541

Flat Earth Community / Re: Logan Paul allegedly comes out as a Flat Earther

« on: November 18, 2018, 03:44:41 PM »

I would see TFES responding the way any civil group would respond. How would Pizza Hut respond if Logan had worn a Pizza Hut t-shirt in his Japanese forest video? They might release a generalized response to questions on social media but won't play with him directly.

The dude's a question mark. Treat him like any newbie poster.

542

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved

« on: November 18, 2018, 03:20:59 PM »

There's an uncertainty principle at work in our existence. There's a point so far away in any combination of distance, size and time that there's a sort of wave form collapse into pure potentiality. For us to measure it, we have to artificially pin down one aspect to measure any other. There's a limit to what we can know so beyond that limit we get to make up what ever we want.


If determinism really freaked me out I would take comfort in the opposite, more new age ideology that the observer is part of the observed. That consciousness is relative and without it, nothing manifests either backward or forward in time. These people say that not only do we have free will but the world around us is actually a quantum mechanical manifestation of our own.

As an experiment, we could get 200 determinists and 200 followers of Deepak Choprah fight in a melee armed with short pieces of pipe to beat the crap out of each other. If the determinists win, it shows the outcome was predestine from the beginning of time. If the Choprah followers win, it proves they manifested their outcome from consciousness. It works with our religions, the one with the most resources and followers gets to declare universal truth.


I think my post also proves the existence and role of Useless Tautology in our universe. Useless Tautology ( abbreviated UT) is the force that accelerates the flat earth upward creating the gravity and physics we experience.

543

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved

« on: November 16, 2018, 05:26:15 PM »

People pick their perceived path of pleasure. My belief that I am predestined to have a certain kind of dinner in no way diminishes the fact that I enjoy dinner, I need dinner, and it will be my (say it with me now) perceived path of pleasure.

This seems pretty inarguable because there's literally no way to prove it true or false. No matter what scenario myself or Thork gives, you'll just say "oh whether you know it or not, that's your perceived path of pleasure". I've done things that I've gained no pleasure from because I feel like it's The Right Thing To Do™, even if I selfishly don't want to do it and feel shitty and grumpy about it. But I'm guessing you'll say I think it'll bring me something in the long run or whatever. Which, again, loops around to my point of what's the point of even discussing this if literally any answer we give is going to be rebutted with "actually that's your perceived path of pleasure, either now or later"? If I'm writing a song and need a rhyme and decide lamp or damp or ramp or tramp, I am exercising free will and considering it, and I will end up going with one for a myriad of reasons. Maybe it fits the song better, maybe I like something else but think another works better thematically.

But, again, I'm guessing: Perceived Path of Pleasure©

Also, things that feel bad physically are usually done only if they feel good in your head. As in you would feel bad if you didn't do something that benefits someone else. In this case, if doing something hurts you but helps someone else, then you will try to figure out if it would feel worse to help someone or don't do anything. In any case, you will pick the one that feels better compare to the other. Again, unless your a masochist, you will pick the path that feels the best. And that feeling does not need to be physical.

Keep in mind, it's the determinists oppressing all free will with no escape.

What you perceive as pain or pleasure is a result of your personal biochemistry and personal psychology. You biochemistry is the result of everything that ever happened to your genetics since the first organism. Your personal psychology is is the result of everything that ever happened to you. The things that happen to you genetically and psychologically was spawned by the events that happened before and they were spawned by the previous events. Their theory says that everything you do or feel can be traced back to the beginning of time. If you change your mind about something at the last minute, that last minute change is as preprogrammed in you as your hair color.

It's easy for someone to connect aspects of our existence to a large scale frame of reference that can't be proven. We need to come up with a thought experiment or equation trying to connect with a frame of reference beyond all that is possible. There was Goedel's Ontological Proof formula which purported to prove the existence of God but my understanding is that it had problems that rendered it unusable.


So the first one to develop an equation connecting our everything to some other everything beyond our everything wins a $5 Amazon gift card.

544

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved

« on: November 15, 2018, 06:47:54 PM »

I have worked over the course of my life to be a better person. I aspire to be better and I know I'm more aware, caring, and honest than I was as a snotty teenager. I believe it was my freewill choice to take that course rather than let my emotions, instinct and appetites guide my actions.

The threat to my freewill comes from the deterministic idea that all events in the world are caused by prior events. As I am an series of events in the world, my current actions can be traced to previous events traced to previous events traced to previous events all the way back to the beginning of time. Everything was predestined by the shape of a nugget at the heart of the big bang. It is my personal arrogance that makes me believe I have free will.

However, when we create a frame of reference that is so large as to encompass all that is possibly knowable, it leaves us with an unknowable void that we can fill with anything we choose. We can't know or affect anything beyond all that is knowable so insert the forces, deity or emptiness of your choice.

In the words of one neo-classical philosopher, "I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose free will."

I would agree with most of this but I would not equivocate forces with deities. Deities do fill part of the void with a purpose, reason, etc. However mathematical equations based on the forces observed in nature have incredible predictive ability that give them a tangible value. If having understanding forces was the same thing as having faith in a deity, I doubt we would be able to communicate through forums, on the internet, on a computer. While different people have different interpretations of deities, it took a collective agreement on how electrons, atoms, etc, interact in order to make this conversation possible.

Some good points on deities vs forces but the hard core determinists will say that I'm just a force that can be measured and if they could account for thousands of variables they could predict my behavior just like the weather. If they were to believe in God, they could apply the same logic. "If we had enough data on God we could predict his behavior."

I want to believe that God and I are fine people acting with awareness, purpose and reason. That we're not just a manifestation of molecular jumbling. But I don't have an answer to the determinists other than to tell them, "I know you're wrong because I control my destiny." Since their ideology stretches to the unknowable and untestable they can't prove me wrong. Since they can't prove God wrong, God can just politely show them his big middle finger.


I wanted to take some credit for developing from a snotty teenager into a wise, weird, old hipster but now you shot the shit out of that. Which means now I'm just a balding, old fart with knobbly knees that can't sing or dance destined to be that way from the beginning of time. 

545

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved

« on: November 15, 2018, 03:11:48 PM »

I have worked over the course of my life to be a better person. I aspire to be better and I know I'm more aware, caring, and honest than I was as a snotty teenager. I believe it was my freewill choice to take that course rather than let my emotions, instinct and appetites guide my actions.

The threat to my freewill comes from the deterministic idea that all events in the world are caused by prior events. As I am an series of events in the world, my current actions can be traced to previous events traced to previous events traced to previous events all the way back to the beginning of time. Everything was predestined by the shape of a nugget at the heart of the big bang. It is my personal arrogance that makes me believe I have free will.

However, when we create a frame of reference that is so large as to encompass all that is possibly knowable, it leaves us with an unknowable void that we can fill with anything we choose. We can't know or affect anything beyond all that is knowable so insert the forces, deity or emptiness of your choice.

In the words of one neo-classical philosopher, "I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose free will."

546

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved

« on: November 14, 2018, 11:09:11 PM »

Why do you think there is some hierarchy of consciousness that we just happen to be at the top of? What does a higher level of consciousness even mean?

I think that awareness (consciousness) is relative just like movement. There has to be something less conscious, equally conscious, more conscious  or unconscious to be conscious of. If humans weren't around, some other animal would be at the top spot of awareness in the sense they are more advanced that other species.

Meanwhile, there could be some larger consciousness talking about freewill on a forum somewhere looking over us like we're the monkeys .

I can agree that a conscious reality implies a non conscious one, and vice-versa, but you have still not explained what it means to be more or less conscious.

I think it is the distance between the conscious and the unconscious that make one more or less conscious. A virus particle is just a few molecules from inert matter so it would be a 'low form.' An bacteria is 'farther' from inert molecules so it would be higher. The hierarchy would progress as more complex organisms sustain more complex awareness. It takes a certain level of complexity to sustain full-on free will.

If I can make this theory work, I'm thinking of starting my own religion.

547

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved

« on: November 14, 2018, 10:53:35 PM »

Why do you think there is some hierarchy of consciousness that we just happen to be at the top of? What does a higher level of consciousness even mean?

I think that awareness (consciousness) is relative just like movement. There has to be something less conscious, equally conscious, more conscious  or unconscious to be conscious of. If humans weren't around, some other animal would be at the top spot of awareness in the sense they are more advanced that other species.

Meanwhile, there could be some larger consciousness talking about freewill on a forum somewhere looking over us like we're the monkeys .

548

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved

« on: November 14, 2018, 10:38:23 PM »

Some people don't seem to have free will. They simply are carried along by their emotions and instinct. I think we can choose free will or we can abandon it.

We can literally destroy peoples agency by destroying a part of their brain.  Our subjective perception of free will often does not match up with what is objectively happening in our brain.

Yes, we can reduce someone to a vegetable that has no free will. They may be dreaming that they are free and partying under their own free will but we see them laying there. Relative to us they have no free will.

In Thork's video, we see animals making a choice.

This is a narrative you are ascribing to the animal.  For all you know, it could be having purely a physiological reaction to a hormone.

There are some who claim that animals are as aware and conscious as people.

Many animals likely are.  There is little reason to think that we sit in some preferential tier of the consciousness hierarchy.

I think consciousness is relative and can vary among individuals. I think generally we have a higher level of consciousness than animals but on an individual level not so sure sometimes...

549

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved

« on: November 14, 2018, 10:27:47 PM »

If an animal is acting on instinct, is that free will?
When a tiger eats a monkey, I don't see that as a decision of free will rather than mindless nature. The decision to prey upon Monkey A instead of Monkey B is just an expression of nature like water flowing downhill.

As humans, I believe we can choose to mindlessly follow instinct. Some people have very little self awareness or mindfullness. They are simply reacting to their environment. We have the option to question our instinct and make choices.

The deterministic argument that all our choices are based mechanically on the sum reactions to our experiences still feels like free will to me. But instead of making those decisions in the moment, I made those decisions back when we still stardust and they are just now being manifested.

Then what is even the point of having the term free will? With this reasoning I have as much free will as a rock which has as much free will as any other particle. This reasoning also requires us to completely redefine our definition of a decision for the sole purpose of being able to apply it to inanimate objects. What is the point of this?

Some people don't seem to have free will. They simply are carried along by their emotions and instinct. I think we can choose free will or we can abandon it.

In Thork's video, we see animals making a choice. There are some who claim that animals are as aware and conscious as people. The problem is that I've met some people who were only dimly aware of their own existence and I've met some animals that seem very aware of themselves.

It makes sense. I'll enjoy the company of a smart animal over a dumb person any day (assuming the animal isn't a large predator thinking about lunch.)

Do you think that people had free will when they were stardust, or that they have free will now and have the ability to give it up?

Personally, I'm starting to think that all our decisions (including the decision to abandon freewill) were made back in our stardust days. However, those arguing against free will will say it was not actual decisions we made in stardust times but simply the way the molecules stacked up before the big bang. Whether you are a doctor or murderer is said to be the sum of the influences during your life and all the preexisting conditions before your life.

I want to believe in free will. There were times I made the conscious choice not to be an asshole and I think my life is better for it. I want some credit for not being an asshole (not a total asshole anyway.)

550

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved

« on: November 14, 2018, 10:08:31 PM »

If an animal is acting on instinct, is that free will?
When a tiger eats a monkey, I don't see that as a decision of free will rather than mindless nature. The decision to prey upon Monkey A instead of Monkey B is just an expression of nature like water flowing downhill.

As humans, I believe we can choose to mindlessly follow instinct. Some people have very little self awareness or mindfullness. They are simply reacting to their environment. We have the option to question our instinct and make choices.

The deterministic argument that all our choices are based mechanically on the sum reactions to our experiences still feels like free will to me. But instead of making those decisions in the moment, I made those decisions back when we still stardust and they are just now being manifested.

Then what is even the point of having the term free will? With this reasoning I have as much free will as a rock which has as much free will as any other particle. This reasoning also requires us to completely redefine our definition of a decision for the sole purpose of being able to apply it to inanimate objects. What is the point of this?

Some people don't seem to have free will. They simply are carried along by their emotions and instinct. I think we can choose free will or we can abandon it.

In Thork's video, we see animals making a choice. There are some who claim that animals are as aware and conscious as people. The problem is that I've met some people who were only dimly aware of their own existence and I've met some animals that seem very aware of themselves.

It makes sense. I'll enjoy the company of a smart animal over a dumb person any day (assuming the animal isn't a large predator thinking about lunch.)

551

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved

« on: November 14, 2018, 09:46:06 PM »

If an animal is acting on instinct, is that free will?
When a tiger eats a monkey, I don't see that as a decision of free will rather than mindless nature. The decision to prey upon Monkey A instead of Monkey B is just an expression of nature like water flowing downhill.

As humans, I believe we can choose to mindlessly follow instinct. Some people have very little self awareness or mindfullness. They are simply reacting to their environment. We have the option to question our instinct and make choices.

The deterministic argument that all our choices are based mechanically on the sum reactions to our experiences still feels like free will to me. But instead of making those decisions in the moment, I made those decisions back when we still stardust and they are just now being manifested.

552

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Increased gravity at the poles?

« on: November 12, 2018, 09:45:52 PM »

Ambient pressure is distributed in all directions. As someone pointed out upthread, it has no vector.

The weight of the water surrounds each sand grain from all directions.  It does not push 'down.'

You are basically suggesting that if you were burried two feet under the sand of the deepest ocean that you would not be crushed, since that sand is not feeling the weight of the ocean.

I think you are mistaken. My position is that you would be crushed.

You would be crushed by the ambient pressure crushing you in all directions. You would not be crushed flat.

553

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Increased gravity at the poles?

« on: November 12, 2018, 09:19:10 PM »

Tom, in a nutshell, Archimedes Principle says:  "Every object is buoyed upwards by a force equal to the weight of the fluid the object displaces."  This means that dense objects will always become lighter as the density of the fluid displaced increases.

That is not what that quote means. It means that if the weight of the object is equal to the fluid it displaces it will pulled neigher lower or higher.

But if the object is lighter than the fluid it displaces it will be pulled higher. Just the same, if the object is heavier than the fluid it displaces it will be pushed lower.

Very true, but in your original reply you claimed that the increase in our weight at the poles was due to the greater weight pushing down on our head. This is fallacious.

What is the true reason for the increased weight at the poles?

Air, like water, does have weight to it. The thread just got nitpicky about buyancy.

Take a glass jar and fill it 1/4th of the way with sand.

Now fill the rest of the glass with water.

Are you to say that the sand does not feel the weight of the water upon it?

How is it possible to argue, as markjo does above, that this water is not pushing the sand down?

Ambient pressure is distributed in all directions. As someone pointed out upthread, it has no vector.

The weight of the water surrounds each sand grain from all directions.  It does not push 'down.'


The barometric pressure does not affect how much we weigh otherwise we'd see our weight fluctuate when the barometer changes.


However, we can be affected by the buoyancy of the atmosphere. We are less dense than air so we sink in air. We are comparable to the density of water so we float or sink based on how much fat (floats) or how much muscle (sinks) we have.  We are much less dense than liquid mercury so we float high is a body of mercury. However, the difference in buoyancy for a human in a low pressure atmosphere and a high pressure atmosphere is negligible.   

554

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Green Flash

« on: November 12, 2018, 04:43:32 PM »

I've spent a lot of time on the ocean and had been told about the green flash. But it was years before I actually got to see it in person and I was actually starting to think it was a snipe-hunting myth. When I finally got to see it, I was off shore near the Caribbean (South Atlantic) island of Saba and it looked nothing like I had imagined (pre Youtube era.)

The conditions had to be just right and you had to be looking at the right spot at the right time.  I could see that if someone didn't want to acknowledge the reality of the green flash, it is easy to ignore. Hoaxing a green flash video would be easier that hoaxing space travel videos.

555

Flat Earth Community / Re: BBC slags off TFES again

« on: November 08, 2018, 09:24:04 PM »

I think the use of the TFES icon is a pretty blatant infringement. It symbolizes this specific forum when there are way freakier FE communities out there. However, I'm certain they would argue 'fair use' even though it's really not. 'Fair Use' would be a valid defense if it was a story specifically about this forum. Unfortunately, in the legal kumite, right and wrong matter less than who spends the most on lawyers.

The defamation angle is very interesting and could have merit. Holocaust deniers are denying specific acts of hate and violence which earns them a special status. In some countries, it's even a crime to deny the holocaust.

Donald Trump denies climate change. How would he react to being compared to a holocaust denier when his daughter converted to Judaism. Perhaps he should join TFES in a class action lawsuit.

This video was mindless pop culture science with no citations or data, just talking heads spouting generalized opinions. I have a low tolerance for bad science RE or FE.


But the one thing that really did  piss me off about this video is that I had to download the BBC app to my phone to watch this punk-ass piece of non-info fluff. They need to be sent to the lower forums of life.


Pete is right. Twitter is not the place to start. It would get attention and publicity but it would bring more of those one post trolls that hit, run and end up in CN. Now, if Pete reaches out to BBC and they send some disrespectful email or say something stupid, posting their response on twitter might get better attention.

556

Science & Alternative Science / Re: The beliefs on this board...

« on: November 08, 2018, 02:56:56 PM »

A giant green ogre is the large consciousness where our Matrix resides!

Of course, Shrek thinks he's aware of the world around him when he's actually in a Pixar Studio matrix.
Pixar Studios thinks it's aware of the world around them when them are actually in God's video game matrix being played on a Vintage Coleco gaming console.
God could upgrade to the Sony PS4 Pro anytime and we'll be screwed.

557

Science & Alternative Science / Re: The beliefs on this board...

« on: November 01, 2018, 06:27:10 PM »

All I mean by that is that even if you think you are doing a good job guarding against propaganda, it is prudent to continue to question where your beliefs come from and try and sort out whether they are post hoc rationalizations from influences you are aware of, or not.

Yes!  This^^^^^


Question everything!

Ah...

You fell for the good ole..."...question everything..." propaganda...

Too bad really...

You were, of course...the last and greatest hope for all humanity...

If humanity is putting any hope in me, we are sooo screwed...

558

Science & Alternative Science / Re: The beliefs on this board...

« on: October 30, 2018, 12:46:49 PM »

See Tom Campbell's videos on the double slit experiment.  That's how I got started with his stuff in the first place.  His arguments are compelling.  It certainly appears that mankind can't have simultaneous knowledge about certain things because the software of the virtual world we exist in wasn't written that way.  I don't know whether to be afraid or comforted.  It seems that we all have free will, but everything is probabilistic and it's impossible to know 100% about anything.  I find the possibility of a virtual reality very interesting.  I've never been much of a video game player because it was addicting to me.  I started playing video games once and didn't do some important things that had to be done on time.  After learning my lesson I put the games away and never went back.  My only thoughts now are time spans.  Allegedly, mankind has existed for millions of years and has had a natural progression toward better and better things over that time.  If we are in a virtual reality the time perception of whose video game we are in must be a lot shorter, or they just can exist for an infinite amount to time.  One of the first video games out there was Kingdom.  I played that on one of the first commercial personal computers out there.  You set up all the variable about your 'Kingdom'.  Planted so many acres of corn, dug so many wells, spent some of your gold for weapons, and took some of your concubines out of the field and gave them certain other duties.  After you had all your variables set up the game would generate a random number and that would effect the outcome of your kingdom.  I remember something like 'the Huns would attack, a herd of locusts would eat half your field crop, wells would go dry, concubines would run off, ect.  You then had to analyze the new situation and reallocate all your resources.  Isn't that about what's happening on a continuous basis in the real world?

Back to the good stuff...

Large Consciousness systems and the Matrix we live in...

People might be surprised how many seriously scientific physicists talk about the virtual reality simulation theory. The PBS series 'Space Time' did an episode on it.

But for me there are still some holes in it.

It might be that the quantized nature of matter, energy and information in our universe simply behaves the way data in a computer behaves. We look at its behavior and the only analog our minds can come up with is a virtual simulation.

Even if we carry forward the analogy of the video game simulation, it wouldn't necessarily mean there is intention or intelligence behind it. A video game simulation can run on its own with no input from anyone. We could imagine that the super entity that started the video game simulation is now passed out completely unconscious on the couch with a bong in one hand and the other hand stuck in a can of Pringles. In this case, we are still in control of our own destinies.

We could even take it a step further. What if the gaming console and the simulation it's running is simply a natural occurrence that arose by chance over an unimaginable span of time. Perhaps it organized itself and arranged Itself by chance just like a quartz crystal or a daimond.

Regardless of the nature of the Matrix, I can never remember if I'm supposed to take the red pill or the blue pill.

559

Science & Alternative Science / Re: The beliefs on this board...

« on: October 30, 2018, 12:25:47 PM »

All I mean by that is that even if you think you are doing a good job guarding against propaganda, it is prudent to continue to question where your beliefs come from and try and sort out whether they are post hoc rationalizations from influences you are aware of, or not.

Yes!  This^^^^^


Question everything!



Over the course of my life, I have believed some stupid crap and found that the more deeply we believe something the more we have to question it.

It turns out that Sea Monkeys are just brine shrimp and despite what the internet ad banners say, there are not hot, young babes in my local area looking to hook up with older married men.

Question God, Sea Monkeys and everything.

560

Science & Alternative Science / Re: The beliefs on this board...

« on: October 30, 2018, 11:25:05 AM »

None of us are immune to propaganda, we all only believe that we are.

Actually, that's just you.

We aren't immune to propaganda but by being a critical thinker, we can avoid its influence. It is more important than ever to be an educated consumer of information. We need to question and fact check our most deeply held beliefs even more than we question the beliefs of others.

Just believing things we read or hear without questioning is like eating something you find on the sidewalk. It doesn't matter how appetizing it looks, don't eat it.

Eh, Disputeone is probably right.  Information we take in (aka Propaganda) must necessarily affect us in some way.  It is pretty arrogant to think that you can think yourself out of the limitations of your brain.

Not only arrogant but this belief that you are immune to propaganda actually makes the propaganda that much more effective.

If I was immune to propaganda I wouldn't have to worry about propaganda.  But being aware of and avoiding syphilis is not the same as being immune to syphilis.

There are people and organizations spending  millions of dollars trying to manipulate our awareness. We must fight for control of our consciousness against internal and external forces. I may lose the fight but I refuse to surrender.

If we simply throw up our hands and say there's nothing that can be done, we are doomed to become drones

It may be arrogant for me to believe I can fight for the sovereignty of my awareness but  I think it is sad that anybody wouldn't.