iNow

Either location does matter or it doesn't, and this statement is clearly false in many important electoral locations.

Of course they do. It's the same system, and the future is just an as-yet unrealized past. The state of the future will be the result of the present and past. There is no difference here. The problem is more about insufficient information to feed better forecasts than it is about impossibility, but scale of course matters. I may not be able to tell you where each individual raindrop will land, but I can tell you with great precision how much total rain will fall in the week ahead.

Acceptance helps too

Desensitization. It becomes less salient. New memories become more prominent.

Perhaps, but then surely the poster should hedge and acknowledge uncertainty ✌🏼

You’re right to highlight the challenges of polling and they are seeking to correct that, and few goldmines exist. Some polls are better than others (Ann seltzer in Des Moines is one such)

The word “text” is a narrative we apply after receiving the photons. It is not something inherent in the pixels. If physical and biochemical processes are not responsible for cognition and mentation, then what other variables are you suggesting are?

It wasn’t an argument, but a statement of what is obvious in my own mind. It was, however, needlessly harsh given my respect for and appreciation of you. I went for brevity and clarity instead of social grace and empathy. Mea culpa. Said another way: I find your comment that “there is no causal relationship between physical and biochemical processes and our mental phenomenon” to be absurd on its face, but that likely means I’m not comprehending your position accurately. Will you please elaborate on your thinking here? The pixels shine light of various frequencies. That light is emitted from the screen and travels outward to the receiver. The receptors in our eyes, specifically the retina, get impacted by that light and initiate a chemo-electric neural cascade down the optic nerve into our brain based on the frequency and intensity of that light, with most of the signal going specifically to the occipital cortex toward the rear of our skull. A series of other brain regions then awaken from their dormancy and activate to do pattern recognition and assign an emotional valence (is this visual stimulus worthy of fear, is this positive, negative, or neutral, etc.), and the storytelling parts of our brain then begin crafting a narrative to explain to ourselves the image in context of our past experiences with it. We try to make sense of it. If the stimulus is novel, we tend to invent fresh new narratives that align with our existing model of the world and feel like a best fit, despite possibility of this being entirely fiction. We make a best guess. If it’s a familiar stimulus, we tend to seek out any marginal differences between the newly incoming image and our past experiences to update our existing mental models for enhanced accuracy. After all of these processes have occurred, we then begin to formulate a response (even if that response is simply to continue reading). It happens quite rapidly, but there is generally a few hundred millisecond difference that is measurable between these steps and brain regions and they all occur prior to arriving to the parts of our minds associated with conscious awareness. So, there’s absolutely a close link between the stimulus (the pixels on the screen) and the response (the reading and comprehension), but whether or not one labels that a “causal relationship” depends entirely on the definition of causal being applied.

I’ll ask now for a 3rd time this question you’ve already evaded twice: If not physical and biochemical processes, what other variable do you believe leads to cognition and mentation? Bullshit

Yes, and trump has already spoken against the GOP on that issue, hence my point stands. Despite a strong Democratic showing in state and school board level races, he’s still up in swing states and tied with Biden nationally.

Our = The wet meat computer bag of chemicals generally referred to as an “individual” or “human” in the English language… by saying “our” that meant more than one… a larger set of “individuals” or group of “humans” numbering greater than one. Has this sufficiently clarified, or shall I use fat crayons and construction paper to draw you a picture?

You said, “Only living beings can make choices or decisions.” I asked how do you know. Rephrased: What information have you encountered that informs this conclusion, this conclusion you’ve asserted with such certainty and zero hedge, this conclusion you’ve avoided acknowledging may be invalid? Said another way, how do you know that only living beings can make choices and decisions? Can you answer this without using new questions of your own? Without appealing to common sense or folk wisdom?

Biden spoke of the hostages again today. I know this is a tense situation. I don’t know why you keep making it tense with me. If I’ve offended you, I’m sorry.

You again didn’t answer my question.

Maybe, but how do you know?

Also not every trait gets selected for or against. Homosexuality exists. We see it nearly everywhere. The folks with the problem have an agenda or are too indoctrinated to matter much.

I'm reminded of the split between classical and quantum physics. For the most part, assuming the world is determined works just fine, and it's only at certain scales and under very specific conditions that we must introduce and reinforce awareness of randomness and vacuum fluctuations and particle antiparticle annihilations etc. With sufficient information regarding the state of the system, we can accurately forecast the outcome (let's say) over 95% of the time. The need here is clear. We obviously need a Grand Unified theory of Determinism. Done well, if it's good, we can use the acronym GUD... but sadly that sounds way too much like GOD, which will bring all the wrong sorts of people to the party... but at least it's more satisfying than saying, "It depends" (which is really the only correct answer, at least in consulting). Language strangely is imprecise, and the mathematics of our verbiage often ain't nice.

Did you read this on a bumper sticker? It has zero relevance to my point. You kept asking and misunderstanding, so the basics are these: Our actions have an impact on the world around us Our thoughts and decisions appear to be formed prior to reaching the parts of our minds generally associated with self and awareness and consciousness Those decisions and thoughts are all driven by physical and biochemical processes (there is no magic meta physical super natural spirit or "specialness" to conscious experience... it's just another chemical reaction across our nervous system) The evidence further suggests that our sense of consciousness and freedom to choose are themselves just a narrative we create and impose AFTER the decision event already occurred We use these illusions to make sense of the world around us much like we use models and maps, but that doesn't mean the map is equivalent to the territory This really changes nothing about the way we exist since it's always been this way, even if it understandably feels a bit weird and scary when first encountered To borrow from Stephen Hawking: "our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.” Some people accept all of those things including the illusion, but state we DO have free will since our entire being is still acting according to those biochemical reactions. I personally find that unsatisfying given my understanding of the concept of freedom. To use an analogy, our minds are essentially just mixing vinegar and baking soda to make science fair level volcanoes, but that doesn't actually mean we are causing any real volcanoes to erupt.

Again, very strange comment to make, and without question untrue.

This thread is about freewill, not consciousness

How are you defining consciousness? Thought I’ve mentioned repeatedly that too is off-topic.

Also during. Also after. And I asked you, if not physical and biochemical events, then what pray tell are you suggesting are alternative causes for mentation?

I didn’t say it wasn’t causal. Do you have reading comprehension problems we should all be aware of?

I didn’t say causality wasn’t a factor. My words are easy to find. I’m not going to spoon feed you

I’m not arguing for determinism. That’s a label someone else applied.