Did you "choose" to respond to this forum?

1. 0

   Chasukposted 11 years ago

   Or are you locked in a causal chain, in which your response was inevitable?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      mischeviousmeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      To whom are you refering?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Now that you have responded, I was referring to you.
         
         Did you respond of your own free will, or did you respond because you are you locked in a causal chain, in which your response was inevitable?

         replyreport
         1. 61

            mischeviousmeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I dig the company of others and when I see the opening for debate, I jump on it. It's a Tibetan buddhist thing, it bolsters one's own understanding of things from extra personal perspectives.

            replyreport
   2. 82

      Ella Quirkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I'm locked in a causal chain.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Me too

         replyreport
   3. 0

      jomineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      What difference does it make for a frog, that is caught by a snake, that it can choose to crock or not?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Very little.

         replyreport
2. 72

   Cagsilposted 11 years ago

   I read the title of the thread. I chose to enter it. After I entered it, I realized what you were up to.
   
   Lo and behold, we have yet another meaningless thread. Everything begins with choice.
   
   As for "free will"? The human will is a part of who we are and yes it's free.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      For the record, the only thing that I was "doing" was raising a question about Free Will, without being explicit about it.

      replyreport
   2. 82

      Ella Quirkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You just think it is.
      
      It's very unlikely that we 'consciously' choose to do or think anything. Much more likely is that all our choices are decided for us behind the scenes (via our brain structure and the feedback it receives) and then thoughts emerge into our conscious brain, so it feels like it's been a free choice.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         If it wasn't for consciousness of any level, we would be inanimate objects.
         
         The Human will in the construct of human consciousness is free. It comes with consciousness, just like the human conscience comes with consciousness as well.
         
         You have to make a choice. When you put actions behind that choice, it is willed. Humans use it all the time when acting in any manner. Some times instinctive/reactionary actions take place. Those are simply reflexes. No choice.

         replyreport
         1. 82

            Ella Quirkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            There's never any choice...not in any circumstances. We can no more control our decisions than we can the workings of our blood cells.
            
            Just because we experience consciousness, it doesn't follow that we must have free will. We don't 'create' our conscious experience through will, it's created for us by biological mechanisms and we act in accordance with what that mechanism dictates.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Randy Godwinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               I'm sorry,  there are a lot of factors which go into making some decisions and being conscious of the repercussions is one of these.  This may come from previous experience or simply common sense. To say we cannot control our decisions because of biological mechanisms is a bit far fetched in my opinion.
               
               
                                                            

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  The sentence, "To say _we_ cannot control _our_ decisions because of biological mechanisms is a bit far fetched in my opinion,"implies that we are separate from our biological organisms.

                  replyreport
                  1. 82

                     Ella Quirkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Yes!

                     replyreport
               2. 82

                  Ella Quirkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Randy, being 'conscious of the repercussions' is part and parcel of the mechanism. We know there will be repercussions for certain actions because our brains have that kind of feedback stored from previous experience, learnt knowledge etc.
                  
                  There are really only two factors involved in decision making- the genetic structure of our brain and the feedback it receives.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     Randy Godwinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     You've never witnessed anyone who acted without thinking about the repercussions their actions might entail?  In anger the pros and cons may not be considered at all.  This is true for those who may normally stop and think before acting. 
                     
                     In some cases there is no stored knowledge to help make the decision and in this scenario a snap judgement must be made.  It may be a bad choice but a decision has been made nonetheless.  We call this a guess. 
                     
                     
                                                                

                     replyreport
                     1. 82

                        Ella Quirkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        That's all true but again, how people act depends on the two factors I mentioned. If we all had exactly the same brain structure and experienced exactly the same input, we would all make the same choices. There would be no separate entity called 'free will' to come in and alter our decisions.

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           Randy Godwinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           As far as I know there has never been such a case where everyone had the same brain structure or the same input on a large scale to test your theory.  But you are welcome to it just the same. 
                           
                           Will is never free.  Not when consequences are involved in any decision making process.  Just my view, of course.
                           
                                                                      

                           replyreport
                           1. 82

                              Ella Quirkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Well, it's a thought experiment. If those who don't believe our choices are biologically determined are right, then they should be able to explain how it is we could make different decisions to another person if we had exactly the same brain and input as that person.

                              replyreport
                              1. 59

                                 Randy Godwinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 Hypothetical scenarios cannot be examined in such a case.  But how about this?  Two identical brains with equal input doesn't necessarily mean the bodies are identical too, does it?  Suppose one body's taste buds send a "tastes good" signal to the brain while another body sends a "bad taste" signal?
                                 
                                 Yes, this is considered input, but just like some like liver and some hate it, they both like ice cream.  Physical differences play a part in the equation too, not merely the brain.  So in order for your theory to be viable, they must have identical bodies also.  I do understand what you are saying though.
                                 
                                                                          

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    jomineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    I have to agree with Ella here. The buds just sent the signals to the brain, it is the brain that identify it as good or bad. If every other factor is the same, then the brains will interpret it the same, just like two identical computers that give the same result for the same input.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 59

                                       Randy Godwinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       Sure, it sounds simple, but what if the two identical brains with different bodies have different handicaps, one crippled, one normal.  Getting to the top of a hill can be achieved by walking up the stairs for one, but the other has to take a ramp instead.  The same input to the brains of each cause a different decision from the particular person.  They have to make different choices because of their different bodies.  Same input to the brain as to getting up the hill, but different decisions have to be made to attain the summit.
                                       
                                                                                      

                                       report
                                       1. 0

                                          jomineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                          I think the experience part comes their. The information stored in one brain is that it can't climb the stairs.
                                          I have studied in physiology that though normally rats are afraid of cats, if a particular area is destroyed(I forgot which) the rats may go and attack cats. The information that 'cats are dangerous' are genetically stored.
                                          So in your example, the information that a crippled cannot climb stairs  have been got there either by self experience, seeing others or simply by deduction. So if we can remove that information we can make the cripple climb the stairs, but the brain will again get the information by deduction the moment it sees the steps.
                                          I add 2 more examples for I'm not sure I'm clear enough. A person who was deaf from birth can never talk even if his voice box is normal. A person who is deprived of visual stimulas at the crucial age can never see even if his every visual pathway is normal, because brain failed to study.

                                          report
                                          1. 59

                                             Randy Godwinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                             I have met those who could talk normally even though they were born deaf, and perhaps even better, grammatically speaking, than those who weren't. 
                                             
                                             
                                                                                

                                             report
                                             1. 0

                                                jomineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                I didn't mean write or communicate, I meant speech. A person who is born deaf(should be complete deaf) cannot talk because he has never heard a sound. If a deaf person can 'talk' that means he was not born deaf.

                                                report
                                                1. 59

                                                   Randy Godwinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                   Where do you find this info, Jomine? 
                                                   
                                                   
                                                                                            

                                                   report
                                                   1. 0

                                                      jomineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                      I don't exactly remember. I think it was my ENT(head and neck surgery) textbook. Could be physiology too.

                                                      report
                                                2. 0

                                                   Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                   I've talked to a few profoundly deaf people -- born deaf -- who could "talk," in the sense that they were able to successfully produce sounds which were roughly equivalent to the sounds that a hearing person produces.
                                                   
                                                   However, since the experience was different -- with no auditory input -- it might have produced different neural pathways. I honestly don't know.

                                                   report
      2. 0

         Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I tend to agree with you, and so do most neuroanatomists.

         replyreport
      3. 60

         Disappearingheadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I'm tending to agree with you too Ella. From what I've been reading this week on the construction of our brains, the latest scientific thinking is that we have no free will, it is merely an illusion. Our thoughts originate in the unconcious some 10ms - 10s before our unconscious decides to let our concious be aware of them.
         
         This of course has a potentially huge impact on religious thought.

         replyreport
3. 59

   Randy Godwinposted 11 years ago

   Sorry!  I do not converse with greeters! 
   
   
                                            

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      But isn't that what you just did?

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Randy Godwinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         How do you know who I was talking to Cags?    Did you notice a quote somewhere? 
         
                                                          

         replyreport
         1. 72

            Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Hey Randy, sorry to tell you but Forum Decorum would say that you were talking to the OP and none of the participants of the thread.
            
            Posting directly to the thread without a quote automatically means you're talking to the poster(OP) of the thread. Since you didn't include a @ in your post, again it reverts back to you posting to the OP(the person who posted the thread).
            
            

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Randy Godwinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Are you accusing me of ever having forum decorum, Cags?  That's a low blow! 
               
                                                      

               replyreport
               1. 72

                  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  

                  replyreport
   2. 61

      janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Whats a greeter?

      replyreport
4. 61

   Eric Newlandposted 11 years ago

   I chose to be locked in a causal chain, so I'm not sure what to say.

   replyreport
5. 59

   rdcastposted 11 years ago

   The choice exists only till you choose, then you must accept the involvement of its outcome.
   
   To ask ""Did you "choose" to respond to this forum?"" is a topic for Quantum Jumping, where one might choose a path not taken from any past choice(I don't prescribe to this).
   
   But then, I just might answer with, "I'm here aren't I?"

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I'm glad you don't prescribe to Quantum Jumping, as it seems to me pseudoscience dressed in mystical clothing.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         rdcastposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Did you choose to be glad?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I have no idea. I don't "believe" in Free Will, but the question is still open.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               rdcastposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               As a believer in Jesus Christ, a time may come, as prophesied for some, when Antichrist forces might, might or might not being free will components, come to make me choose between denying my belief in Jesus Christ, or to have my head cut off. How should I choose?

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Whatever floats your boat?

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     rdcastposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Is that sentiment the alternative to free will?

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        There is no free will.

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           rdcastposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           So that is your answer, as a product of deliberation.

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              It only appears that i have deliberated.

                              replyreport
                              1. 59

                                 rdcastposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 You haven't accomplished much in life?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 61

                                    janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    I am sorry, i will not discuss this issue further with you.
                                    
                                    I make it a point not to chat with teenagers using thier mother's computer without permission.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 59

                                       rdcastposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       I'm glad to have struck a point you were unable to scale. You see, achievement requires much purposeful deliberation.

                                       report
                                       1. 0

                                          Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                          Respectfully, I am not sure that you "struck a point" that Janesix was unable to scale, but rather that you struck the same point repeatedly, while apparently expecting a different response.
                                          
                                          Until I have irrefutable evidence to the contrary, I expect the best from strangers. Not everyone is so trusting, or so patient.

                                          report
                                    2. 59

                                       rdcastposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       You took the bait by not letting it go unanswered. Bravo and for your reward, I reply thusly: Repeating things in different ways, I find necessary when a response fails to grasp the point.
                                       
                                       The bait was for Janesix btw, though you'll do nicely. I caught my quarry.

                                       report
               2. 0

                  Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Speaking personally, as I don't believe in the supernatural or prophecy, neither possibility concerns me.
                  
                  Understand that, whether Free Will exists, or whether it doesn't, all of my responses will be the same, whether I am merely proceeding as if it exists, or whether it actually exists.
                  
                  Either way, I don't know the answer.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     rdcastposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Is this to say, by virtue of not having a second choice to revoke the first, that makes it fate?

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        I'm not certain that I understand your question, but I don't believe in fate, either.

                        replyreport
                  2. 59

                     rdcastposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     I should say, whether or not the possibilities you're not concerned with, may or may not have anything to do with supernatural influence
                     , yet they could still exist, presenting a dilemma.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        They might be a concern me in the sense of ultimately affecting me, but they aren't a concern in the sense of causing me worry.

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           rdcastposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Worry is a product of choice.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Is it?
                              
                              Assuming that Free Will exists, then some worries might conceivably be, but not all of them. Many worries are entirely irrational things.

                              replyreport
                              1. 59

                                 rdcastposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 Rationality is not the subject, but while you've brought it up, rational is synonymous with deliberation, both agents of choice. See the hole you're digging for your argument?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    To quote myself:
                                    
                                    
                                    
                                    If Free Will exists, then everything continues in exactly the same manner that it would if free Will did not exist.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 59

                                       rdcastposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       Where do you suppose the concept of "Free Will" came from?

                                       report
                                       1. 0

                                          Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                          I theorize that we have no choice but to believe in Free Will (no pun intended).
                                          
                                          Assume for a moment that we _don't_ have Free Will; that it has never existed, despite the near-universal belief that it does.
                                          
                                          On your deathbed, after having lived a successful life in which you were married -- and in love -- with the person who is now holding your hand as you slip into nonexistence, you learn, irrefutably, that Free Will didn't exist.
                                          
                                          Would you suddenly love your spouse less? Would your life suddenly become less happy?
                                          
                                          I'm not asking whether you would feel disquiet. You probably would. I'm asking whether the love and the happiness you experienced would suddenly be less real. Your children, who love you and are weeping at your imminent death, they _don't_ know that Free Will is a fiction. Is their love suddenly less real?

                                          report
                                    2. 59

                                       rdcastposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       Love and happiness are causalities of determinant choices. Disbelief in free will can't make it go away if indeed it exists. No, it happens to be a thorn in the druthers of the Atheist, who can't bear the thought that personal destination is a responsibility to be held accountable for. Without free will, God can't judge, so there's the rub. As long as there can be no free will, the Atheist can argue no God.

                                       report
                                       1. 0

                                          Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                          You don't get points for answering the same question twice.

                                          report
                                    3. 59

                                       rdcastposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       And one doesn't win arguments by ignoring reason, especially when it's been approached from numerous angles for clarity. And again, if changing one's mind is a free will choice, perhaps the Atheist becomes stuck on the perpetual treadmill of denial to secure finality.
                                       
                                       I grow weary hammering you with the bleeding obvious, but fear not, it is for this reason I use my free will and choose to be here.
                                       
                                       So for the sake of clarity, let me repeat:
                                       If changing one's mind is a free will choice, perhaps the Atheist becomes stuck on the perpetual treadmill of denial to secure finality. Otherwise, the Atheist might meet with salvation. What would that do to one's vanity?
                                       
                                       And so, the essence of this forum is defined.

                                       report
                                       1. 0

                                          Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                          That would be relevant if I were engaged in an argument.

                                          report
                                       2. 0

                                          Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                          Believe it or not, the question isn't settled, whether you acknowledge that or not. I've read your reasoning, and I understand your reasoning. It isn't something that I haven't encountered numerous time before.
                                          
                                          Two days ago, I bought a book on this very subject. I haven't read it yet, so I can't make any extensive comments on it.
                                          
                                          I've liked other books by Sam Harris, and I'm looking forward to this one.
                                          
                                          It is linked here:
                                          
                                          http://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Sam-Har … 1451683405
                                          
                                          Here is an observation that Harris makes within the first pages:
                                          
                                          
                                          
                                          I won't make an appeal to authority, but I will say that Harris's logic seems sound to me.

                                          report
6. 59

   rdcastposted 11 years ago

   "Book Description
   Publication Date: March 6, 2012
   A BELIEF IN FREE WILL touches nearly everything that human beings value. It is difficult to think about law, politics, religion, public policy, intimate relationships, morality—as well as feelings of remorse or personal achievement—without first imagining that every person is the true source of his or her thoughts and actions. And yet the facts tell us that free will is an illusion.
   
   In this enlightening book, Sam Harris argues that this truth about the human mind does not undermine morality or diminish the importance of social and political freedom, but it can and should change the way we think about some of the most important questions in life."
   
   New publishing, very nice. But one-by-one: A good start until it resolves it's dissimulation with, "the facts tell us that free will is an illusion". He might have well stated, "the facts tell us that everything came from nothing". Dear Mr. Forum Creator, if intelligence is an illusion, what can we make of the empirical process? Further, when he states, "this truth about the human mind". Such statements reveal the usurping of unfounded truth, as unassailable. And here, "does not undermine morality". Either he is unwittingly revealing an obvious agenda, or he thinks ill of the spiritual minded masses' ability to discern. And here we have it, "can and should change the way we think about some of the most important questions in life", http://youtu.be/4t6HZKrLdNI When dark things slither from beneath rocks, let the light suffer them.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      rdcastposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The term "argument" should be defined among gentlemen as presented in Dictionary.com:
      noun
      1. an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation: a violent argument.
      2. a discussion involving differing points of view; debate: They were deeply involved in an argument about inflation.
      3. a process of reasoning; series of reasons: I couldn't follow his argument.
      4. a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point: This is a strong argument in favor of her theory.
      5. an address or composition intended to convince or persuade; persuasive discourse.
      
      You see? Unless you invasion our discourse as defined by #1, then yes, you have been engaged in arguing your points.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         The term "argument" should be defined among gentlemen as presented in the Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition: "To give evidence, furnish proof, that."
         
         I am arguing now, and I did subsequent to your "one doesn't win arguments by ignoring reason" post. Our dialogue prior to that barely qualified as Show N Tell.
         
         Further, it is ludicrous to claim that I was arguing anything when I made clear my own uncertainty:
         
         "I have no idea. I don't 'believe' in Free Will, but the question is still open."
         
         And:
         
         "Either way, I don't know the answer."
         
         I have NO IDEA whether we have Free Will, as should have been plain from one of my earliest posts:
         
         "For the record, the only thing that I was "doing" was raising a question about Free Will, without being explicit about it."
         
         Whether you understand this or not, and whether you believe it or not, I participate in forums to learn, not to argue. Often, argument is the medium, but that is not my purpose in frequenting HubPages.

         replyreport
   2. 0

      Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      He might have told us that the facts tell us that everything came from nothing, if  the origin of the universe had been his topic. However, he didn't, so no thank you, I've had my fill of red herring.
      
      Harris is either presenting facts, or he isn't. He tells you what he has resolved as true, and then he explains why. He either persuades you, or he doesn't. Of course, he has underlying motives -- an agenda -- or he wouldn't have written the bloody book. Do you commonly write books without motive? Do you post to HubPages without motive?
      
      You certainly aren't tentative in your own assertions of truth, based on the evidence of your intemperate language, "I grow weary hammering you with the bleeding obvious." if it was bleeding obvious, we wouldn't be having this discussion, unless you are so arrogant as to believe that there is no possibility of your own error (which unsurprisingly seems to be what you are accusing Harris of).

      replyreport
      1. 59

         rdcastposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Oh, you work me so.
         
         The creation emittance was allegorical to his hope that the reader might have indifference toward his process of indoctrination and I eat herring, not shovel it.
         
         Concerning him presenting facts? He isn't, else his resolved truth would indeed be unassailable, which truth, in and of itself, will continue to defy him of this. Did I mention motive? I don't remember having done so, but if you're trying to point out that I sin, even within my aruments, you're right on the mark.
         
         Please forgive my intemperance. Vanity is relentless to rule. Fact is, I'm up for the fight and will not faint and the only thing bleeding is my dry wit. Arrogance? What else is new? Again, I tip my hat to able vanities. I hope we can avoid rehashing these matters, for the sake of progress. Otherwise, I might view it as an intentional distraction.
         
         Your use of the term "error" seems without context. If I must deal with it as is, then you-win-I-lose, cheater! Pearl Jam - Indifference

         replyreport
         1. 61

            janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Thing is, you're not witty or clever. Merely obnoxious.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               rdcastposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               And you're short winded, kind of a hit-n-run mentality and how dare you devilishly confuse wit, being synonymous with humor, for twisting that intent of the word with "witty or clever". Those are entirely your word usage, introduced in accordance with your own inadequacy to communicate.
               
               My apologies if I do offend.

               replyreport
         2. 0

            Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            In my worldview, there are no unassailable truths, but I don't begrudge someone - in a formal argument -- pretending that there are.
            
            In a formal argument, one often begins with a statement like this one:
            
            "Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its doohickey allotment to manufacturers of thingamajigs."
            
            Harris was writing a formal argument in a style appropriate for a general audience. I still don't begrudge him his pretense of unassailable truths.
            
            You mentioned motive when you mentioned agenda, which is the same thing. The word "agenda" means "underlying motive," which is the phrase that I used.
            
            I forgive you for your intemperance.
            
            As for my use of the term "error" being without context, how so? The sentence which contained it provided its context.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               rdcastposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Let's go last first here. When you referred to my own error, you failed pointing out the error. Reading minds isn't one of my talents and thanks for your Christ like quality of forgiveness.
               
               And so I did mention "agenda". My apologies again.
               
               As you point out,
               "Harris was writing a formal argument in a style appropriate for a general audience. I still don't begrudge him his pretense of unassailable truths."
               Mr. Harris should be called out on this maneuver.
               
               I'll cry uncle on the "argument" issue.
               
               And last but by no means least, In my, Heavenly Father's Kingdom view, all His truths are and forever shall be unassailable.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Chasukposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I see now that my phrasing may have been confusing.
                  
                  My sincere apologies.
                  
                  I wrote, "If it was bleeding obvious, we wouldn't be having this discussion, unless you are so arrogant as to believe that there is no possibility [of your own error.]"
                  
                  Replace the words in brackets with "that you were mistaken."

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     rdcastposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Ahhh, I see it so clearly now. Thanks for idiot proofing it for me. Fact is, past and future errors are a given. I don't know of a single topic where I'm considered the best mind on. So yea, stay on your toes and you might find a few. Ever been on an Easter Egg hunt?

                     replyreport