₦airaland Forum

Guest007:
This book changed my opinion on the existence of 'free will'

He argues on every level that that there is no such thing as free will...
Experiments showed there was a signal in the brain 10sec before we make a choice, whereby tests were done and the researchers could guess 100% of the time the colours or objects the test subjects would pick.

Why do you like coffee one morning and tea the other day, why do we exercise at a particular time, and not whenever we wanted (otherwise obsity and such wouldn't exist).

He argued that the things I do are not done by the choices I make? Yet there is a signal in my own brain 10sec before I make a choice? Did he say I was plugged into some sort of power grid that makes my choices for me? If he did, I can accept to live with that view. I can do something, but its not me who did it, a signal in my brain did 10s before informing me it was going to do it. That's cool! My hands can take what's yours or slap your face and it won't have anything to do with me because the signal in my own brain did it.

Let me know where you live please. I'm certain you'd have some things that the signal in my brain can steal from you. Except I'm not stealing, the spark in me that is not me did it ten seconds before it even bothered to inform me it was going to be done by me, or rather, the signal in my brain that did it.

I don't think I like that book, but let me at least go and find out about it on his own website.

A belief in free will touches nearly everything that human beings value. It is difficult to think about law, politics, religion, public policy, intimate relationships, morality—as well as feelings of remorse or personal achievement—without first imagining that every person is the true source of his or her thoughts and actions. And yet the facts tell us that free will is an illusion.

In this enlightening book, Sam Harris argues that this truth about the human mind does not undermine morality or diminish the importance of social and political freedom, but it can and should change the way we think about some of the most important questions in life.

Hmm! He starts with, "A belief in free will". I know I should not be judging this book by it's cover moreless 5 words, but freewill is not a 'belief'! No one "believes" they have freewill! You know that you are "the true source of your thoughts and actions". All your choices, all of them, are your very own and the benefits, and consequences, of those choices fall on your very own head. You have freewill! You know you have freewill! Or you are an illusion!

Tfbaby:
Have you seen Jesus or Angels yet you believe in their existence.

Is it not precisely because one has not seen Jesus and Angels that one merely 'believes' in their existence? Would one who has seen Jesus and Angels believe they exist?

Does one believe one's mother and father exist, if they do still exist that is? Do you believe it is pissing down rain when rain is pissing on your head?

Does one not believe precisely because one does not exactly know? And when I say, "I believe" confess my ignorance by implying "I haven't exactly got a clue"?

Martinez19:
Of course you will never answer because doing that will clearly demonstrate what it means to lack a belief in an idea --- something you deemed impossible and weird.

It is not "impossible and weird" to lack a belief in an idea, 19! People do it all the time! And I do understand that you lack a belief in an idea. That is precisely the reason why your beliefs or lack of them is irrelevant since you can make them up in your head!

Rextizz:
One idiot in the comment section is saying "go girl"

Nigeria tire me.

Go girl Bobrisky!

Martinez19:
If they exist in your mind alone but not in the real world, they don't exist. They are termed IMAGINARY, I repeat IMAGINARY. However, if they exist in real world then they exist and are termed a REAL, I repeat REAL. I believe we are using English here. wink Address this in your reply, don't skip it. grin

Ok, I won't skip. You must pay attention because I am going on a trip through your mind with imaginary words created in my own mind in English Language.

Go on, read that again. Let me know if the words in my mind as I wrote them down where I sat have not now formed inside your own mind and become real where you are, 39.

Martinez19:
1) How do you know I made it up?
2) Can you prove the elephant I described isn't at the centre of Neptune? If no, are you inconclusive of it's existence and location? or do you lack belief in it because it's supposed existence has to basis in reality?

1), I know you made it up because you have shown you have form of making things up.

2), I do not have to waste my time proving anything to you about faraway Neptune since you have not even shown you are capable of understanding the things on this very earth, and even on this very Nairaland!

IAmSabrina:
@bolded is an interesting statement. If certain things are unobservable and can't be known at this time, does it make sense to verify it to be true as a fact. If so, how do we arrive at that conclusion?

We verify by doing science.

Science is the use of the senses in the study of the structure and components of 'reality' in order to measure and quantify it so as to know it and utilise it.

(I made that up in my head so check for where I might be incorrect please. And for reality, I had 'phenomen' in my head).

IAmSabrina:
This leads us to the big question: How do we seperate objective reality from subjective experiences?

I "separate objective reality from subjective experiences" by first, making absolutely certain my science equipment is clean, in good working order, and that I am competent enough to adequately use it, then I apply the use of my equipment in the assessment of reality and experiences.

At least that's what I ought to do. But I am a subjective human, with faulty equipment that's not in good working order and which I have no clue how to use because I'm incompetent! When I think I am doing 'science', I could be deceiving myself!

But now that you make me think of it I doubt I go about separating "objective reality from subjective experiences" a lot! Or perhaps I do so unconsciously or automatically. I pay objective money for things I buy in the shops I guess and I always eat objective food that I subjectively (in my own way, I mean) cook.

Ok, I've thought! If it comes from a subject and its mind it's most likely subjective. And if I can kick and hurt my foot on it, its most likely an object. There you go, I do 'science' with my senses.

IAmSabrina:
This is where we talk about patterns & consistency:
a) Ice is very chilled
b) Kittens are fuzzy
c) The sun rises in the east & sets in the west
d) Cars move faster than normal people

You may insist that these are still embedded in your head but ultimately, these incidents are recurring "subjective experiences". Thus, it makes sense to call them "objective".

It does not make sense to call all the things listed above objective, to me! They are after all subjective opinions which neither of us has tested with our photometer! Just look at the words, chilled, fuzzy, faster, all very subjective words that mean different things to different subjects! Even the Sun rises due exactly east and sets due exactly west on only two days of every year, yet we subjectively assume it does so everyday!

Na! Not objective at all, in my opinion!

IAmSabrina:
Then again, I could just ask Martinez & Buda if they're seeing what i'm seeing to confirm objectivity. If Martinez & Buda are seeing what i'm seeing, then their "subjective experiences" matches mine which translates to all three of us subjectively experiencing the same objective thing

What! You'll just ask who, Sabrina? Please be serious! Buda could be tripping or want something off you so lie deceptively in agreement to get it and 39 has elephants in his Neptune! Surely you've heard what we told the emperor about his new clothes? All you'd be doing by asking those two is hoping to create objectivity by the addition of multiple subjectivities and I'm personally not aware of any theory to support that (though johnydon22 intersubjectivity fits that description)! I just need think of a church congregation and miracles and a funny taste is in my mouth!

Our individual subjective experiences can not be objective since they are experienced by individual subjects. And more of either the experiences or experienters doesn't make anything any more objective!

IAmSabrina:
Does the world even exist, Buda? I think it does. That should explain why people can see things and agree unanimously on it.

You see what I mean! The world you've lived in all your life, and you only think it does exist! That was Descarte's dilemma, by the way and which made him ergo sum.

Something must exist for us (who must also exist) to form subjective opinions about it. But we also create imaginary non-existent things and unanimously agree on them too, mind, so the fact we agree on things hardly fulfils the criteria for things actually existing I would think.

IAmSabrina:
However, as an atheist, i'm of the opinion that people's conclusions are less reliable than their experiences. Thus their predictions are less reliable than their conclusions. It would be a huge blunder to accept Buda's experience alone as the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I think I better post a warning here! Anyone who refuses to use their own subjective mind in their own subjective head and just accepts the blundered subjective experiences of buda or anyone else without scrutiny (i.e. by doing science on it with their own subjective senses) is subjected and has blundered!

It is a huge blunder for buda even to accept buda's experiences as the whole truth and nothing but the truth! It would be a greater blunder for anyone else to accept buda's experiences as the whole truth and nothing but the truth!

As a human being, I know my own conclusions (or predictions) are less reliable than my experiences! As a human being, I also know that my perception of my experiences may be wrong so they are not reliable at all! I know this for a fact because I have concluded wrongly in the past, predicted wrongly in the past, and thought I perceived my experience correctly only to later find I didn't have a clue what I was experiencing.

I think this might be because I am a human being, before everything else I might be perceived to be.

LordReed:
"When I was...", buda? You are no longer an atheist?

No. I don't self identify as atheist anymore. I am budaatum, a complete human being, and not one identified by a lacking part that is missing.

That definition is very important, Sabrina.

IAmSabrina:
We live in an Objective Universe, built upon by scientific, observable principles;

And unobservable things we don't know are there or see yet. Not elephants on Neptune though!

IAmSabrina:
We exist in a Subjective Reality, where our thoughts and feelings and memories can be manipulated by the ethereal as well as the concrete, but are also the primary lens through which we experience the world, and therefore one's experience is entirely relative to the individual.

Ethereal means things that seem not to be of this world, so like what exactly? Venus? Elephants on Neptune? Deities somewhere waiting to save one?

I, a subject, exist in the objective reality which my subjective mind interprets and which I perceives subjectively. Its like I got bad eyesight and I'm looking through two wrong and bad lenses that make the objective reality appear the way it subjectively does to subjective me. It's why I'd need an objective photometer and know how to use it before it can be said that whatever reality I propose is objective. And even then, not until you've verified with your own objective photometer.

IAmSabrina:
Will you agree with me, Buda, that to distinguish fact from fiction, we eliminate human bias (subjective reality) and gain as much a solid grasp of objective reality as we can?

Let me rephrase that, you tell me what I think.

Can I distinguish the subjective elephants on Neptune from the herd of elephants in my mind?

I should think so, easily, in fact. To start with, I should not put nor allow others to put elephants in my Neptune! And I should be honest with myself. If I don't make up imaginary elephants and place them in my Neptune I'd most likely not be blinded by the herd running around in my mind and my subjective reality will not be distorted and would less likely distort the objective reality.

Yes, I do think one can "distinguish subjective reality from objective reality". It only requires honesty and eyes that see.

Martinez39:
He is just complicating things. He told me he is using the English language yet he is confusing what objective and subjective realities mean. If something exists in one's head alone then it doesn't exist. Simple English.

Have you read my thread on subjectivity and objectivity? If not, I strongly suggest you check out the objectively available evidence of my qualifications on the subjects, 39, instead of making up things in your head!

Please tell me if these my English words that I have joined together inside my own head are not at this very moment existing!

IAmSabrina:
I think i get what you're trying to say...

At this stage, we have to define reality: is it the egocentric fables and tales we cook up for ourselves OR the one we're slaves to?

@bold implies subjective reality => everyone has a different view of what reality is because we all have different points of view...
....one thing to note, however, is that objective reality can be verified through independent measurement. Subjective reality cannot.

Two people will perceive "blue" differently, but a photometer will ALWAYS recognize the light's actual wavelength correctly, no matter who measures it or when.

Cc. Martinez39

I don't know many people who go about with a photometer, or even know how to use one, so I would think we do a lot more subjective reality despite all the objective reality surrounding us.

Now, imagine an atheist. Not one like 39 who makes elephants up in his head, but a real no evidence, no believe atheist. On what basis does that atheist argue that whatever reality I make up in my own head is not real in my head!? Then imagine the flip of that. Me arguing there isn't an elephant in 39's head. Should I not call me a fool?

Martinez39:
How do you know I made the elephant up? Can you prove I made it up? Can you prove that the elephant I described doesn't exist in the centre of planet Neptune? Even though you can't disprove the existence of the elephant, you still don't believe in it because, to you, there is no evidence to support it's existence. Therefore you lack belief in it due to lack of evidence.

I don't lack belief in it, 39, that would be giving it way more consideration than it deserves! And I don't have to prove to you whether it exists or not. The words I used to convey exactly how I felt about it, in English Language, was, "the crap you made up in your head"! And for proof, no airline flies elephants to Neptune! But don't believe me. Just third party google so you can know!

Martinez39:
Why don't you believe in this deity?

I am trying to establish an analogy to explain what it means to lack belief in a concept/idea. Beside, how do you know I made it up? Can you prove the elephant I described isn't at the centre of Neptune? If no, are you inconclusive of it's existence and location? or you lack belief in it because it's supposed existence has to basis in reality?

Please answer all questions so we can make progress.

I don't believe period! When I don't know something I don't know. I do not have to make up reality inside my own head. I see no profit in so doing.

Why do I not "believe that there is an indestructible immortal rainbow coloured elephant eternally hibernating in the centre of planet Neptune", do I really need to answer that?!

I don't believe it because I don't do belief and its crap you made up in your head, 39!

IAmSabrina:
Making up what exactly? Clear my doubts, i could be missing something too...


Existence is the ontological property of being, with reference to the ability of an entity to, directly or indirectly, interact with the physical or, especially in idealistic worldviews, mental reality. Wikipedia

I lack belief in the existence of gods

Thats ok. I get you. When I was an atheist though, I never lacked belief in the existence of gods. I just knew they didn't exist in my own mind. They very definitely did exist in the minds of those in whom they existed however. Amazing what one can cook up in ones own mind. I do resent 39 cooking up of stuff in his own head, claiming he does not believe it then making out I do! You trying to spread your crap to my head, 39?

Can things exist in my mind alone and nowhere else and still exist? Or do things not exist in my mind?

Martinez39:
SMH. Gotcha!

Atheists lack belief in god because, personally, they don't do "believe". But if they did why would they believe the nonsense called god and religion which people made up in their head and spread to others? Is it a third party description?

First, I'm not asking you to believe anything. In fact, the two beliefs here are ones you made up in your own head. I do not believe any of them!

Second, and please take note of this, 39, buda does "not believe in nonsense called god and religion which people made up in their head and spread to others". Like you, 39, I got my own head I can make things up in, and know I made it up!

Martinez39:
Evidence so atheists don't have to believe please. Atheists would rather know.

Actually, atheists have a disbelieve in deities because something that is lacking in them - Sabrina and I cleared that up, though she didn't expect me to whack her with this I bet. Get on page!

You cannot know, 39. Sorry, but its the truth. You cannot know because you lie about wanting to know. I mean, listen to yourself: You do not "believe the nonsense called god and religion which people made up in their head and spread to others". But question. I thought atheists wanted to know!

Martinez39:
As long as there is no evidence or any sound logical basis for god and religion, you lack belief in those things.

Interesting! Things I don't find "evidence or any sound logical basis for" , I treat like I treated your elephant!

Martinez39:
When atheists say "god doesn't exist," they say it in much the way they would say "werewolves, leprechauns and unicorns don't exist." You, budaatum, lack belief in the existence of unicorns.


Cc. IAmSabrina

Like you disbelieve feminist muslims exist right? You cover your eyes and deny it does?

IAmSabrina:
Define "existence" please

There. Occupying time or space. In a nutshell.

IAmSabrina:
You lack belief in an indestructible immortal rainbow coloured elephant eternally hibernating in the centre of planet Neptune

I lack belief in a personal diety watching over mankind, punishing and rewarding them for their deeds

Hence, I'm exacting with you actually, not him....

I too lack belief in a personal diety watching over mankind, punishing and rewarding them for their deeds.

Am I missing something here why are both of you making things up just so you can claim you don't believe it then define yourselves by what you've made up but don't believe? I don't get that!

IAmSabrina:
I think it has to include 'existence'

I think so too. Didn't sound right without it. Like deities are there but atheist refuse to acknowledge their existence. Ridiculous!

A person who has no belief in the existence of deities is an atheist.

Why do atheist define themselves by what is missing in them about something they do not believe exists?

Anyone this Christ own up now o!

CAPSLOCKED:
IF YOU HAVE A MINUTE TO SPARE, THINK ABOUT ALL THE UNDER 5YR OLDS AND LITTLE BABIES WHO WILL DIE AND GO TO HELL BECAUSE THEY INHERITED ADAM AND EVE'S SIN. UNLESS THEY'RE BAPTIZED.
AND EVEN AFTER BAPTISM IF THEY TAKE BISCUITS THAT IS NOT THEIRS AND TELL LIES THEY BECOME CANDIDATES OF HELL. LITTLE KIDS.
CHRISTIANITY CRAZY!

Who's "Christianity" is this Caps? Show me!

IAmSabrina:
Apparently

A person who has no belief in deities is an atheist.

Is that correct? Or does it have to include 'existence'?

Martinez39:
Why don't you believe it?

Because personally, I don't do "believe". But if I did, why would I believe the nonsense you just make up in your head, 39! Is it a third party description?

Evidence so I don't have to believe please. Buda would rather know!

IAmSabrina:
Exactly.

I do not "believe that there is an indestructible immortal rainbow coloured elephant eternally hibernating in the centre of planet Neptune". What's the point? What are you exacting with him for?

Dottore:
Chai. Nigerians are here arguing seriously whether sin is inborn or not and people looting the country dry and are enjoying life in offshore in cruise ships in foreign lands while others are advancing in robotic engineering and researching on how to make life easier for everyone. Whoever did this to my country people e no go well for am.

You must think this is our day jobs. Or do you know we are not the "people looting the country dry and enjoying life offshore in cruise ships in foreign lands, advancing in robotic engineering and researching on how to make life easier for everyone"? How serious do you know we are in fact!?

I reckon this isn't done to your country you'd still be bashing twin heads on rocks and selling slaves. What you think, Doc?

Martinez39:
Do you believe that there is an indestructible immortal rainbow coloured elephant eternally hibernating in the centre of planet Neptune?

Cc. IAmSabrina

No! Why?

ochibuogwu5:
It clearly confirmed that there is nothing like *inherited sin/original sin* from Parents to children.
New born babies do not need salvation because they are *pure/unsoiled* like *God* who is there *originator*
Sin *must* be *a commission or omission*
It is when a human being can omit or commit sin then he/she needs *salvation* because *salvation is deliverance from sin*
They used biblical passages to explain all its details and misconceptions about *inherited sin/original sin being unbiblical and against the teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ*
I will encourage any Christian to take time to download and listen to that video because it is worth sharing and transferring to believers from generation to generation by way of sound teaching and instructions on Christianity.

You did it justice ochibuogwu5! Thank you very much!

IAmSabrina:
An absence of belief, yes.

Belief is missing?

IAmSabrina:
Just in case you're not joking...... it's not as deep as you're taking it


Sorry to bust your bubbles but atheism IS THE lack of belief in any god.

This phrase, "lack of belief in any god", is the only phrase that applies to all atheists.

Other phrases, such as: "rejects the existence of God or the gods", "claim that there is no afterlife", and "claim that the material universe is all that is real" simply do not describe all atheists.

Hence atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of a belief.

Atheists have a disbelief in deities and their existence?

sonmvayina:
i dont really know where you got this info from, well that is by the way..but come to think of it, the people who gave you this book did not show you god to confirm the story....will it be out of place to accuse them that they made the story up...since you cant confirm its authenticity..? what do you think...or maybe again they are telling you a story for you to learn some important secrets and lesson in life?...what do you think?

I tell you where I get this from. I read a book the story is there then I ask, why!

And yes, I think "they are telling me a story for me to learn learn some important secrets and lesson in life".

I deleted your "secret" because if it was secret, they would not be teaching it to me because I am not worthy enough for secrets. For more info, read LoJ eloquently here.

sonmvayina:
lucifer never fell, what we call gods,goddess, angels, demons are all personification of laws and principles of nature..lucifer is a title of a goddess not a proper name, it is a latin word and it means 'light bearer'....that would mean lucifer is a she or a goddess..she has different names in different cultures..venus,shiva, aphrodite,ishtar,inanna, i guess she is olokun in yoruba/bini religion..i might be wrong or yemoja.....but she is the godess of death and destruction..

I like Venus. I didn't know it killed people though!

As one of the brightest objects in the sky, Venus has been a major fixture in human culture for as long as records have existed. It has been made sacred to gods of many cultures, and has been a prime inspiration for writers and poets as the morning star and evening star. Venus was the first planet to have its motions plotted across the sky, as early as the second millennium BC.

sonmvayina:
but satan on the other hand is the god of the powers of the air or lord of the wind, and the devil is the god of darkness or the moon god....they all hold different powers and fates..it is the job god has given them to do, so to speak...it is much like the ministers in a political settings...at the end of the day, they must report to the creator of all. he alone takes all the decisions...'ALL POWER BELONGS TO GOD.....not just power to do good, power to do both evil and good..well god not the one who sent the flood, who killed the first son of the egyptian...etc..devil,satan and lucifer are not dual or equal opposite of God...any body who thinks so and assigns power to them that god did not give them is insulting and making mockery of god.....they all acts within the will of god...
most of those stories are all spiritual stories..you read them and learn the spiritual message..it does not mean it actually happened..it is like peter pan, we all know the story is about friendship, so no one is rushing to go to neverland...
like i said earlier, lucifer is a she or a goddess , believe it or not she is the mother of jesus..mary our lady most pure.....as jesus is the light according to the gospel of john...so if you think the story of jesus is an actual event..you are been led astray.....

I don't see why it matters whether Jesus existed or not to be honest, it's still a good thing I learnt to love my neighbours at his feet don't you think? And Venus? I like it and all, but it's not exactly my neighbour nor my God

But what does "Spirituality" mean exactly? What is it that one would actually be doing so we'd say they spiritually do it? That's what I wanna know.

You are all perfectly discussing with each other respectfully so I'm sharing my new I love you imoji with you all because you becoming perfecter by perfecting each other.

We all working with various meanings of religion but I bet we aren't.

Religion is a cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to one another using the supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual element. However, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.

Religion is very early societies school for when we couldn't educate everyone nor was everyone capable of learning so we wrote a curriculum and organised to teach it to people regularly. It's not the only school today so long later, but religion teaches the things of its own sphere, the relation of humanity to one other through the supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements.

It is the belief of some that the dharma wheel will keep turning until everyone has entered nirvana. Then all shall cease.

Ihedinobi3:
Very well then. As long as we both know where we each stand.

I'm not having that, ihe. You way smarter than that and I can't stop learning. When you look with Jesusglasses you'd see we being friends, you and I. Lovers, even. That's the Jesus stand that made you reach out which is appreciated.

Why isn't there an I love you emoji on here in fact!