Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (1652)	10/13/2000 1:18:31 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

I propose to describe an intention (any intention), that I might have or think, as being something predetermined, and thus necessary...from a determinist point of view. DESCRIBE AN INTENTION...My Position will be against determinism--not for it. My position will be that consciousness and will have to operate (at least partly) outside of the materialistic realm. Briefly, not all intentions result in the corresponding act of realization. Therefore, even though the intention (for a determinist) was necessary, the realization of that intention does not necessarily follow, and there is not an necessary correspondence between the intention and the act. However, the act often does correspond to the intention, and in the most precise way, and separated by incredible time (I'll see you at the school reunion in 17 years at 3:00 O'Clock). This brings us to my illustration with the dice. How is it that an intention can be realized, in an act that does not always have a necessary correspondence...in a proportion that entirely contravenes and subverts the laws of probabity? The supposition here is from the deterministic perspective, that the intention is illusory, but originates from the necessary interactions of moving particles. If this is the case, it is difficult to comprehend why the illusion of intention should so often correspond with the illusion of the act of realization of that intention, given that the intention itself is only incidental to the spinning marbles. I'm back to work, but I wanted to throw something down quickly. It probably has errors, and I know it doesn't say nearly what I wished it to, but it is a start. There is no good reason why Intention and Act should be bridged over time, unless there is the force of Will, which continually brings that intention into present awareness. There is no reason for a predetermined act to result from its corresponding intention, separated by a large time span. It is generally accepted that, even if the future is predetermined, humans cannot know that future. So how can I predict how the waves and particles will come out in 15 years...in a far more accurate manner than chance would dictate?? There can only be one answer. If an action ALWAYS followed a thought or intention, my argument would be meaningless, but the fact that acts are not always determined by original intention, and that acts may be realized from intentions...and may be realized far more than probability theory allows, suggests that consciousness has at least a partial independence from the world which it observes and evaluates and judges.