Choice or not?

homophilia...

It's both. While, obviously, there are naturally gay people, there are also some that do it for...*shrug*. Freddie Mercury is a typical example. Generaly decadent, glamour life-style, where it bacame 'in' to be 'gay'.


IMO, it's not so much the 'homophiles' that are the problem, it's the gay exhibitionism that everyone (I know I am) is fed-up with. All the TV, movie, other media, gay-rights parades etc. is really really annoying.

People with problems are born all the time, there is no need to flaunt them for all the world to see...

We don't have 'nasty six-webbed-fingers indbred bastards with boils' pride parades, and with reason.

P.S. I'm not comapring people from Alabama with gays...

A long long time ago, but I can still remember, how that music used to make me smile... <A HREF="http://www.nexus.hu/zonix/DIGGER.MID" target="_new"><b><font color=blue>Digger rulz</font color=blue></b></A>

You know, I damn glad we don't either ... (lol)

But I think the reason that people from Alabama have a predilection for sucking about anything is that they're constantly watching their hogs do it, so they think, "Hey, I should be able to do that too".


<b> ...more people are driven insane through religious hysteria than by drinking alcohol - W.C. Fields </b>

Freddy Mercury was bi-sexual, not gay.

In parallell to the subject of choice there is the view as Eden put forward that there is a complete spectrum of sexuality with hetero on the one side and homo on the other side with bi in the middle. I think we should not confuse this with the matter of possible choice. (Btw, this spectrum view on sexuality makes perfect sense to me)

If you believe in the natural disposition then a bi-phile had just as little choice as everyone else, that is none. Of course once at a mature sexual age, they have more choice in possible partners, but this is not the kind of choice we are debating here. If you believe in choice of sexual preference then bi-sexuals are easily explained as people that cannot or do not want to make up their mind. Either way it is not relevant for the issue I am targetting in this thread.

I am very careful with my terminology of homophile, heterophile, bi-phile, homosexual, heterosexual, bi-sexual and for good reason which will become clear later or that may be apparent to some of you already.

I'm not a great fan of parades myself (parades of any kind that is) but they do not annoy me really. Again, not relevant for the choice discussion. Do not get me wrong, snorkius, I appreciate you taking the time to read and to respond to this thread but I want to avoid any emotional outbursts between the different camps if they are not related to the thread topic. It is very difficult to get a sensible information flow (both ways) when discussing these issues.

All posts on topic (choice vs natural) will be considered (by me, at least) on the amount of evidence they carry and not the conviction of presentation (again, this holds for all POV's).

Because there aren't enough of them?

Must be hard, typing with them webbed fingers




BigMac

<A HREF="http://www.p3int.com/product_center_NWO_The_Story.asp" target="_new">New World Order</A>

Choice verses nature , yes i do not believe either side will not have conclusive proof . I go to choice , but with a twist . All my beliefs are based on the bible , but i think that some have distorted a lot of that writting . I know that because of the genetic gene pool that some people are born with genes that could be dominate in areas that are not normal ( mankinds thinking of normal ). They say there are genes that can define wheather you could be a alcoholic , criminal , gay , etc.. I do believe that to be correct , but you still have to choose that direction . Does a drinker have to be a alcoholic , no he has to choose to do it , he has the capability to not drink . A gay person can choose not to particepate in that lifestyle . Granted as to personallity it could mess his mind up . So because of that , and biblical principals if he would choose that way i would accept him in love and treat him with all respect . I believe you are gonna explane the nature part to me now ha ha . Hope this cleared it up for you ha ha .

The man of steel said that

>I do believe that to be
>correct , but you still have to choose that direction .
>Does a drinker have to be a alcoholic , no he has to choose
>to do it

Correct; but then, being an non alcoholic, (just a social drinker) I know I can drink alcohol (lots of it if required), or I can refrain from it (like when driving) which supports your claim that there is a clear choice here (at least for me). Same goes for being a criminal, I'm sure I could commit crimes if I had to/wanted to. According to some, I already did by posting here so again, there is a choice here as well.

But on sexuality, being the heterosexual I am, I do not have this choice. I *can* not fall in love with a man, I could not have sex with a man, no matter the circumstances, no matter how hard I'd try. Could you ? Put a gun to my head, and I still won't be able to do it. I will however, when forced, consume hectoliters of alcohol and rob banks if I had to, regardless of any genetical thing See my post above, if we as hetero's don't have that choice, how come gays *would* have it ? Sure seems like at least *something* is different, no ? If its not genetic/hormonal whatever, than what could explain this difference ?

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

I would appreciate it if you'd read my post above, about "our choice" (as heterosexuals), and tell me if you still think gays have a choice, just like us. i can choose to fight my anger, or let myself go in most situations, and I assume most people can; but I can not choose to become gay. Your argument is the same as IronMike's, and I don't see how it holds if you try and apply it to yourselve, unless you are really different from me.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

P4 , let me PS something . That does not mean your brother is bad , as i can see why a person would make that choice . I am not condeming him or anyone else , and yes to i love men also . Just not in a sexual way , i am literally crazy about my 2 boys , and son in law , and grandchildren ha ha .

The man of steel said that

> but you believe someone can choose to BE gay out there,
>like I also think so (thanks for putting that up, I didn't
>of it before that much).

I still have to meet the first heterosexual person that could choose to be gay. I don't believe it. There is no way any pressure, desire, whatever could make me want to have sex with a man, let alone I would be able to do it; not with a gun on my forehead, not with a gun on the forehead of my GF. I *can* not choose to be gay, and I'm still waiting for someone who considers himself hetero to claim he could.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

Now my take will be long and philosophical, it may even be fatalist to some. Bear in mind above all this, however, that there were some times where I did beleive there are SOME possibilities you could turn out gay because of something in your past. Not by choice however, but by a childhood moment triggering a neurotic change, as Freud would say.

First of all, I'd like people to believe some of what the Matrix Reloaded philosophy talked about, because it passed ignored and even bashed on, while it talks exactly on what human philosophy has always wondered about: Are we determined or do we form our own fate?

Here is my take on choice. My view is choice is an illusion. I don't however discredit the idea it's inexistant. I do feel though it is very rare we ever choose. Here is a good explanation why I believe so, and how B.F Skinner takes on it.

As some of you know by now, I went through a psychological breakdown this winter. I went through two episodes, one short, and one brutal longer one. The second one involved me thinking I discovered what life is made of: Cause and effect -> inevitable doom or fate.
I was so destroyed inside, it's like if you lived all your life thinking your mom was your real mom, and after 50 years, of love and closeness, she tells you she isn't. You can't do a damn thing about this situation, you cannot change it, you are doomed to accept it and even live it. Being stuck this way, but even worse for me.
When I would go try to get my mind off the ideas, by writing a story book, I would feel like crying. In the end I did burst out in pain and cried. I refused to understand life was controlled, we are controlled, we are slaves, we have a fate and no one can change it, choices don't exist, etc. I just couldn't accept it. (even if I died and went to another world, I wouldn't escape that method of function : cause and effect, the basis of functioning)
I'm a guy who hates constraints, who hates to feel like someone is trapping him under his control. And this belief made me so tormented that I was almost psychotic.

Of course the reason for all this existential thinking was of a sexual past problem which triggered such obsessions. This is Freud's take, again, and it was true, since once me and my shrink discovered the real source, my obsessions suddenly went down and nearly dissapeared. Of course, he also showed me that it's not entirely true, that we're doomed.

But here is my take nonetheless.
Choices are an illusion because:
Cause-->effect. Read up on Chaos Theory if you'd like more info. The Buttefly Effect movie or theory example is excellent for that.
Anyways, since everthing has a cause and an effect, and the effect becomes a cause, you are inevitably creating a chain, right? From the beginning of mankind, you can say a small ant walking one direction, formed today's society. Through a series of causes and effects and logical happenings, it worked.
Here's a more modern take: I poke you. You think it has no effect, but your body felt something. Whatever you had in your mind during that poke is interrupted. Therefore the path you had planned, is changed, altered by a simple poke. You then look at me. Perhaps you ask me why I did it. But then you ignore it. We continue, hours later. You do realize though, if I didn't poke you, things would've different, right? Maybe you were to share an idea or thought. Maybe you were to go THEN to the bathroom then after what I did. If it were after, you would have also walked differently to the bathroom, due to the displacement I did by poking you. Tons of variables, molecules get involved in causality. And everything affects everything.

So what does this involve with choice?
Well, consider this: We are born with biological implants, configurations. And society affects us. Pavlov's example has proven how you can effectively show someone something to do in reaction to something, and through constant repetition make him adopt the mindset that when this happens, do this.
So, we are both determined by our biological things and our environment, if we believed in this mindset.

So, if we think we choose in life our careers, that is false. We don't. It was predetermined in us, in our DNA what we are more likely to like. Take how our tongue may like a certain food but someone else may not. Opinions, are they not based on who we are and how we feel?
If that is the case, a choice isn't made. It was, as in Reloaded they say, already made for us. We just have to understand it.
If you think I have a choice between for example being sent to Iraq or stay with my family, but know I am being forced, yet I choose to stay, I will tell you that wasn't a choice. It was a logical decision relative to YOUR mindset, YOUR configuration, YOUR bias. What is most likely to be YOUR bias, is your choice. Is it still a choice? No, it's a decision logically taken based on who you are.

Even when you choose not to choose, you didn't make a choice, you simple inside felt uncomfortable choosing and therefore went with what YOU feel is right, logical.

Since everything has a reason, even a robber who we think may have randomly chosen a house to rob, did it not by choice or randomness, but by causality. He didn't choose a house eventually, because it was a random pick. He did it based on environmental effects (even his walk, the way he arrived there, the weather, anything can affect his view), and perhaps even the house's position, value, etc.

I think we may have very hard decisions to make sometimes, but I do not belive we made choices out of them. Inevitably, something must have stood out of the rest of the options we had, thus, we didn't choose it, we went with it, it was already chosen for us. It was a bias. A choice, by clear definition to me, should be something where we choose impartially. Ever chosen impartially? I think a kid may have, but as mature adults, we don't choose, we make conscious decisions or logical decisions as I call them.

A gay who represses his true nature, is not choosing to repress it, he decided it due to social pressure, a bias behind it. To say he chose it means it was almost an instinct, he could care less if he was to go gay living or repress it.

Thus, I end with what BF Skinner believes, that with causality, we all have a fate somewhere, are not really free. But I believe we are and disagree with some of what he says. I do however now believe more in him than Sartre who believes we choose and are free.
If we were free, nothing society does on us would affect us. But we are all affected by culture and society. Research also shows how a person's behavior is different in different environments. Our creativity stems from a previous reason too. But I personally think there exists creativity with no previous agenda of thoughts or inspiration. Picasso comes to mind.
Skinner also dimisses consciousness as tool of choice and freedom's existance, claiming anything will be needed to trigger consciousness, such as questions like : What are you doing? What did you do? How are you? What do you think of this act? Thus to him, consciousness is also an illusion. Skinner dismisses most tools of freedom and choice anyways.

If Randomness does exist though, in even the most remote molecular reactions, then I would change my view. Until then, to me, choices are an illusion people live with to feel free and comfortable. The choices were already made, now they have to understand them. We are born with certain properties that define who we are and will be, and education and the rest will modify us too. However, THAT scenario will be the set of the future where you will think you make choices but are actually basing it on past bias. Thus the choice was not true, it was not impartial. I could choose right now to opt out of my college program for no reason, just to show you I am not controlled by interests, but then again, cause and effect made me do this supposed choice, thus, it was the fact I wanted to prove you something that caused me to decide to opt out of the program. Hence even there, there was no choice. I know some of you will believe me, I just know you know I have a point somewhere on all this. Phukface was eventually convinced, although did not take this lightly on himself. It's a hard reality at first.

Ok I end this here.

This is a very pessimist view, one many may flame me for it, but I believe it more than anything as it is logical.
DO I think humans aren't free? No. I refuse to think so. I do think I am free to form my life and enjoy it. But I don't think most of my choices are true. I think I was made to "choose" one thing over the other, hence it wasn't a choice, it was logical decision on my part or based on my DNA construction.

This is the deterministic view of course, and often fatalist one, but since I do believe in rare occasions of choice and randomness' existance, as well as feeling of freedom, I am not entirely for that positin. However, going through my mental breakdown has shown me how true most of it is, after everyday obsessively dissecting every action out there. I could tell you a flower's color, position in a room will affect your life. And there can be proof too!
But it is obsessive. Eventually I also decided to go ahead of my class in philosophy and read on BF Skinner's chapter on Behaviorism and Determinism. And I didn't feel bothered, amazingly. I felt less damaged from his sayings. I disagreed with him and felt like I had a point.

So if we talked on the gay issue, well, I don't believe one bit gays choose to be gay. It's either integrated into their genes, following of course the many extremely good arguments by P4Man (again no one has explained to me why I can't get excited by a naked chick but can with a man, naturally), or their formation as kids caused it. By which in that case, you also choose to believe in determinism, and saying it's wrong is absolutely absurd, because it's causality which brought it upon him, not him "choosing".
So he did not form himself, it's his surrounding and his biological implants which formed him. That would be a bit of a weak argument alas, since homosexuality existed since the beginning of time, so you'd wonder who out there one each era is influencing the kid to be this way.

Vic

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over <font color=red>62</font color=red> no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A>

>I am totally with you on the heterosexual argument.

How would you know ?


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

No one said you can't do gay acts when hetero, however do these people stay that way forever?
The question is that. Will they keep such habits, and actually TURN gay forever? Are their feelings authentic?

Those are nonetheless interesting examples you bring. Not the most evident or frequent ones and definitely not representative of gays, but still interesting.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over <font color=red>62</font color=red> no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 03/01/04 06:29 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

im guessing you finally read up a little on the chaos theory, as i suggested?

<A HREF="http://www.cameronwilliamson.com" target="_new">-={Apostalic Alcoholic.}=-</A>

Wow , did you see the one post where i said i was not a real educated guy , apparentlly not ha ha . Ok i am not sure that i completelly understand what you said , know i did not know the people you referred to ( you name dropper you )----well i will do the best i can , ok . From what i understand of what you said i would totally disagree with you ,( biblically or secularelly ). -------------------------------->>>> ( sorry its the only way i knoe how to do this )
If you think I have a choice between for example being sent to Iraq or stay with my family, but know I am being forced, yet I choose to stay, I will tell you that wasn't a choice. It was a logical decision relative to YOUR mindset, YOUR configuration, YOUR bias. What is most likely to be YOUR bias, is your choice. Is it still a choice? No, it's a decision logically taken based on who you are.------------------------------------------------------------>>>>>
not sure what you are saying , but eighther way you would have a definate choice . Now your choice could cost you a lot but you was not predestined to do either one . If so everyone should sit back and relaxe cause its gonna happen anyway ha ha . I have been on my own since i was 14 years old , it was'nt thrown on me i choose it. I could have went other ways ( sometimes i wonder how things would have turned out ) , but i did not . I choose a way and yes sometimes it was very hard ( physically and mentally ) . Then i proseeded to make it work .
Thats what i was saying about you , which ever choice ( road you take )there is gonna be ruts and bumps in the road . Look at both ways 1= don't surpress , but live a straight lifestyle , never marry , etc.
2= Gay lifestyle , people will eat you up in community , friends , workplace . It will happen .----where not talking about weather its fair or not . Remember , life is not as they portray it on tv or in movies , life is real . I know this for a fact .


The man of steel said that

I know you wouldn't understand, neither most here. It's a hard theory to see and understand. You would have to sit for hours, observing behavior around you to understand causality and how choices are made.

You can choose to believe you made a choice. I don't know what pushed you to do X choice, but I think there was a background to it.

To put it in perspective, a real choice would drive you NUTS. Your mind would blow up. Think of 50-50. Which side do you take if both are equal? If none had ANY compelling argument over the other, which do you take? Hmm?

As for sitting back and relaxing, lol, well, like I said, we are free to live, however we think we're making choices while in fact they were done for us, because they were biased choices (based on emotions, background, surrounding, facts, etc.).
If you sat back and relaxed, you'd still be letting any causality run you, no matter what. You're still run by that system. Ya know what I mean? You can't escape cause and effect, because even when you escape, you are reacting to an action, to a cause.

I guess the biggest choice we ever would do, is to choose life over suicide, for example.


--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over <font color=red>62</font color=red> no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A>

Um I don't quite get you there man.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over <font color=red>62</font color=red> no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A>

Thank you for having enough courage to post that, You are truly convicted in this my friend.

<A HREF="http://www.cameronwilliamson.com" target="_new">-={Apostalic Alcoholic.}=-</A>

In reponse to your loooooooooooooooooooooooooooong post (I thought I posted long ones but you are a true UberMeisterLongPoster), Eden.

You are bringing a lot of science into this so I would like to point out a few things, having been a scientist myself.

First of all, Chaos Theory cannot be used to prove the inevitability of cause and effect. Chaos Theory is about the stability of systems. In a true chaotic system a very small cause may have huge effects, like the air displacement of a butterfly causing a hurricane elsewhere on earth. It is a popular example to illustrate that our weather system is a chaotic system, which is why weather prediction can be hard at times, even with the advanced weather models we have today.

On to Cause and Effect. Basically you say that the universe was determined at the moment of conception (the big bang, if you are convinced by the scientific evidence we currently have). This deterministic belief is very close to a notion of God creating the universe, and that we are all his tools as part of the creation.

Since the beginning of the last century though, we are no longer living in a Newtonian (deterministic) universe. Around that time the theory of Quantum Mechanics has been developed which is not a deterministic model, but is based on probability properties of particles/waves. I guess it goes into too much detail to explain it all here (in as far as I understand it myself because I'm not an expert on the matter) but I will mention a highlight:
In this theory you cannot measure both the speed of a particle and its location to the fullest extend. If you measure its speed exactly, then there will be maximum uncertainty about its position in space, and vice versa. particles (all matter and energy) are described in the form of wave functions. Observing/measuring aspects of these wavefunctions, changes them. Now if you look at a sufficiently large scale, a quantum mechanical universe behaves like a newtonian universe, but if you look closely enough or if conditions become extreme enough (black holes for instance) then you see deviations occur that are explained by the laws of quantum mechanics. Undoubtedly in the future a new theory will be found that may explain flawed observations with regard to QM.

Now what it means is that probability/chance is brought (back) into the equation, opening up the possibility of choice (which may be just a macro concept of how we are handling the concepts of wavefunction probabilities). Einstein btw (there he is again) did not like this concept one bit. "God does not play dice", he is quoted to have said. We may wind up with a deterministic theory again in the future but as of today, I take comfort from this theory in the sense that I believe there is free choice for people (as I said before, I am an optimist).

However our choices are limited and we are still very much a biological product of evolution with lots of physical limitations.



BigMac

<A HREF="http://www.p3int.com/product_center_NWO_The_Story.asp" target="_new">New World Order</A>

No , he was straight in your defineition . He ( as there are man others ) was not doing it for sexual pleasure , but for survival . He learned through this procedure that it was please people ( male or female ) to be subservent to them . He was being dominated . P4 , i think you are a well educated man and brought up in a loveing home . I was not , i grew up in the projects where you see a lot of things that don't happen in other areas . The main thing is control. He / she who have it seems to be a step higher on the food chain ( for lack of better wording ). That has nothing to do with sexuall gratification . A person can litterally control another person , and the person thats being controled will do anything he or she is told to do , not because of pleasure or love .Although that will be there excuss ( have to come up with something )


The man of steel said that

That was not the question , that as i said i can understand , and yes i think you still have a choice . Yes as i have said the choice could be very hard on you . Read above posts . You know P4 i don't like to argue , i was asked my opinion and stated such . You yourself said ( i think ) that it could not be proved either way . It seems to me that you are on a mission to have everyone say ---O P4 you are sooooo smart and we all bow down and pay are just respects to you . Don't think that will happen , maybe you better just get over it huuu . I can see in the other posts where they thought you where being agressive toward there opinions , seems like you want to doninate people . Don't know about the others but it won't happen with me ha ha . No i won't call you names and go away like the others . Will be here untill the end . As i said i was raised in the projects and did not end up subservent , matter of fact , i gotta watch my self cause as i stated i could be controling. Right now i am heading for Mississippi but will be back thursday . Unfortuneatlly i will be going back to work but will be home in the evenings .


The man of steel said that

Haha, I did a PM to Scam yesterday where the response was: WOAH, that was a whole lot of letters!

I do write when I want.

You are correct though, however as I read in the dictionary, it is the way to show how each state is caused from a previous one and how calculation (precise to the end) can predict the future states.

I could be saying that though I'd rather not think that way anymore since that was how I felt when I was mentally ill, and boy did that hurt.

The strange thing is that Flamethrower, let aside all the BS and lies he spews, supposedly works in quantum calculations and has also found how a molecule can only react the way it was to.
On that reasoning, a god-like person who could calculate EVERY single molecule out there, COULD theoretically determine the next movement, the next action to happen in this world. Luckily we don't seem to have such people. But look at a hockey game for example. Since the first move, if you had that god knowledge, you could predict the outcome. Puck goes right, one player reacts, other goes ready for defense, people look at the player, crowd shouts, player hears shouts, minor deconcentration, etc.
All of it plays a role and in the end, as history writes itself, you can also say it was written. In short, life is both predictable and unpredictable. An antithesis with a thesis as Marx once said, combined together create a higher force, a stability. Since cause and effect are the major opposing forces, come together they create stability. So the same applies to life, it is both predictable and not.

But I digress.

I kind of don't see how it does.

I don't believe in "free" choice. I believe in a made choice. Yes we are free to choose, no one said no, but the inevitable choices we make are based solely on our bias. Bias meaning, our DNA, environment, pressure, stress, weather, feelings, emotions, etc. the factors limitless) Hence choice is not very existant. Like I proposed, I could suddenly "choose freely" to opt out of my program in college, just to show you how free I am. But how free was that? I still reacted to the cause: Wanting to prove something!
Reacting to the cause simply can't mean we were free to choose, because there WAS an ulterior motive, there always was, thus we never chose it randomly. A true choice IMO is one randomly picked, because there was nothing more compelling over the other. A true choice is with no bias. I remember the math exams with the multiple choice questions. Now whether sometimes when I just have no clue which to choose means there is a choice is true or not, is questionable. Since I believe in Skinnerian take, I would then tell you you reacted and chose on some variables around you. Pressure maybe. If it was random, beleive you me, then that was a choice. But a choice in real life aside exams or whatever, all an illusion, period.

People will always be surprised by what I am saying and not grasp it or disagree first, like ironmike, and I cannot blame them one bit. It is hard to adopt this view and understand it. You would have to analyse situations all the time, create yourself situations where choice is involved, for you to see "why you chose this over that", to see that it was already a determined choice for you. Otherwise why did you not choose the other? If there is one path, there is no choice!
Phukface argued with me over PM for a good while trying to help me get out of my fatalist moments during winter, but eventually, I triumphed, SADLY. He admitted I was right. In fact, my shrink agreed. My philosophy teacher agreed (and I should say he has more knowledge in that matter than most IMO). Most who are englightened on the issue will agree, choice is an illusion. We rarely choose without a bias.

But like you, I am an optimist. Why? Because even if life is determined, I could never know mine. I will never know if I will be shot at and killed. If I knew my life, might as well go jump off a bridge, since it'll be boring to know what's next no?
Since I don't know it, I now believe in what my shrink made me opt to believe in : the unpredictable. Bank on that in life. The fact is, you will never know what will happen in 3 years. For me it's a huge argument. I don't know where I will head in my career, I don't know if I will discover any love until then, know my sexuality, etc. But the fact is, the unpredictable brings surprises. Whether they are good or bad, you discover this is what is exciting about life. To experience it all, the emotions, the feelings. Thus, if life is truly determined, I don't care anymore, even if I had bad stuff happen, I also had sudden unpredicted surprises (unpredicted in MY position, my POV, but predicted in the Causality system) that were pretty cool. So I decided to feel happy no matter what. Do you see now that I am not trying to be pessimist? But I do wish people could believe in this. I think it is what is logical and the truth. Ryan believes his truth, I have mine. He quoted his truth, I brought mine here also claiming I know what is true.

He quoted, so I will quote the lovely piece of the Merovingian speech where Morpheus says that choice is what begins it all:

Another thing: Skinner is a behaviorist. The light side of determinism to him, is that he believes since man is formed socially and biologically, inevitably of course, that doesn't mean he is "made", but "makable". His behaviorism is applied in many fields, like education and psychotherapy. This is actually a seriously good thing. Being able to create the man we want, especially in education and psychotherapy, using behavioristic studies, we can effectively heal and educate people, and hence even destroy possibly murderers and people who want to bully. But it would take some serious mind controlling.


--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over <font color=red>62</font color=red> no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 03/02/04 03:36 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

I totally agree with you there. I think Ryan went one step too far and did the biggest mistake of what could usually cause wars, (thought his post was not THAT forcing) forcing down the religeous beliefs you have on others. A little "IMO" RC-style at the end of all of his post could've gone a long way.

Finally, as to you, whore, when will we see pics of you on the album, HUH?

Here, jack off to me here <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/edenx10/vic.html" target="_new">http://www.geocities.com/edenx10/vic.html</A>. The last one was taken yesterday, with me peeking an eye on YOU, my lovely Jefypoo. Because you're special and sweet!

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over <font color=red>62</font color=red> no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A>

Oh btw Snorkius, while I also don't like the gay pride parade (surprise!), you shouldn't generalize and centralize your annoyance on this one flaunting. Ya know, the riches do that, the people with higher grades do that, Flamey does that. I think we're generalizing far too much on how much gays are heard in public. FAR too much. I dare you to show me more than 3-4 TV shows out there that have gay content. One I can tell you from now is Will and Grace.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over <font color=red>62</font color=red> no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A>

Ahh but I never said the all knowing person would be existing in our world, he's merely an observer!
Causality is everywhere, anytimes, no matter how many layers you coat your story. Hence, if the computer told you this, and you now reacted, you still are victim of causality. You did not choose anything, you still reacted. I too used to think we'd only need a future teller tell us something and us going against it to prove predictability wrong but when you apply causality to it, the future tellers have nothing really true, because in the end, they also play cause and effect like every single molecule out there. Thus, if you think you stopped the future right there from what the comp told you, you're wrong. The chain link goes on, the after effects can still be predicted, calculated, cause and effect. Thus the observer, can view the computer's theory and you, and can even calculate what you will do after that computer's prediction, knowing your next move. So your evasion, is still a layer below causality, which can't be avoided.

Hence why I say it is a future that is determined logically by cause and effect, yet at the same time we live for the unpredictable.

As for choices, I've said enough. Present me with your life choices and the backgrounds for them, and I'll debate you why they're an illusion you think you made. You never chose, you decided upon what was directly logical to YOUR bias. (I defined bias previously, a combination of many factors)

However I do am interested in QM and what they do for real, as well as a confirmation that randomness exists. Mind you I also don't beleive completely that CPUs can generate random numbers as we instruct them to. I believe there is a molecular reaction depending on the charges, the environment it is in, that will cause an electron somewhere to end up being decoded with others, as a "random number".

Oh and the best example of non-randomness is lottery. That's the biggest load of a joke. If you think the results are random, then ROFL.
They're balls, spinned in a closed system. They hit each other and react according to physics, (a world without this stability would be in chaos, no gravity, no velocity, no reflexion laws, etc.) and the moment the person opens the trap and the ball falls, well, it's the number that comes out. But I can argue with you that it was not random because of the moment that person openeed the trap, but actually because a set of factors made the person at X moment open the trap, hence combined with the physics rolling the balls, will end up having a certain ball go out.

Ah yes, I am quite sure of this, there is no randomness with lottery. We, from our POV, will interpret it that way because it IS from our POV, but not in reality.

Now if randomness exists in some molecules, then I'd like to see that set right here for me to read on. My shrink tells me Einstein discovered randomness.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over <font color=red>62</font color=red> no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A>

Well that is basically my point. I can't say I can prove you couldn't have chosen otherwise (we can't change the past), but I can assure you the choices you make are based on the logic inside your head which clings as "Logical" and thus you take it. We're not discussing right choices either. We're discussing any decision which may hurt you or not. It's about what inside you ticks as the right choice. Hence why it can't be a choice because there never was one, you were MADE to take that one!

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over <font color=red>62</font color=red> no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A>

I respect your right to an opinion, just wondered what you have to say about <A HREF="http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/" target="_new">this</A> particular biblical passage?

Advertising (n): the science of arresting the human
intelligence for long enough to get money from it.
-- Stephen Leacock.