moral constructs of the self "who am i?" "am i of any value without morals?" "do i have any morals?" "how do i feel when i want to feel good when i dont want other people to inflict me with their morals?" teenage attachment stuff construing the sense of plausible or not plausible based on emotive pre-dispostion to seek out a value that serves the sense of current self discovery er-go "i do not ask why i am because i have yet to decide who i am" you should realize i already know you wish to say i am wrong that is your emotional drive to assert a sense of control over the science instead of setting that aside "ego" we all have it, we all need it but how we comprehend it and how it influences us is very changeable and defines a great deal of a great deal of things. unfortunately you are now slightly obsessed with telling me im wrong thats ok thats normal but maybe instead of trying to find some type of emotional feel good for your ego why not just look at the science instead ? i hope that answers your question about "teenage attachment" right or wrong arrogance the question is a question not a statement your interpretation is of emotional attachment er-go arrogance ... fyi i noticed you emotionally reacted to someones semi troll type comment thats only going to sway you from the subject. try not to emotionally engage with emotionally construed inflammatory conjecture if you wish to discuss science or you may find other trolls will try and bait you. facts & opinions ...
You misunderstand the criticism. You're not being criticized for your limitations, but for your tenacious clinging to them; you refusal to expand your horizon and consider informative answers. And it's not done 'for the sake of doing so'; it's done in an attempt to persuade you to be less combative.
Well, I guess I'm one of those "concrete heads" you like to criticize. So maybe don't pile up stones in your glass house?
There is science There is observations There is facts defined by agreed scientific method their is opinions (informed, un-informed, maliciously construed, maligned, dishonest, ignorantly projected... etc etc...) if the train is traveling against a wind of 100kmph and the driver farts... which way is the trains passengers bed-side-reading lights traveling in ? how does it feel to think about the breakfast menu ? (emotional experience Vs raw data ...)
by concrete heads I just mean someone with a closed mind, so yea, I suppose you are. and even if I am a concrete head, it makes no difference to the fact that you are a concrete head, it just means we are both concrete heads. I see nothing wrong with criticizing other people for bad qualities that I also have myself, as my bad qualities make no difference to the bad qualities of others. this is getting very petty, all of the threads I am on do, so that is probably my fault.
free will is retro causation, everything about you was caused by something, if you can't choose what that something was, you can't choose anything. cause > cause > moment. cause > < cause > < moment of free will. so, retro causation existing is the only way I can de-horrify.
of course I want my ego to feel good and all of that stuff, but I fail to see what any of this has to do with retro causation. I will not tell you you are wrong, because you are not and I know you are not, (not about most of what you said at least) all of those things are just more things to fix. and that's an excellent defense of yours telling me it is my animal drive to stand up for myself so that I don't do it and thus don't embarrass you, I use the same defense myself.
combative about what? there are no legitimate ideas here to combat, just petty quarrels about who is wrong and who is right and who is a christian cult leader.
Doesn't matter what I think. Find out for yourself. Experiment. Change one factor in the past in order to give you more freedom of will in the present. For example, go back an don't start the 'concrete head' bs, then see what else changes as a result. Who knows, people might even like you better.
but the past is what has already happened, so any changes to it have already happened, even though the causes of these changes may not have. so, the past can be fixed, unalterable, but that doesn't mean you can not alter it. the effect, in the past, can happen before its cause, in the future.
intent is perception what am i defending(going a little off topic) am i defending my ego ? sometimes conversation can be interpreted as Egocentric because it traverses aspects of the self that are aligned with the inner self. you confuse my interest in your ideas with an overt desire to manipulate. you are not wrong for reacting or thinking that when it comes to some people. however, you seem to place your Ego at the point of your opinion. being proven wrong is normal science. theoretical quantum physics Vs Philosophy Vs psychology i am aware of your desire to rattle through various aspects(sticking to the science... as it were...) your theory is to engage ... ? maybe 'some' people read your posts in a way that they feel negates concepts for discussion.
good point, you may not have been doing it to manipulate me. but then again, you could have been. I find it serves me better to assume the worst of people.
do you mean physically changing the past physical outcomes in the past ? this would change the present quantum retro-causality might be something slightly different. i am yet to comprehensively grasp its physics properties/quantum theory
