jeffreyrobertpalinjr
jeffreyrobertpalinjr
Jeffrey Robert Palin Jr.
  Single, heterosexual/straight, Christian, democrat. Do imaginary things interact with non-mental reality? No.   独身、異性愛者、キリスト教徒、民主主義者。「想像上の」ものは「非精神的」現実と相互作用しますか? いいえ。   单身的。在性上"被吸引"到"异性的人" 和/或在浪漫上"被吸引"到"异性的人"。基督教宗教。民主党人。   "想象的"事物与""非头脑"创造了" 现实相互作用吗? 不,还是不  
Statistics
We looked inside some of the posts by jeffreyrobertpalinjr and here's what we found interesting.
Inside last 20 posts
Time between posts
220879.35
Number of posts by type
Photo
0
Video
0
Audio
0
Text
0
Chat
0
Answer
0
Link
0
Quote
0
Explore Tagged Posts
Fun Fact
The company's tagline is "Follow the World's Creators".
jeffreyrobertpalinjr · 15 hours ago
Text
1
My (Jeffrey Robert Palin Jr.’s) Philosophy of Free Will:
We can control our arms, legs, and mouth by moving them at will. That’s an example of free will. One’s will is not independent. Free will means being able to will things to do something in absence of coercion (example: will your arm to move) and being able to make choices in absence of coercion. Will is not the calculation process. Will is choosing and the execution. Also choosing what to calculate plus executing what was calculated. One uses one’s will to choose what to calculate. One uses one’s will to execute and to execute what was calculated. One’s will does not use itself, it is not independent.
Nothing causes humans to hum, but a baby human may end up humming for no reason other than because of free will.
Fate exists at the same time as free will because, well here’s an example: If someone throws you into the middle of a volcano, the moment that you’re in the air and have no way of avoiding going down into the lava, your fate is sealed. You didn’t have said fate until said moment. One’s fate is not determined before said one’s existence.
It’s impossible for destiny to provide a rough draft for people’s lives because making choices is reliant on free will. People can change their minds at any time that they want to.
Definition of destiny: The events that will necessarily happen to a particular person or thing in the future. Things only necessarily happen to people based on the laws of nature and people’s decisions. Decisions are directly made by said people’s free will.
Things only necessarily happen to people based on the laws of nature and people’s decisions. Free will shows that even without a vision/knowledge of cause and effect, when it comes to people (unless completely immobile) and their choices, nothing is predecided.
Destiny contradicts free will. If the choices “we make, don’t make or leave for others to make” (our free will) help us achieve making a future happen from a selection of multiple futures, then that means that free will enables us to constantly select/switch which future is happening from the selection of multiple futures, which means that destiny contradicts free will.
Things that Google used to say: Google says “In reality, there are multiple futures. And what future is happening, depends partly on us, partly on other influences”, Google also says “Our future is determined by the choices we make, don’t make, or leave for others to make for us”. If the choices “we make, don’t make or leave for others to make” (our free will) helps help us achieve making a future happen from the selection of multiple futures, doesn’t that mean that free will enables us to constantly select/switch which future is happening from the selection of multiple futures, which means that destiny contradicts free will?
The weird thing is, if anyone forever knows the different choices that people are going to make, that limits futures down to one. This contradicts free will.
There isn’t an inevitable future, the future is shaped as the present progresses. The possibilities that the immediate future hold are constantly changing based on all events progressing in the present. The future is not predetermined.
We are in charge/control of our free will. We are in charge of the part that allows us to survive in a fully intentional way. We even have free will in our dreams when we are unconscious/sleeping, making choices in dreams that we may remember. The control we have is sufficient and self-evidently not controlled by any other. Freedom of desire and freedom of execution of desire is the “free” part of free will. Some desires you choose, such as the desire to impress in order to be recognised. Some desires you don’t choose such as wanting the pain from a burn to go away. This fits under freedom within the laws of nature.
Free will exists in determinism and at the same time as the future not being predetermined. All decisions were determined when made however the future is always reliant on new decisions (new decisions in the present and new decisions in the future). Freedom of desire and freedom of execution of desire is the “free” part of free will. Some desires you choose, such as the desire to impress in order to be recognised. Some desires you don’t choose such as wanting the pain from a burn to go away. This fits under freedom within the laws of nature.
The present causes future possibilities and they are constantly changing, thats causality, like that, the future remains not predetermined. The ever-changing world causes decisions to be made by us, thats also causality. Freedom of desire and freedom of execution of desire is the “free” part of free will. Some desires you choose, such as the desire to impress in order to be recognised. Some desires you don’t choose such as wanting the pain from a burn to go away. This fits under freedom within the laws of nature.
What is an example of a situation where free will was compromised?
In the Disney animated movie “Aladdin” when Jafar used his staff with the cobra face to force the Sultan to say whatever Jafar wanted the Sultan to say.
Since one wills oneself to calculate/express/execute, does this mean the origin of one’s thoughts is one’s free will? And/Or is the origin based on impulse but doesn’t always include knowing and intention?
You often know what topic you will continue thinking about and you know why you go off topic when something related to another topic emerges in your thinking about the original topic. You’re constantly deciding what you want to think about when non-mental things aren’t distracting you or holding your focus. You know things that you want to and/or have to get done during your day, and you decide when to think about those things. People often like to analyze their daily experiences when it comes to things that brought about certain emotions/etc.. You don’t need to confirm your own existence to know that you exist. Knowing something doesn’t always require thinking. Babies know that they don’t like being alone and they don’t need to think to know that. “Wanting” and “desires” are based on our own conclusions/experiences. Experience plays a major role in why we have any slightest hint of understanding of why we “want”/“desire” something even when we were babies.
The brain produces thoughts based directly on our experiences/desires/likes/feelings/emotions and on what we experience with our senses. Those thoughts are our unique perspective of how we percieve and interpret reality. What is a mental norm for one may not be another’s mental norm. We understand our thoughts better than anyone else can, we know what we are trying to express/do even without having to rehearse it. The brain produces thoughts without us knowing why we can will it to do so, much like we can move our limbs without us knowing why we can will it to do so. Willing includes intentional reaction and we sometimes confuse intentional reaction with unintentional reaction. An example of an unintentional reaction is when a doctor uses that little hammer to hit a certain part of your knee/leg when you’re seated and it makes your leg kick up. One’s feelings is up to oneself, one can be sensitive and become tougher because one realizes that one’s expectations weren’t realistic. Trust often plays a major role in one’s expectations and feelings, which has everything to do with experience. Feelings are heavily based on likes and dislikes as well. These shape preferences that are unique to every individual. Most of those preferences are known by one without one having to calculate what one’s preferences are.
One’s intentions are based on experience, likes, and dislikes. One’s original creations are based on choices made from learning from experience. Experience happens whether one has free will or doesn’t have free will. How we manipulate our interactions/interference with reality and/or the external world is based on our abilities. Our ability of movement without having to calculate anything but, at the same time, not being involuntary (for example: babies), is based on a combination of impulses and will. Our ability to make our brains produce the precise chemical combination which produces thoughts that we intentionally tried to think up is based on a combination of impulse, want, and will. Our unwanted thoughts are sometimes our automatic reactions involving an automatic wanting of our own interpretation, understanding, and imagined imagery of what is being painted by an external source. Our ability to constantly manipulate, without pause if wanted, what we think/imagine is based on will and present experience, past experience, and anticipation/expectation of future experience. One’s “sense of self” is evident because, for the most part, one’s control of one’s body, decisions, thoughts/mental activity, conclusions, and perspective have not been involuntary (within the laws of physics and without coercion).
Willing your arms and legs to move doesn’t require thought, willing does not have to be a thought, new-born babies are an example of this.
How do you explain when your leg is shaking while you’re sitting at a classroom desk and you didn’t even realize that your leg was shaking until a little while after it started shaking? This isn’t intuitive and you didn’t try to make your leg shake.
Willing your arms and legs to move doesn’t require thought, willing does not have to be a thought, new-born babies are an example of this. Can you explain why you would think that this isn’t accurate?
Does breathing require thought? We can use thought to control our breathing when we want but when we’re breathing hard after running, thought is not required to breathe hard. Also, the sounds we make when we feel certain pains or when we are smashing against something, those sounds require will but do not require thought.
Instinctual thought is how babies think until “conscious thought with direction” is what their every instinctual thought is changing into shortly after production. This happens when babies start applying memory to their instinctual thoughts. Conscious thought with direction” originate as instinctual thought.
Will requires one’s focus and said one to be conscious. Our subconscious thoughts control automatic doings such as breathing/walking without us having to consciously think about doing it but we are able to freely switch between automatic subconscious control or conscious control by applying our focus to it when we want to consciously control it. To do this, we exercise our will, based on the never-ending choice of being able to do it whenever we want. We exercise our will to consciously control ourselves and to do so requires our focus.
How do you explain when your leg is shaking while you’re sitting at a classroom desk and you didn’t even realize that your leg was shaking until a little while after it started shaking? This isn’t intuitive and you didn’t try to make your leg shake.
Every instinctual thought is changing into “conscious thought with direction” shortly after production. This happens when babies start applying memory to their instinctual thoughts. Does “conscious thought with direction” originate as instinctual thought?
Instinctual thought is how babies think until “conscious thought with direction” is what their every instinctual thought is changing into shortly after production. This happens when babies start applying memory to their instinctual thoughts. Conscious thought with direction” originate as instinctual thought.
Is conscious thought a combination of knowing, experience, focus, and will?
Our knowing is constantly changing based on our never-ending constant fluid experience of our body’s never-ending interaction with the physical world. Our experience of our body’s never-ending interaction with the physical world provides us with never ending choices/options and/or decision-making which we can ignore or apply our focus to. Our subconscious thoughts control automatic doings such as breathing/walking without us having to consciously think about doing it but we are able to freely switch between automatic subconscious control or conscious control by applying our focus to it when we want to consciously control it. To do this, we exercise our will, based on the never-ending choice of being able to do it whenever we want. We exercise our will to control what we consiously focus on. To do this, knowing, based on our never-ending experiencing of the physical world, is required for conscious focus. In other words, we know what we want to focus on before we focus on it, instinct can throw this off at times. Knowing also constantly changes based on what we consciously conclude. Conscious thoughts emerge when we know what we want to convey before we calculate and express the calculated expression of what we want to convey. This is either conscious thought or knowing. Some might argue that the thought doesn’t start until the calculation process. Knowing is based on a combination of our never-ending constant fluid experience of our body’s never-ending interaction with the physical world and the never ending choices/options that that never-ending interaction provides. We know what we want to convey before we calculate and express the calculated expression of what we want to convey. To choose what to focus on, we exercise our will, to choose to calculate/express something, we exercise our will.
A thought’s origin is not the calculation when calculating/commiting expression of that thought in a way that can be received by others, is this concept accurate?
Conscious thoughts:
Example: One of the deafblind "males" was only taught how to interact with a woman who could see and hear. The deafblind does not visualize anything mentally and speaks nothing mentally. And before he expresses his expression, he knows what he is trying to express. This example is a hypothesis. But if it is true that he visualizes something mentally and speaks something mentally, then "his multiple creations", "scenarios generated in the form of thought / imagination" "Is probably his predominantly intentional sequence of segments in those scenarios" "(one sequence of many segments = one scenario) (one difference in" sequence / segment "between two scenarios = Two different scenarios or two same scenarios, but the two scenarios have two different perspectives / views from each other). "These scenarios are made up of segments," mainly in a deliberate order, "and segments can undergo endless changes, during creation, until the end of the scenario. (Endless changes: Similar to the concept of endless changes in the number of recorded milliseconds from the beginning of creation to "in progress" and "current"). There are many different segments. There are multiple segments that are "non-audio non-image things". There are multiple segments that are audio. There are multiple segments that are images. He may create segments in a seemingly strange and fluidly changing order. The order of the segments may even be logical, but when observed, it may give the non-deafblind the impression that it is a "different world." These mental scenarios, when observed, can give the impression that they are a very "different world" for those who are not deafblind. Even if "all sounds" and "all images" do not exist and have never existed in reality / method, you can "know" that you like something. Even if "all sounds" and "all images" do not exist and have never existed in reality / method, you can "think" that you like something. As an example, I like warmth (temperature).
Conscious thinking begins with already knowing what you want to convey before you calculate how to express what you want to convey in a way that others can receive.
How do you explain when your leg is shaking while you’re sitting at a classroom desk and you didn’t even realize that your leg was shaking until a little while after it started shaking? This isn’t intuitive and you didn’t try to make your leg shake.
What comes first, wanting to do/say something, or the thought of wanting to do/say something? Is knowing and/or feelings not an initiation requirement of wanting?
Doesn’t not believing in free will mean that no person is guilty of lying except the programming or design?
I believe in free will. If there is no free will, you make no choices and you control nothing. That means there’s no such thing as justification and there is no such thing as accusing. It’s all just a happening that is basically, for lack of a better word, scripted in a way that shows a depiction of logic that no one is using or random in a way that shows a depiction of logic that no one is using.
The only way to have capacity to be responsible or morally responsible is to have free will regarding mind/thought. Without that freedom, all of your mind/thoughts are, for lack of a better word, scripted in a way that depicts a logic that no one uses or random in a way that depicts a logic that no one uses.
2
My (Jeffrey Robert Palin Jr.’s) Philosophy of Free Will With Belief in God:
We can control our arms, legs, and mouth by moving them at will. That’s an example of free will. One’s will is not independent. Free will means being able to will things to do something in absence of coercion (example: will your arm to move) and being able to make choices in absence of coercion. Will is not the calculation process. Will is choosing and the execution. Also choosing what to calculate plus executing what was calculated. One uses one’s will to choose what to calculate. One uses one’s will to execute and to execute what was calculated. One’s will does not use itself, it is not independent.
It’s impossible for destiny to provide a rough draft for said people’s lives because making choices is reliant on free will. People can change their minds at any time that they want to.
Nothing causes humans to hum, but a baby human may end up humming for no reason other than because of free will.
Fate exists at the same time as free will because, well here’s an example: If someone throws you into the middle of a volcano, the moment that you’re in the air and have no way of avoiding going down into the lava, your fate is sealed. You didn’t have said fate until said moment. One’s fate is not determined before said one’s existence.
Definition of destiny: The events that will necessarily happen to a particular person or thing in the future. Things only necessarily happen to people based on the laws of nature and people’s decisions. Decisions are directly made by said people’s free will.
Things only necessarily happen to people based on the laws of nature and people’s decisions. Free will shows that even without a vision/knowledge of cause and effect, when it comes to people (unless completely immobile) and their choices, nothing is predecided. This makes God appear to be beyond comprehension.
Destiny contradicts free will. If the choices “we make, don’t make or leave for others to make” (our free will) help us achieve making a future happen from a selection of multiple futures, then that means that free will enables us to constantly select/switch which future is happening from the selection of multiple futures, which means that destiny contradicts free will.
Things that Google used to say: Google says “In reality, there are multiple futures. And what future is happening, depends partly on us, partly on other influences”, Google also says “Our future is determined by the choices we make, don't make, or leave for others to make for us”. If the choices “we make, don’t make or leave for others to make” (our free will) help us achieve making a future happen from the selection of multiple futures, doesn’t that mean that free will enables us to constantly select/switch which future is happening from the selection of multiple futures, which means that destiny contradicts free will?
The Bible clearly states that God does not tempt man and God is not tempted. The Bible also says that we have our own desires (which shows that we have free will) and that God instructs us not to conceive and give birth to sin. This shows that none of our sins can be blamed on God nor a Divine plan.
The weird thing is, if anyone forever knows the different choices that people are going to make, that limits futures down to one. This contradicts the free will that God blessed man with. My conclusion is: God is beyond comprehension, is capable of the impossible and illogical, and forever knows the different choices people will make (God can change present circumstances to whatever He wants)… or God doesn’t know the future but He knows the present and the past.
There isn’t an inevitable future, the future is shaped as the present progresses. The possibilities that the immediate future hold are constantly changing based on all events progressing in the present. The future is not predetermined.
We are in charge/control of our free will. We are in charge of the part that allows us to survive in a fully intentional way. We even have free will in our dreams when we are unconscious/sleeping, making choices in dreams that we may remember. The control we have is sufficient and self-evidently not controlled by any other. Freedom of desire and freedom of execution of desire is the “free” part of free will. Some desires you choose, such as the desire to impress in order to be recognised. Some desires you don’t choose such as wanting the pain from a burn to go away. This fits under freedom within the laws of nature.
Free will exists in determinism and at the same time as the future not being predetermined. All decisions were determined when made however the future is always reliant on new decisions (new decisions in the present and new decisions in the future). Freedom of desire and freedom of execution of desire is the “free” part of free will. Some desires you choose, such as the desire to impress in order to be recognised. Some desires you don’t choose such as wanting the pain from a burn to go away. This fits under freedom within the laws of nature.
The present causes future possibilities and they are constantly changing, thats causality, like that, the future remains not predetermined. The ever-changing world causes decisions to be made by us, thats also causality. Freedom of desire and freedom of execution of desire is the “free” part of free will. Some desires you choose, such as the desire to impress in order to be recognised. Some desires you don’t choose such as wanting the pain from a burn to go away. This fits under freedom within the laws of nature.
God blessed man with free will. I don’t think that He would choose to take away from man the things that He blessed man with.
God must have given us ability to make decisions, because otherwise, He would not be able to hold us accountable for our sin. When we decide to sin, He holds us responsible. He would not be just if our decision to sin was really His decision.
On the other hand, He is able to wrest control from us at any time He chooses. For example, consider Pr 16:33.
Pr 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.
The Bible is logical because it uses nonscientific things such as “spirit, soul, and God” and mixes it with established science norms and established science standards. It replaces a few scientific explanations but not all of them. I’m just saying that there is existing established science that is not falsifiable but there is also existing science that can probably be falsified but hasn’t yet. Science like atoms and particles are compatible with the Bible and believing in God, the foundation of science is still the same in the Bible, just how the foundation got created is different. Some other things got replaced such as evolution not being how man came to exist. There are other sciences that are also compatible.
If you believe in a divine plan then: There’s no plan if there is no one who has free will to make the plan. What a plan describes is a belief in a script/programming that is already set to keep achieving the script/pre-programming by the script/pre-programming happening during a flowing time frame, the time frame can have a beginning and even no end. The other problem is: the Bible says that God gave man free will. So if you’re claiming that there is no free will then you don’t actually believe what the Bible says. And as far as Divine Plan, the Bible clearly states that God does not tempt man and God is not tempted. The Bible also says that we have our own desires (which shows that we have free will) and that God instructs us not to conceive and give birth to sin. This shows that none of our sins can be blamed on God nor a Divine plan. God can and has interfered with what would have been the natural occurance of things, altering the future to be a future that God desires. God let’s us use our free will and if He notices that we are deserving of his divine interference, I call that God’s plan.
I believe that God knows the future because He is capable of the illogical and the impossible. He can change the circumstances of the present whenever He wants. He gave man free will because He wants man to choose to be/do good of man’s own free will. That’s why He holds man accountable for the life that man lives. The only divine plan that the Bible mentions (besides Jesus’ life) are the prophecies, which doesn’t say nor decide anyone’s individual choices and/or life.
God is capable of the impossible and the illogical. That’s how God knows the future (if He does) and destiny doesn’t exist (God can change present circumstances to whatever He wants).
I believe that soul, spirit, and consciousness are either all the same thing or can’t exist without each other.
Doesn’t not believing in free will mean that no person is guilty of lying except the programming or design?
I believe in free will. If there is no free will, you make no choices and you control nothing. That means there’s no such thing as justification and there is no such thing as accusing. It’s all just a happening that is basically, for lack of a better word, scripted in a way that shows a depiction of logic that no one is using or random in a way that shows a depiction of logic that no one is using.
The only way to have capacity to be responsible or morally responsible is to have free will regarding mind/thought. Without that freedom, all of your mind/thoughts are, for lack of a better word, scripted in a way that depicts a logic that no one uses or random in a way that depicts a logic that no one uses.
What is an example of a situation where free will was compromised?
In the Disney animated movie “Aladdin” when Jafar used his staff with the cobra face to force the Sultan to say whatever Jafar wanted the Sultan to say.
Since one wills oneself to calculate/express/execute, does this mean the origin of one’s thoughts is one’s free will? And/Or is the origin based on impulse but doesn’t always include knowing and intention?
You often know what topic you will continue thinking about and you know why you go off topic when something related to another topic emerges in your thinking about the original topic. You’re constantly deciding what you want to think about when non-mental things aren’t distracting you or holding your focus. You know things that you want to and/or have to get done during your day, and you decide when to think about those things. People often like to analyze their daily experiences when it comes to things that brought about certain emotions/etc.. You don’t need to confirm your own existence to know that you exist. Knowing something doesn’t always require thinking. Babies know that they don’t like being alone and they don’t need to think to know that. “Wanting” and “desires” are based on our own conclusions/experiences. Experience plays a major role in why we have any slightest hint of understanding of why we “want”/“desire” something even when we were babies.
The brain produces thoughts based directly on our experiences/desires/likes/feelings/emotions and on what we experience with our senses. Those thoughts are our unique perspective of how we percieve and interpret reality. What is a mental norm for one may not be another’s mental norm. We understand our thoughts better than anyone else can, we know what we are trying to express/do even without having to rehearse it. The brain produces thoughts without us knowing why we can will it to do so, much like we can move our limbs without us knowing why we can will it to do so. Willing includes intentional reaction and we sometimes confuse intentional reaction with unintentional reaction. An example of an unintentional reaction is when a doctor uses that little hammer to hit a certain part of your knee/leg when you’re seated and it makes your leg kick up. One’s feelings is up to oneself, one can be sensitive and become tougher because one realizes that one’s expectations weren’t realistic. Trust often plays a major role in one’s expectations and feelings, which has everything to do with experience. Feelings are heavily based on likes and dislikes as well. These shape preferences that are unique to every individual. Most of those preferences are known by one without one having to calculate what one’s preferences are.
One’s intentions are based on experience, likes, and dislikes. One’s original creations are based on choices made from learning from experience. Experience happens whether one has free will or doesn’t have free will. How we manipulate our interactions/interference with reality and/or the external world is based on our abilities. Our ability of movement without having to calculate anything but, at the same time, not being involuntary (for example: babies), is based on a combination of impulses and will. Our ability to make our brains produce the precise chemical combination which produces thoughts that we intentionally tried to think up is based on a combination of impulse, want, and will. Our unwanted thoughts are sometimes our automatic reactions involving an automatic wanting of our own interpretation, understanding, and imagined imagery of what is being painted by an external source. Our ability to constantly manipulate, without pause if wanted, what we think/imagine is based on will and present experience, past experience, and anticipation/expectation of future experience. One’s “sense of self” is evident because, for the most part, one’s control of one’s body, decisions, thoughts/mental activity, conclusions, and perspective have not been involuntary (within the laws of physics and without coercion).
Willing your arms and legs to move doesn’t require thought, willing does not have to be a thought, new-born babies are an example of this.
How do you explain when your leg is shaking while you’re sitting at a classroom desk and you didn’t even realize that your leg was shaking until a little while after it started shaking? This isn’t intuitive and you didn’t try to make your leg shake.
Willing your arms and legs to move doesn’t require thought, willing does not have to be a thought, new-born babies are an example of this. Can you explain why you would think that this isn’t accurate?
Does breathing require thought? We can use thought to control our breathing when we want but when we’re breathing hard after running, thought is not required to breathe hard. Also, the sounds we make when we feel certain pains or when we are smashing against something, those sounds require will but do not require thought.
Instinctual thought is how babies think until “conscious thought with direction” is what their every instinctual thought is changing into shortly after production. This happens when babies start applying memory to their instinctual thoughts. Conscious thought with direction” originate as instinctual thought.
Will requires one’s focus and said one to be conscious. Our subconscious thoughts control automatic doings such as breathing/walking without us having to consciously think about doing it but we are able to freely switch between automatic subconscious control or conscious control by applying our focus to it when we want to consciously control it. To do this, we exercise our will, based on the never-ending choice of being able to do it whenever we want. We exercise our will to consciously control ourselves and to do so requires our focus.
How do you explain when your leg is shaking while you’re sitting at a classroom desk and you didn’t even realize that your leg was shaking until a little while after it started shaking? This isn’t intuitive and you didn’t try to make your leg shake.
Every instinctual thought is changing into “conscious thought with direction” shortly after production. This happens when babies start applying memory to their instinctual thoughts. Does “conscious thought with direction” originate as instinctual thought?
Instinctual thought is how babies think until “conscious thought with direction” is what their every instinctual thought is changing into shortly after production. This happens when babies start applying memory to their instinctual thoughts. Conscious thought with direction” originate as instinctual thought.
Is conscious thought a combination of knowing, experience, focus, and will?
Our knowing is constantly changing based on our never-ending constant fluid experience of our body’s never-ending interaction with the physical world. Our experience of our body’s never-ending interaction with the physical world provides us with never ending choices/options and/or decision-making which we can ignore or apply our focus to. Our subconscious thoughts control automatic doings such as breathing/walking without us having to consciously think about doing it but we are able to freely switch between automatic subconscious control or conscious control by applying our focus to it when we want to consciously control it. To do this, we exercise our will, based on the never-ending choice of being able to do it whenever we want. We exercise our will to control what we consiously focus on. To do this, knowing, based on our never-ending experiencing of the physical world, is required for conscious focus. In other words, we know what we want to focus on before we focus on it, instinct can throw this off at times. Knowing also constantly changes based on what we consciously conclude. Conscious thoughts emerge when we know what we want to convey before we calculate and express the calculated expression of what we want to convey. This is either conscious thought or knowing. Some might argue that the thought doesn’t start until the calculation process. Knowing is based on a combination of our never-ending constant fluid experience of our body’s never-ending interaction with the physical world and the never ending choices/options that that never-ending interaction provides. We know what we want to convey before we calculate and express the calculated expression of what we want to convey. To choose what to focus on, we exercise our will, to choose to calculate/express something, we exercise our will.
A thought’s origin is not the calculation when calculating/commiting expression of that thought in a way that can be received by others, is this concept accurate?
Conscious thoughts:
Example: One of the deafblind "males" was only taught how to interact with a woman who could see and hear. The deafblind does not visualize anything mentally and speaks nothing mentally. And before he expresses his expression, he knows what he is trying to express. This example is a hypothesis. But if it is true that he visualizes something mentally and speaks something mentally, then "his multiple creations", "scenarios generated in the form of thought / imagination" "Is probably his predominantly intentional sequence of segments in those scenarios" "(one sequence of many segments = one scenario) (one difference in" sequence / segment "between two scenarios = Two different scenarios or two same scenarios, but the two scenarios have two different perspectives / views from each other). "These scenarios are made up of segments," mainly in a deliberate order, "and segments can undergo endless changes, during creation, until the end of the scenario. (Endless changes: Similar to the concept of endless changes in the number of recorded milliseconds from the beginning of creation to "in progress" and "current"). There are many different segments. There are multiple segments that are "non-audio non-image things". There are multiple segments that are audio. There are multiple segments that are images. He may create segments in a seemingly strange and fluidly changing order. The order of the segments may even be logical, but when observed, it may give the non-deafblind the impression that it is a "different world." These mental scenarios, when observed, can give the impression that they are a very "different world" for those who are not deafblind. Even if "all sounds" and "all images" do not exist and have never existed in reality / method, you can "know" that you like something. Even if "all sounds" and "all images" do not exist and have never existed in reality / method, you can "think" that you like something. As an example, I like warmth (temperature).
Conscious thinking begins with already knowing what you want to convey before you calculate how to express what you want to convey in a way that others can receive.
How do you explain when your leg is shaking while you’re sitting at a classroom desk and you didn’t even realize that your leg was shaking until a little while after it started shaking? This isn’t intuitive and you didn’t try to make your leg shake.
What comes first, wanting to do/say something, or the thought of wanting to do/say something? Is knowing and/or feelings not an initiation requirement of wanting?
0 notes
jeffreyrobertpalinjr · 23 hours ago
Text
Is all science falsifiable?
Just by looking at the spelling of the word falsify/falsifiable, you can deduce that it means “to make false”. The only way to make something false is to prove that it is inaccurate.
The actual definition of Falsify - 1. alter (information or evidence) so as to mislead. 2. prove (a statement or theory) to be false.
The known science behind anything is only falsifiable if it can be proven to be wrong/inaccurate. This is why the word falsifiable is often an assumption. There are a lot of things that we know the science behind, but that we also don’t know if that science behind it can be proven wrong/inaccurate, therefore we don’t know if the science behind those things is falsifiable. Calling it falsifiable seems plausible because it would be foolish to rule out “what we think might be possibilities” resulting from our awareness of not knowing everything and our knowing that we might still discover/create new things.
Unless you have a logical replacement/alternative for any explanation known as established science, “claiming that the explanation (known as established science) is not valid” is not justified and not beneficial for anyone. You can’t prove anything with only word logic if you don’t have a logical explanation that does the proving.
0 notes
Text
Logic relies on the premises. “The premises” = “What is evident/provided”
1 note · View note
Text
What is the truth about logic? What is the truth about science?
Our understanding of logic is based on natural sciences, whether we’re articulate enough to explain the logic or not. Natural sciences are only based on formal logic.
Can science be considered science if said science isn’t logical when said science comes to the topic of formal logic?
No. The scientific method is essentially the assertion of a hypothesis and then attempting to use observations to find a contradiction and disprove or support the hypothesis. In formal logic, we start with known premises (evidence) to get to a conclusion. If the premises contradict the conclusion, then we know with certainty that the conclusion is false. If the premises can derive the conclusion, then we know with certainty that the conclusion is correct. (We might also not be able to prove something from a given set of premises and then we need to add more).
Science lacks this certainty because premises are never fully known, but a similar method is used. It is Popper's idea (which is not entirely uncontested) that (within empirical inquiry) something is science if it is falsifiable. In other words, all science needs to be actable on by the model I described. "Science" which doesn't do this isn't science.
Science and logic are co-dependant, if one changes, then the other automatically changes. That’s why everyone is able to know who is being logical and who isn’t being logical. Science and logic remain the same for everyone.
The written expression/representation of science can change, but the foundation (formal logic) remains the same. Which means that the model that science is based on never changes.
Beliefs matter in logic because, for example, if a person believes that 2+2=87247, then that person is being illogical. Being illogical is unhealthy.
(Consider this: you are alone in a void. Since you have very little else to do, let's say you assert that a proposition "A" is true. It does not matter what "A" is, just that it is true. Then, assert that "If A is true, then B is too!" and "If B is true, then C is true as well!". Note two things: these are arbitrary propositions and it doesn't matter what they are called or what is in them. Secondly, they do not rely on anything physical or empirical. You are in the void and have no idea about these notions.
From this assertion that "A" is true, you deduce "B" and "C". You are able to do this because you are a cognitive being. But notice: no science was necessary! Hence, logic cannot be codependent on science, because we just did logic without it!
Let's now try and do science without logic. Consider you have landed on a new planet and wish to assert whether all the rocks are purple. When you land you find a green rock. Without logic, you will not see the contradiction (that all rocks being purple and there exists a green (non-purple) rock and incompatible). Your observations are meaningless because you lack a framework.)
Even when considering that, that logic is not based on confirmation and is therefore an assumption. Which means it probably isn’t logic at all. Also, if there is a green rock, if his senses are able to see the difference, then it is illogical to think that there is no color difference. Logic doesn’t exist without being able to confirm something.
(So this is the root of the disagreement. It does exist without being able to confirm something. All logic does (and this is quite powerful, but limited) is say "If these things are true, then those things are true." This is what logic is, essentially. No need to confirm "these things" when we talk about logic.
(We say someone is illogical if they assert "2+2 = 3" but rigorously, this is incorrect. The argument If "2+2 = 3" then "2 = 1" is perfectly logical. The premise is just wrong. We say the argument is not sound (sound is valid and true).
The fact is: we don’t say someone is logical if they say 2+2=3. Math is pure logic, trying to say that incorrect math is logical is illogical. 2 never equals 1. It is very obviously evident.
(The argument If "2+2 = 3" then "2=1" is logical. And in fact, we can prove it is logical simply by using the law of the contrapositive. We know 2!=1. By this law, If 2!=1 then 2+2!=4.
In English, if (for some odd reason) 2+2 = 3, then 2 = 1. But since we know certainly 2 does not equal 1, we also know 2+2 does not equal 3.
So in summary, using the premises If "2+2 = 3" then "2=1" and 2!=1, we derived 2+2!=4 using the law of the contrapositive! All of this is perfectly logical.)
That is logic based on what is not evident and doesn’t apply to understanding the world. If the world provides what is evident, then the logic that was provided in the argument obviously isn’t valid in physical reality. English is based on what is evident.
Systems of formal logic are empirical. That’s why the word “theory” exists when it comes to unconfirmed things derived from formal logic systems.
The observable world matters tremendously. When you hold two apples, it is clearly illogical and not valid to call two apples one apple.
Numbers are observable in the form of counting.
(The observable world does not matter in the domain of logic. That's not logic's "thing".
Validity: when the conclusion can be derived from the premises. The truthfulness of the premises doesn't matter.
Logical: is valid; illogical is not valid!)
If the premises are “what is being taken into consideration”, such as “what is already provided to work with (evident), in your example you provided that 2+2=3, therefore you gave a logical answer based on the premises provided (aka what you made evident). If validity is derived from the premises, the observable world is the premises (it is evident and provided).
0 notes
Text
Is our understanding of logic not science, whether we’re articulate enough to explain the logic or not?
Do we not derive logical ideas only from our observation of the world?
Philosophy is science that hasn’t been confirmed.
0 notes
jeffreyrobertpalinjr · 3 days ago
Text
Would Quantum Physics still be a structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world if mind, imagination, and consciousness didn’t exist?
Tumblr media
0 notes
jeffreyrobertpalinjr · 6 days ago
Text
Do imaginary things interact with non-mental reality?
No. External reality lets people sense external stimuli. Imaginary things that people imagine can be understood by those people’s minds but cannot be sensed as external stimulus. Deafblind people who are full body paralyzed are an example of people who can’t communicate with other people. Their minds and imagination are internal. The mind is the “middle man” for imagination to be understood (or all imagination is completely mental) and people have to use their physical bodies to express what they used their mind to understand. Things that are mental can’t be sensed as external stimuli. Both imaginary and mental are non-material.
0 notes
jeffreyrobertpalinjr · 7 days ago
Text
Single, heterosexual/straight, Christian, democrat.
Do imaginary things interact with non-mental reality? No.
独身、異性愛者、キリスト教徒、民主主義者。
「想像上の」ものは「非精神的」現実と相互作用しますか? いいえ。
单身的。在性上“被吸引”到“异性的人” 和/或在浪漫上“被吸引”到“异性的人”。基督教宗教。民主党人。
"想象的"事物与""非头脑"创造了" 现实相互作用吗? 不,还是不
Tumblr media
0 notes
jeffreyrobertpalinjr · 10 days ago
Text
Is there any non-fictional concept of telepathy that can be rapped about? Is rapping about a non-fictional concept of telepathy possible?
0 notes
jeffreyrobertpalinjr · 10 days ago
Text
If you’re writing content about a fictional reality that has shapeshifting people, don’t you have an actual-reality-based-perspective, but you also have perspectives of the fictional characters that you are creating dialogue for by expressing the dialogue of the fictional characters by your writing?
Yes. Everybody can have one personality capable of multiple perspectives.
4 notes · View notes
jeffreyrobertpalinjr · 11 days ago
Text
Sense of Self. What is Imagination?
Based on experience and notion, “self” applies direction of thought to “self’s” own brain, the brain doesn’t generate “self”, “self” is the the entire physical body with senses & automatic functions & “self” is able to use “self’s” brain & ability of free will to privately accomplish private mental tasks. “Self” uses “self’s” brain to imagine, therefore “self” has “self’s” own mind. Thoughts and memories are not actions but thinking, remembering, and imagining are actions. “Self’s” automatic functions enables and maintains “Self’s” consciousness.
Definition imagined - (of something unreal or untrue) believed to exist or be so.
Definition real - actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
Everyone interacts with each other in the same reality, there are no imaginary realities where it is possible for someone to interact with someone else unless “someone” has a technology, such as a wireless tech device with wireless capability, that is on/in “another person’s” head/brain and can be used to send electrical signals to specific parts of “that other person’s” brain and/or can be used to make chemical reactions happen in specific parts of “that other person’s” brain, which produces “that other person’s” involuntary mental activity such as communication in the form of things imagined by “that other person” due to “said someone’s” remote control of “that other person’s” wireless tech device with wireless capability.
What the eyeballs see and what the mind sees are not the same thing. The eyeballs rely on external stimuli sensed by the physical body’s senses. It is impossible for the external stimuli to be imaginary.
The non-imaginary reality provides the basis for our perspective of the model of reality. The model is the physics, which ends up helping shape our perspective of the model of reality. We use that perspective as a basis to create imaginary things that don’t interact with non-mental reality. If there was no existing external stimuli, what would be the model of reality?
How is one’s imagination not locked away in the head if the only way for someone else to perceive it is if it is expressed by said one’s body in non-imagined form?
If I tell you every beat of my heart while my heart is beating, that doesn’t mean that my heart is not stuck in my body. Both a person’s imagination and said person’s heart stay hidden in said person except in cases of: 1. when non-remote physical methods are used 2. if psychic exists 3. if psychic is possible.
If psychic doesn’t exist and/or if psychic is not possible, our reality is that both one’s imagination and said one’s heart, while being locked in the body, can be expressed by said one in only this form: A description from said one, said description only being expressed non-mentally by said one’s non-mental body.
Does anyone claim that their “sense of self” is physical but they claim that physical is imaginary?
“Self’s” physical body can’t be imaginary because the definition of imagination is: the faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses.
People’s physical bodies are external objects present to the senses. With your own body, you can sense external stimuli that is able to be your right hand’s finger touching your own left arm. This proves that your own body is not imaginary.
0 notes
jeffreyrobertpalinjr · 12 days ago
Text
Can all verbs be used to describe someone doing something to someone else’s feelings?
No. Example: You can’t participate someone else’s feelings. You can’t feel participated by someone else. Saying the words “I feel participated” might not make sense since participate might not be a feeling.
2 notes · View notes
jeffreyrobertpalinjr · 12 days ago
Text
Is “everything that each individual imagines” art?
Yes.
Definition of art - 1. the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. 2. the various branches of creative activity.
The only way for one to imagine something, is for one to use said one’s imagination.
Definition of imagine - 1. form a mental image or concept of. 2. suppose or assume.
Definition of form - 1. bring together parts or combine to create (something). 2. make or fashion into a certain shape or form.
Definition of suppose - assume that something is the case on the basis of evidence or probability but without proof or certain knowledge.
Definition of assume - 1. suppose to be the case, without proof. 2. take or begin to have (power or responsibility).
For one to form something, one has to create. For one to suppose, the lack of all proof proves that supposing can only be one’s creation based on hypothesis. Imagining something can’t logically be the same as taking (power and responsibility) because you can’t do any laying hold of something by imagining. Also, Imagining something can’t logically be the same as taking (power and responsibility) because imagining can’t remove anything since if you imagine eating a slice of pepperoni pizza, you can imagine the pepperoni suddenly removed by imagining the pepperoni disappearing but you are not removing anything since you can’t change the past, so already imagined things aren’t being edited, you are simply imagining/creating different things of your choosing in the never-ending present, you imagine eating pepperoni pizza and you imagined the same thing right afterwards but without the pepperoni, imagining a removal is not the same as actually removing something since removing something requires a present existence, if there is no present existence then there is nothing that can be removed, the pepperoni isn’t being removed since it doesn’t presently exist, it’s simply your lack of presently creating it again. Imagining something can’t logically be the same as beginning to have (power or responsibility) because “to create” is not the same as “to have”.
“Everything that each individual imagines” is art.
1 note · View note
jeffreyrobertpalinjr · 12 days ago
Text
What type of ignorance is this?
If there is suddenly a way for only you to know (unless you choose to inform others) the exact day and time that you will die, would you choose to know?
Ignorance - lack of information
1 note · View note
jeffreyrobertpalinjr · 12 days ago
Text
Is there a type of ignorance that is good? If there is, is there a type of good ignorance that is justified? If there is, can maintaing that good justified ignorance be for the best?
People like and want the ability for himself/herself to be the only one to know the combination/password to his/her lock/safe/account. Is thought/mental privacy the only way for this ability to exist?
Ignorance from a lack of information from having full thought/mental privacy is a type of good ignorance that is justified and acceptable. Maintaining this good justified acceptable ignorance (lack of information) is for the best.
1 note · View note
jeffreyrobertpalinjr · 17 days ago
Text
Check out my Fantasy fiction Book titled “Ericverse” (My book’s other title is “Eric’s Multiverse”) that I (Jeffrey Robert Palin Jr.) wrote and got published on Amazon and Apple iBooks (“Books” app): https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08VCL17GB and https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewBook?id=1551490053
1 note · View note
jeffreyrobertpalinjr · a month ago
Text
My top favorite Video Games:
1. Zelda Ocarina of Time
2. Kingdom Hearts 2
3. Final Fantasy 7, 8, 9, 10
4. Super Mario Odyssey
5. Call of Duty Black Ops 2
6. Star Ocean Til The End of Time
7. Pokemon Blue/Silver/etc.
8. Midnight Club 2
9. Monster Rancher 2
10. Super Smash Bros. (any)
11. Super Mario 3D World
12. X-Men vs. Street Fighter
13. Mortal Kombat (any)
14. Mario Party 2
15. Mario Kart 64
16. Def Jam: Fight for NY
17. Rival Schools
18. Street Fighter EX Plus Alpha (the first one)
19. Disgaea: Hour of Darkness
20. Wario Blast: Featuring Bomberman!
21. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3
0 notes
jeffreyrobertpalinjr · a month ago
Text
5 of my favorite movies:
1. Edge of Tomorrow
2. Coco
3. Terminator 2: Judgment Day
4. The Book of Life
5. Digimon: The Movie (the United States version)
0 notes
jeffreyrobertpalinjr · a month ago
Text
hypnotized
0 notes
jeffreyrobertpalinjr · a month ago
Text
For anyone who hasn’t read it yet, Displaced by IrateRapScallion is an amazing Isekai and my personal favorite. I highly recommend it
The first three or four chapters start out slow but it gets awesome (in my opinion). Different character perspectives, male readers should start at Chapter 1. Female readers should start at Chapter 6 to Chapter 14, then read the first the first 6 Chapters right after that:
https://www.royalroad.com/fiction/15538/displaced
0 notes