Tapske729

Karma: 0

Tapske729 6 Oct 2025 20:07 UTC
1 point
1
in reply to: Rowan Jupiter’s comment on: Open Thread Autumn 2025
Mostly agree, however, I think it unnecessarily muddies the water, to take the concept of free will, which exists on a gradient throughout nature, not as an either/or (Binary concept)...…
And then attempt to answer this non-binary question, with a Binary answer of “either/or”.
It’s like poking around trying to find out how a square answer can fit into the round hole of the question.
A round question can only have a round answer. A question on a topic that exists on a gradient, may only accurately be answered with an answer that also exists on a gradient. You can not logically mix the 2 on any order, and expect an accurate answer.
At least that’s my opinion, I could be wrong. ---Tapske...

Tapske729 6 Oct 2025 19:54 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Rowan Jupiter’s comment on: Open Thread Autumn 2025
Free will : A topic I have pondered deeply over the years.
Firstly, like almost everything else in this 4 dimensiona existence, “free will” is not a Binary concept. It is NOT either/or. It is on a gradient.
ALL mammals display traits of free will to varying degrees. The more natural born instincts in a species, the less their free will, the less instincts an animal has, the more free will it can express.
No mammal has zero free will, and no mammal has 100% free will, not humans, not any mammal.
So the idea of free will being “destroyed” is a non-starter. It can perhaps be diminished, but never destroyed.
For those who believe we have 100% free will, ask yourself a couple Q’s.
Can you willingly hold your breath till you die ? No, you would pass out, and begin breathing, against your will.
If you walk around a corner and I yell “BOO”… Did you jump because you decided to, or were your actions dictated by instincts that had nothing to do with free will ???
Same if I poke u with a straight pin, did you decide to draw back, or was it automatic ?
No one, and no thing has total free will.
At least that’s my opinion, I could be wrong.
---Tapske...

Tapske729 6 Oct 2025 19:37 UTC
1 point
0
on: Open Thread Autumn 2025
Greetings all. My first visit, not sure where to put this Gen. Info. So will start here, and take guidance from participants, if there is a better thread.
I stumbled on this site after a friend suggested I research “Roko’s”. An interesting thought experiment, I enjoyed it but nothing worth loosing sleep over. Would be happy to discuss.
I am about 1 year into a manuscript (200 pages so far), dealing with all aspects of cognitive problem solving, via psychological self awareness, and how to debate, discuss issues with the understanding of our (humans) “default” mental and emotional “settings”. Which prevent enlightenment.
The 2 most common being
1. We are all predisposed to think in Binary terms; either/or, black & white, good or bad, etc. This is counter productive to accurate conclusions/assessments. A more accurate truth is: other than very few “Base Principles”, almost nothing in this 4 dimensional existence is truly binary. Almost everything is on a gradient. The problem with the auto-binary approach is it suggests “absolutes” where none exist. It takes intentional, mental effort to avoid this conceptual trap.
2. We are all predisposed to think in linear term, (beginning, middle, end), when in truth, the overwhelming majority of things in this 4 dimensional existence are cyclical, not linear.
*** What this means to the avg. Joe living his life, the majority of problems, situations, questions, you will ever have are most likely non-binary. If you attempt to solve a non-binary question, with a Binary state of mind, or a Binary answer, you will NOT be “LESS Wrong”. Square peg, round hole.
Same with attempts to solve a cyclical Q, with a linear mind set, or a linear answer, it simply can not be done accurately.
There are plenty of accurate statements of “absolute”, those are easy (with sentence modifiers). Then there are some statements that seem absolute, which aren’t, untill you add modifiers. IE: The speed of light is a constant.
While this is true, it is NOT the accurate truth, therefore NOT a constant. It needs a modifier to reach that level. IE: The speed of light, in the vacuum of space, is aconstant. NOW, you have “A truth” “A constant” a “solid base” from which further analysis either will or will not be supported.
*** For those who are of the opinion that there are NO absolutes, please understand, in order for you to affirm that, you would have to use a statement of absolute, thereby nullifying the very point you are trying to make.
The trick.… the really difficult (and fun thing for me) is to ID statements of absolute with zero modifiers...… that’s the challenge 😀.
That’s about. .1% of the subject matter I am writing about.
I am also quite comfortable discussing political or U.S constitutional issues. I am not emotionally invested in them, therefore a logical discussion is in my wheelhouse. (Frredom of speech, 2nd amendment, abortion rights, whatever.)
Fair winds to all, ---Tapske...