do bacteria have free will? Would free will exist without consciousness?

I don’t think instinctive behaviors in animals, including humans, demonstrate free will.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I don't have unresolved issues or bad blood with my brother. All I'll say here is that he has acknowledged issues with his communication style, substance, and methods. Though he's not LDS, his politics and view of the world are similar to those you've presented here.

What are my politics?

What is my view of the world?

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

I don't have unresolved issues or bad blood with my brother. All I'll say here is that he has acknowledged issues with his communication style, substance, and methods. Though he's not LDS, his politics and view of the world are similar to those you've presented here.

What are my politics?

What is my view of the world?

Regards,
MG

I can only go by what you've expressed here. How could this be about anything else?