There were witnesses for the House impeachment--although only certain ones that the Democrats wanted, and many of them testified only in secret--just none for the Senate trial. — aletheist

That's not correct. It was a bipartisan hearing room. Pretty typical stiff. (Although Ken Starr during the Clinton impeachment did a lot of secrete depositions).Do you listen to Fox news? LOL

Or you could come by yourself, and if the police officer who issued the ticket did not show up, then the judge would find you not guilty. In this case, it was not the defendant who primarily wanted to call witnesses, but the prosecutors--because they failed to do a sufficiently thorough job with the grand jury (House) that produced the indictment (impeachment). — aletheist

Fake news, again. The Congress (House and Senate) have the responsibility to perform the hearing/trial. Again using logical inference, explain this:

1. They feared witnesses would incriminate and corroborate Dumpertrumper's behavior.
2. [Or] They would want to exculpate and thus exonerate their parties leader.

They did not believe that additional witnesses would have revealed any new information that would have changed their assessment--President Trump's conduct did not warrant removal from office. Also, your #1 again suggests that emotion--not logic--is guiding your responses. — aletheist

Correct, we agree!! The Republican's fear retribution from Dumpertrumper because they want to get re=elected. Correct? The GOP is very emotional indeed!!! LOL

Gathering evidence to support taking such action is the responsibility of the House of Representatives. — aletheist

That's not correct, where did you get that from? It's Congress's responsibility otherwise you would typically have no witnesses during an impeachment 'trial'.

As far Court's, Dumpertrumper blocked everything so that it would go interminably to the Supreme Court. Clearly obstruction there, particularly in light of all previous impeachment hearings the president's allowed some documents.

Explain what is incorrect in stating that this is the first impeachment trial without witnesses?

Regarding inference, this is what you're basically saying. If I get a ticket in traffic court and I want to exonerate myself I would bring witnesses. The partisan Senate did not want witnesses. Two inferences can be made:

1. They feared witnesses would incriminate and coobberate Dumpertrumper's behavior.
2. They would want to exculpate and thus exonerate their parties leader.

Therefore they did not do their job and the trial was a sham. It was predetermined in advance. Nixon and Clinton had a regular trial, right?

Not really, it is a direct quote from the text itself. The Senate has the exclusive power to determine what qualifies. — aletheist

Yep, and that's their job; its a political process and, an interpretation.

Of course not; but in my opinion, the House managers did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump requested foreign assistance strictly for personal political gain. — aletheist

Even though it wasn't a criminal trial, we all wanted witnesses in order to help determine incriminating or exculpatory evidence. The mere fact there was obstruction of documents and witnesses, suggests a Modus Tollens type of inference.

This is the first Impeachment without witnesses. 75% of Americans wanted witnesses. So, what are we left with, reasonable inference you think?

I know that is your interpretation, however, High Crimes and Misdemeanors is simply that, a constitutional interpretation. Accordingly, abuse of power is not considered an unreasonable interpretation, much like Prof. Dershowitz'' initial interpretation during the Clinton era.

Otherwise, the question becomes, how can we prevent such an abuse of power for future Presidents? And would you condone such behavior from any President (requesting foreign assistance for personal political gain-which is in violation of campaign statues.)...unfortunately he can't be trusted. I worry he may try to rig the 2020 election.

As a Christian Existentialist myself, it is indeed refreshing to see a man of faith having the courage to speak the truth. (This is what the GOP used to stand for... .)

Kant is seemingly wrong then, because uncaused events have been demonstrated (well beyond Kant's time), although there are interpretations that posit hidden variables (that cannot be known) that are responsible for such things, so it isn't cast in stone I think. As for the structure that seems to be our universe, there's no particular reason why time should or should not be bounded at one end or the other. There's no entropy level to order it outside our own spacetime, so any cause that comes from there is arguably an effect since there's no particular relationship of cause->effect without an arrow of time. There's just potential bounds which can arbitrarily be labeled first and last. — noAxioms

Of course, free will relates to causation/ex-nihilo, contingency, randomness, indeterminacy, and so forth, in the natural physical world. However, consciousness (like in our definition) relates to metaphysical phenomena which by itself, is one reason why we can't figure this out. And as you alluded, the old argument of a timeless unchanging Being existing outside of time, makes it hard to reconcile, in a world of empirical causation as it were.

Similarly, I don't agree with you that Kant was wrong. That statement was intended to be his critique of analytics. And as such, the complexity ensues, for at least two reasons:

1. Our sense of wonderment is metaphysical, not purely of a logical nature.
2. While most all theoretical physics/physical theory's start with synthetic propositions (they make statements about nature that can be tested), 'all events must have a cause' is a synthesis between our a priori fixed/innate sense of wonderment, and our world of a posteriori experiential/logical existence (causation).

Yet, as Kant may as well have concluded, Metaphysics becomes theories about theories concerning physics; not anything that would explain the thing in itself. We can apply our reasoning to things as-we see-them, but that tells us nothing about things-in-themselves. The important point here is, it doesn't address meaning of life issues, and that's what essentially we are talking about, at least in part, when discussing Free Will.

Before we move further, I have a quick question about something you suggested relative to infinite regress and logic (my interpretation anyway). And that is, are you thinking the concept of a 'God' is an infinite consciousness/energy rather than some logical axiom? Which would, in theory of course, make it [consciousness/the Will] metaphysically necessary v. logically necessary.

(Or, the fact that we are volitional, conscious, self-aware creatures makes us metaphysically necessary.)

Hi Nonsense!

You may want to start from the beginning of the thread. For example, you'll see instances of misogyny and other nefarious behavior. Painstaking I know, but you kinda came late in the game. Nevertheless, please take the time to read through the enumerations that I posted, then if you care to challenge them I would be more than happy to make a case... !

What does 'original cause' mean? Most effects (I can think of no exceptions) are a combination of countless causes, the absence of which would likely have prevented the effect. Thus none of them is designated as being more original than any of the others. — noAxioms

Hi NA!

Gosh, there's so much information to unpack... If it's okay with you let's take one question at a time and then perhaps we can build something from there.

1. Whether it is logically necessary that there is something rather than nothing, or there's an infinite regression of turtle power, there will always be a question concerning an original or initial cause and/or origin of life, thus the Kantian judgement: all events must have a cause.

To further parse Will from Free Will though, I believe having a will implies consciousness or intelligence. For example, the theory of emergence in nature would imply genetically coded organisms, where metaphysical will in nature (Schopenhauer) would imply higher levels of consciousness.


Should we try to redefine the meaning of Free Will?

The QM and Free Will illusion :

First, can we agree on a few items:

1. Free will: a source totally detached from matter (detached from nature) which is the origin (cause) of
options, thoughts, feelings,... That is, the absence of (natural) laws, the existence of an "autonomous
mind", i.e. a principium individuationis.

2. Free Will viz QM provides no significance to the question of free will, relative to consciousness or conscious states. Quantum mechanics is indeterministic but it is not a-causal. There is always a cause, an explanation or reason, for any phenomenon; for example, when an electron which is pushed towards another electron. Both electrons are repelled, and their positions and velocities are undetermined. The cause of repulsion is that we joint both electrons. The electrons are not free to choose their repulsion.

3. Free Will means: I wonder whether one really wants what he wants,whether the origin of what I want is mine or is an effect of natural laws; whether there is an "ego"separate from nature (dualism). This is a less trivial question and this is the topic which is referred by many philosophers when they debate about freedom; Hobbes (1654) and Schopenhauer (1841)are two noteworthy examples.

4. The opposite of free will is materialism rather than determinism (?).

It was only until Dumpertrumper found out that Biden was leading in the polls when he decided to withhold funds from Ukraine.

Do you have a conscience?

Guiliani was investigating on his own accord in his capacity as a defense attorney, not at the direction of the president. — NOS4A2

That's not what Sondland and Taylor said. And speaking of lying, was Dumpertrumper lying again when he said he didn't know Parnus, or was the audio tape fake? LOL

Did Mitt use his conscience in voting for impeachment? Please elaborate if you can...or maybe start a new thread and discuss the merits of consciousnessness/conscience and what that means to people LOL.

Boner question: how do you sleep at night LOL

No, the public was not wrong to want witnesses in my opinion. I too wanted witnesses. — NOS4A2

So did Romney. ( You're not too consistent there LOL.)

I would want any president to look into corruption, especially when the tax-payer is giving millions in weaponry and aid. — NOS4A2

Yep so would I. Why didn't he go through the Government agencies to investigate and/or hired a personal attorney along with the nefarious bedfellows who where found guilty of campaign violations?

Would you want another President to do what your Dumpertrumper did?

Oh, and why did 75% of the general public want witnesses? Are they wrong too?

Yes I did. Are you not able to answer the question? LOL

And thanks...why was he wrong?

Boner question: why did 75% of the general public want witnesses?

It didn’t even slow him down, and he was able to pass massive trade deals while your legislators legislated nothing.

Wrong! It was a bipartisan bill brought to his desk for signature.

Oh, quick question NOS: You're a Dumpertrumper and want to get your take on this. He's scheduled to make an announcement today on the controversial acquittal. Why can't he publicly articulate more important/normal things like other controversial political policies and legislation... ? Is he that narcissistic where he consistently shows his need to make himself feel or look good? I mean, he does this all the time...at the veterans hospital where instead of consoling veteran's he talks about crowd size, etc...

Bonus question: was Mitt Romney wrong?

The idea that ‘this is who I am in my core, and you have to accept that’ is a misunderstanding that leads to us limiting our capacity to relate to the world. I’m not saying that’s wrong - only that it is a limitation we’re not always aware of. When we are aware of it, then we still don’t have to change, but it then becomes a choice that we make. — Possibility

Sure, agreed. However, if one were to treat like cases likely, and different cases differently (by positing some reasonableness here), one would say to Einstein in parody: "Please don't change Mr. Einstein, we like you for who you are. And the reason we appreciate you is because we consider your work most helpful to us, and your accomplishments and contributions to society quite ubiquitous."

Therefore, there is no need for him to change certain aspects of himself that comes naturally to him; his virtuous self or way of Being is good. And in turn, he should similarly feel good about that relative to his self esteem needs. We want to celebrate that.

I’m certainly not saying that Einstein, Picasso or Hitler were aware of the choices they made at all - only that the intrinsic capacity was there to choose otherwise, despite their level of awareness. — Possibility

This is where your argument strengthens. Awareness is key, particularly if harmful to oneself or society. To embellish what Aristotle said, the best gift we can give to ourselves and each other is to 'know thyself'. So in the case of Hitler, change would have been obviously paramount.

Do you think if Mozart wasn’t thoroughly immersed in music and nurtured in his interest and ability from such a young age (when children can still firmly believe in their capacity to become a dog, for instance) he would have become the composer he was? — Possibility

I see that you used the word immersed. Indeed the right terminology for parsing human creativity, as studies have shown one typically has to be immersed in the genre to be creative in it. But, once again, extraordinarily novel ideas typically cannot be taught. And that would seem to lend itself to the notion of a type of virtuous homeostasis, or way of Being.

It’s a two way street: love is not an individual action, but more of a dance. It’s about making allowances that maximize a collaborative potential, not about changing to please someone. — Possibility

Love being a 'two way street' as you well put it, maybe just be what the doctor ordered here. No exceptions taken! Also, perhaps your personal example is inspiration to those who don't understand Love as being a multifaceted dynamic (like the Greeks thought), including the phenomenon of altruism.

I think it is safe to say we arrived at an equilibrium of sorts, where there might be a balance between the need to change and the need to say the same (change and acceptance). This could be considered a planting-of-the-seed toward heathier growth viz a type of self Love or self esteem, not sure. But it seems that learning to Love oneself, in a healthy way, as well as Loving others for who they are, indeed has its virtues. Ideally, I would like to think that through Love itself, awareness of both good and bad can be discovered and/or uncovered.

What I think you have a problem with is people who are atheists for bad reasons — DingoJones

I might be able to speak to some of Frank's concerns there. Much like Einstein taught us, there are many atheists who have a systemic axe to grind, and it shows in their emotive activism. An example of that would be President Reagan's son. He's got "I'm angry" written all over his face.

LOL

Yep Mitt was very inspirational and has certainly gained my respect (and other's) for his courage.

Dumpertrumper's narcissism will cause incessant criticism of Mitt, to the extent it will only serve as confirming evidence of his abusive personal interest.

Hi JD!

I'm not real clear on the question, other than any proposition or judgment represents some form of belief/system. And in this specific case, the Atheist should be able to parse the existential meaning of:

1. All events must have a cause.

For example, is that a Metaphysical or Phenomelogical statement? And why should the Atheist care?

Hi NA!

Thank you kindly for your critique. Let me try to enumerate your arguments or concerns first, so I can clearly understand them and then respond accordingly:

1. The dandelion obviously does not have a keyboard. However, much like other lower life-forms, it is likely to have emergent properties genetically coded for its survival. Is that what the concern is? Would panpsychism, in theory, resolve this descrepancy? Otherwise, the volitional keyboard could simply represent Metaphysical Will, which might be more aligned with consciousness anyway... .

2. The keyboard represents volitional existence. If you think that making it bluetooth-able and automated much like vehicle's without drivers, robots, and/voice commands, I would consider that analogy. But yes I see that the volitional keyboard does require human input as a conscious medium.

3. I'm thinking that the computer never shuts down, much like unterrupted power supplies for critical computer systems. However in this human metaphor, it can be easily put in sleep mode.

4. My definition of the Free Will illusion from my interpretation of your question, is more akin to Kant's metaphysics, and more specifically to Bishop Berkeley's Idealism/Metaphysics. (With a little bit of theoretical physicist Paul Davies the Mind of God thrown in LOL.)

Yep, our work is done here!

LOL

SOME dictionaries actually define atheism as “the belief that no gods exist”…so there is not unanimity of opinion on how it IS used. — Frank Apisa

Hi Frank!

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking, but thought that the quoted definition was intriguing. Having a belief that no Gods exist translates into a belief system much like Religion. So, if someone says: Atheism is just another Religion, would they be incorrect?

Such an emotionally charged issue I know. However, the irony for the Atheist is that if emotive phenomena is metaphysical in nature, they need to reconcile the paradoxical nature of their own said emotional belief system from the lack thereof.

I'm afraid it's the opposite. He can't be trusted and so we are all having to fact-check the dude.

Yep, don't forget to add that all administration's either benefit or suffer from the previous administration's economic policies, etc.. Much like the sports metaphor, the new coach inherits a winning or losing team.

So in the case of the economy, Trump lucked-out with an already growing economy... . He'll take credit by his version of fake news to feed his huge narcissistic ego.

After all, he said he was the king of debt, and has filed bankruptcy at least twice...I worry he's gonna explode the deficit and cause another George Bush Jr. crash.

It seems that free will isn't just about choices; if it were then there would be no difference between us and computers with algorithmic decision trees (choices). However, free will is about choices that originate in a person - it can't have been put there, nor can the choice be an effect of a causal process that originates outside of the person. So, comparing human decision-making to computer processes simply on the basis that both involve choices is wrong because the issue isn't about the presence/absence of choices, it's about how these choices are made, specifically concerning whether they were part of a causal chain external to a person. — TheMadFool

I think I know where you are going with that. It reminds me a little of the so-called cosmic computer theory.

Consider briefly, that life is a computer metaphor. All the combinations of life choices exist within the computer program and are determined in advance. The keyboard represents volition or volitional existence. All the ethical (how to live a sad or happy productive life) choices are within our grasp, by virtue of the keyboard, and what we type-in.

Further (much like Wheeler's cloud), what we ask 'Google' through typing, determines what answers/possibilities we get. And sometimes, unfortunately, the computer locks-up or crashes. In a sense, the result is both determinancy and indeterminancy (causation and randomness) in life (and in nature).

The illusion of free-will exists because there is an active agent outside ourselves that actually created the computer program's hardware/software, where within itself exist all the possible life choices. We are free to make those choices from those that are given to us by the computer/keyboard. The causation is predetermined through said hardware/software.

Our choices still have the aforementioned consequences but only in a temporal sense; not eternal sense.

Feel free to poke holes...

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Both the examples you give seem too simplified or conceptual to answer. I don’t believe anyone is necessarily ‘born’ for a particular career - there are a lot more factors that go into choosing a profession than genetics, and I think looking for dichotomous traits such as affectionate/not affectionate isn’t an effective way to determine a life partner. — Possibility

Hi Possibility!

I don't understand why you are not able to respond to my questions about homeostasis. You are too intuitive for that. Respectfully, is your acquiescence by silence something I should take as a denial of some sort? Again, I'm asking this with the utmost respect.

This is an important topic in the Love equation. Personally, I know of too many people divorcing over homeostasis (both men/women who can't and won't change, fortunately/unfortunately). Indeed it is true, there are many things we can correct by first having awareness of a [the] problem, then by overcoming our fears to break through and effect change.

But, you seem to be denying inborn gifts, natural talents and even to some degree wants and needs. We have both core or intrinsic ways of Being ( that you seem to be denying), as well as discoverable truth's about the world and ourselves in it, through volition. Life then, is indeed both a discovery and uncovery of Being, from which choice plays an obvious role. But, not a mutually exclusive role, as you are suggesting.

Accordingly, we are back to trying to explain why there are only a few Einstein's, Picasso's, Hitler's, etc. in this world. Are they that way exclusively by choice? Using your theory, they chose to be that. Your theory also suggests all people can be musical geniuses.

But back to Love: if someone is driven-in their professional life-by their desire to practice science, and their love partner abhors such activity, why should they change if they have the potential for great discoveries ( the theory of relativity, as Einstein did)?

Maybe I'm not making my point clear enough, I'm not sure. However, if I try to use your reasoning. I arrive at an answer that precludes things like predisposition and natural aptitude which in turn can be extremely useful and virtuous.

Perhaps your response is an exclusive fight against those unfortunate memes and dysfunctional behavior resulting from early childhood/bad parenting. But I hope you will allow yourself to see that's not all that we are talking about here.

Hey TMF, did this ever get resolved? (I too believe it's [free will] an illusion using the cosmic computer metaphor, and consequences of same being temporal and not eternal.)

What in the world is not clear about better vision being better than worse vision? — Zelebg

Oh, okay. I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Are you saying that prehistoric man only decides to kill a buffalo to eat because of its brown color? What if it's black, green, blue, yellow? Would he still want to kill a red one in order to satisfy his survival needs, or would he overlook a brown one in favor of a red one?

Thank you Possibility! I will definitely check-out the theory you mentioned, and report back my interpretation. And I certainly get where you are coming from, particularly as it relates to breaking through intrinsic fears to arrive at change. Just a couple quick questions if I could regarding homeostasis:

Professionally: How do you reconcile the person born to be a doctor, musician, lawyer, etc. from some other profession?

Interpersonally: How do you reconcile the person who is intrinsically affectionate, and searches for a partner who is also affectionate, rather than someone who is not affectionate?

In both cases, mitigating fears for the sake of changing would not be germane or appropriate, unless they themselves want change. In other words, using your explanation, change for the sake of change is virtuous or good?

Regarding Maslow and the hierarchy of needs, why would people destroy themselves? The hierarchy is really simple. The gist is that once one need is met, another takes it place (indicative of an ordinary life of striving/in our stream of consciousness). And in turn, lower basic needs will dominate over other needs like the meaning of life stuff. So basic needs like food clothing and shelter, etc. need to be met before other things like debating philosophy, playing sports, going to school, searching for a higher love connection; uncover/discover one's own passions for life, abilities, gifts, strengths and weaknesses, ad nauseum.

And so, how does your definition of change effect uncovering one's strengths and weakness? In other words, idealistically, are you thinking there exists some sort of perfection that is attainable here (ie, a perfect Love)?

Can you answer any of those questions?

Hi Zelebg!

Could you give me the pragmatic's of that? (Or if you care to, maybe succinctly try to answer one of my questions if it all possible... .)

Darwin would answer that Humans do not need to perceive color for the Aesthetics, but do for the optimal survival. — Sir Philo Sophia

I need to study a little more of Darwin I think. Not to sound too rhetorical, any thoughts on what Darwin might say about the following:

1. How do emergent properties result in self-awareness ( of colors)?
2. What kind of survival value is essential in choosing colors for cars; guitars, houses, clothing hair color, makeup, et al.?
3. Do human's exclusively rely on colors in the successful search for their food ?
4. Was prehistoric man concerned about the color of their prey before they chose to kill it?
5. What do you think Darwin would say about the metaphysical features of red evoking or conveying excitement from the color wheel?

Bonus question: I prefer dark haired women over blondes, why is that? (I can have sex with either hair color but prefer dark-haired women.)

When you say Darwin thinks that colors are optimal for survival, those are just a few intriguing questions that I thought of, off the top of my head. I'm trying to understand the full spectrum of survival value viz the reason we like and/or choose this color over that color.

So, in your terms, the OP was asking an easy, obvious, trivial non-question... right?

The more interesting, and non-trivial, question to me was how does our qualia of color (mentally) exist. — Sir Philo Sophia

I agree, I think both are intriguing questions no doubt. One question is, in a sense, logically necessary, while the other seems to be an ancillary feature of conscious existence, which confers no real biological survival advantages. The latter is the one that is most intriguing to me.

Thus, one question of why should colors matter to us emerges. In the study of say, Aesthetics, we have aesthetic objects, aesthetic experience, and aesthetic judgments. To find (yet another) emotive thing associated with consciousness that is universally subjective, which also has little to no survival value, should be no less intriguing than the phenomenon of the existing thing itself. So I suppose both are mystery's.

Another question that is mysterious, would be why can we see in color, where apparently other species only see in black/white/grey(?).

Hi Possibility!

I can certainly appreciate the dynamic associated with our learned responses from environmental stimulus or conditions. And completely agree how 'awareness' is absolutely critical in effecting change. I too believe that self-knowledge is the first step.

I caution you on suggesting that "...all patterns of behavior are changeable." I don't believe one can dichotomize that into an either/or choice. I think there are core homeostatic conditions that cannot be changed, both psychologically and physiologically.

Physiologically:

Body temperature, blood pressure, glucose levels, at al. We know that living organisms need to maintain homeostasis constantly in order to properly grow, work, and survive. Homeostasis is essential for normal cell function and balance for maintenance stability, as they need to resist any change that happens within and outside the organism’s environment which might be harmful.

Psychologically:

A person is born with a musical, mathematical, etc. talent, but their parents want them do be something else. They try other things, but revert back to their intrinsic way of being. How homeostasis relates to love can be demonstrated in the in the following phenomenon. When a person keeps choosing the wrong partner and doesn't know why, and also a person who chooses the right partner and still doesn't know why. Hence: I don't know why I love him/her I just do. I feel very comfortable with him/her. He/she validates my sense of Being.

A combination of both is parsed here:

So, please clarify what you mean by "nature of it's existence". — Sir Philo Sophia

When we ask about the nature of a thing, we're not asking about our mental reconstruction of that thing, but the thing in itself.

Our knowledge/consciousness creates our perception, of physical things outside the mind, and definitions of abstract concepts that only exist in the mind. When we discuss “existence” itself, we are discussing a concept that only exists in the mind of the person who knows its definition. In other words, we can have knowledge of physical things and conditions that only exist outside our mind and abstract concepts that only exist in our mind as definitions about those things.

Existence is not a condition or a state of being, it is the phenomenon of being, itself. Something must exist in order to have a state of being, and if being is necessary in order for change to occur, then cause and effect is derived from and thus subordinate to the more fundamental phenomenon of existence.

Consider that before something can change, before something can act or be acted upon, it must exist.

Sure but keep in mind we're not talkin anything extraordinarily prevalent there. For instance architects an interior designers look to the theoretical color wheel, for the emotive connection associated with colors.

So sure red will convey excitement on a subconscious level, but unfortunately that tells us nothing about the nature of its existence.

The existential mystery of who, what, where, how and why one chooses a particular color over another is yet another example of the existence over essence ethos, axiom or phenomenon. For example we are consciously/subconsciously aware of our likes and dislikes but we don't know the true nature of why this is so... .

We are left with yet another metaphysical theory over the essence of that existence, in human consciousness. The question becomes what is the essence of that conscious existence (?)

My one line hypothesis is that we filter information a priori from an external energy source. Much like Schopenhauer's theory of Metaphysical Will in nature... .

This innate or intrinsic feature of human existence confers no Darwinion survival advantages. And if that is accurate , it must be an external consciousness of sorts... ?

We can't take this phenomenon lightly. And that's because of how important colors are to us .

Sure it's kind of like saying do other metaphysical languages exist in all or other possible world's. The emotive phenomenon of color choice, may or may not be logically necessary.

It begs many questions one of which is how do you provide a deterrent to that abuse of power (?)