The Big Bang

hippiemom

Does the phrase "exercise in futility" mean anything to either of you?

Ahnimus

hippiemom wrote:

Does the phrase "exercise in futility" mean anything to either of you?

"exercise in fertility"? Hell yea!

angelica

hippiemom wrote:

Does the phrase "exercise in futility" mean anything to either of you?

Seemingly, no.

Ahnimus wrote:

"exercise in fertility"? Hell yea!

:eek:

NMyTree

NMyTree wrote:

Wouldn't the alternative be a Tube/Valve Universe?

Wouldn't a tube/valve universe while imparting wee-bit more distortion in the higer regions of even order harmonics; also impart much more warmth and romanticism?

:D

What, no one in here is an audio gear-head? No one gets the joke?

Solidstate designs......Tube/Valve designs? C' mon, that's some funny stuff!:D:D

Tough room:D:D

NMyTree

Ahnimus wrote:

"exercise in fertility"? Hell yea!

Has anyone ever seen angelica's picture? What's she look like?

Is she "fertility worthy?:D










J/K angelica....that was a Sienfeld reference , there. I'm sure you're as beautiful on the outside, as you are on the inside.

MrBrian

NMyTree wrote:

What, no one in here is an audio gear-head? No one gets the joke?

Solidstate designs......Tube/Valve designs? C' mon, that's some funny stuff!:D:D

Tough room:D:D

audio gear? I dunno dude, just sounds like geek humor to me.

Ahnimus

NMyTree wrote:

Has anyone ever seen angelica's picture? What's she look like?

Is she "fertility worthy?:D

I have, but I abstain from commenting.

I was just playing around with the word.

"exercise in futility"
Yup sounds about right.

Ahnimus

See, here, this is a common thing you hear.

hippiemom wrote:

The difference is, if I ask you why you made some statement, my guess is that you'd explain in some detail why you hold that opinion. In fact, I would expect you not to make some broad, sweeping statement in the first place, without going into some depth. If you can elaborate on a topic, address specific points, then it means something, it has substance, because you've thought it through and you're not merely echoing what you've heard.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=4016217&postcount=126

This is exactly what I'm talking about. This whole post is filled with deterministic thinking. "You can't have a point, unless.." "You must know details of..." "You must not be too ambiguous of...". "You must have cause for your viewpoint, or else you're just repeating what you've been told."

Exactly!!! We all know it, but we ignore it. You must either know the details of what you are saying, or else you are just repeating what you've heard. Or maybe just conjuring it out of imagination. But either way, it has a cause and is therefor determined by something else and not free.

NMyTree

MrBrian wrote:

audio gear? I dunno dude, just sounds like geek humor to me.

I never claimed I wasn't a geek:D:D

ClimberInOz

angelica wrote:

Philosophy and religion/spirituality. It's the spiritual aspect of our nature that recognizes our free will.

Do you believe that humans have a spiritual capacity, Ahnimus?

Just out of curiosity, without the spiritual aspect do you still see a case for free will?

Personally I consider free will an illusion. I view our decision making process as being influenced by an enormous number of determinant factors. These factors determine non-conscious neural processes that give our decisions the illusion of being voluntary.

Synaptic pathways in our brain can be strengthened over time (although this occurs with greatest significance when we are young), which makes them more likely to be followed. In other words the deterministic factors influence which synaptic pathways are likely to be followed which influence our decisions.

Of interest also is something I read just recently, relating the illusion of free will to quantum mechanics and the self collapse of wave functions. I will be honest and say that I skimmed over it and didn't really get a deep understanding of it, but in light of this thread I will track down the article and attempt to summarise it for you all.

Cheers, Steve

angelica

ClimberInOz wrote:

Just out of curiosity, without the spiritual aspect do you still see a case for free will?

I very much recognize cause and effect. The key is that I focus on developing many of my intelligences besides just my analytical/logical intelligence. Through a holistic framework, the linear view is a distinct part of reality, and yet it is only a part. If we focus merely on one way of viewing life without complementing it with other intelligences, in my mind, we are limiting our understanding.

Personally I consider free will an illusion. I view our decision making process as being influenced by an enormous number of determinant factors. These factors determine non-conscious neural processes that give our decisions the illusion of being voluntary.

Synaptic pathways in our brain can be strengthened over time (although this occurs with greatest significance when we are young), which makes them more likely to be followed. In other words the deterministic factors influence which synaptic pathways are likely to be followed which influence our decisions.

Of interest also is something I read just recently, relating the illusion of free will to quantum mechanics and the self collapse of wave functions. I will be honest and say that I skimmed over it and didn't really get a deep understanding of it, but in light of this thread I will track down the article and attempt to summarise it for you all.

Cheers, Steve

I very much believe in determinism. The catch to me is that when we come to accept and align with those deterministic factors which are our life, we can widen our horizons and move from seeing ourselves as the drop of water, to appreciating ourselves as also being the ocean. To be more clear, I've personally healed from numerous very serious chemical imbalances, including obsessive-compulsive disorder and bi-polar disorder. I did so by aligning with my own distorted thought processes experientially/subjectively, from my own experience, which is the other side of the objective coin. By taking a wider perspective of being the thinker of these thoughts and not just the product of them, I was able to change them. Therefore, I know I am "spiritually" (but very naturally in terms of natural law) BEYOND being merely the brain functions. Due to this experience, I cannot go back to believing that such determinants control me. Although I recognize until people awaken to their actual power, they are essentially controlled by such determinants. Further, my waking up to my power entitles me to live in a holistic moment, knowing the past and the future are merely constructs of our minds, which allow us to theorize and create more complexly in the now. In reality all we have is the ongoing "now".

ClimberInOz

angelica wrote:

I very much believe in determinism. The catch to me is that when we come to accept and align with those deterministic factors which are our life, we can widen our horizons and move from seeing ourselves as the drop of water, to appreciating ourselves as also being the ocean. To be more clear, I've personally healed from numerous very serious chemical imbalances, including obsessive-compulsive disorder and bi-polar disorder. I did so by aligning with my own distorted thought processes experientially/subjectively, from my own experience, which is the other side of the objective coin.

Although I have less of an understanding of the brain then I would like to have, I was under the impression that bi-polar (and other mental illnesses) were far more complex then just a chemical imbalance.

I would suggest that it is possible to change brain processes and correct such conditions through certain behaviors (thought patterns etc.)- although it may be rare, and perhaps not understood even by the individual affecting such changes. I do not believe that this is an argument for free will.

angelica wrote:

By taking a wider perspective of being the thinker of these thoughts and not just the product of them, I was able to change them. Therefore, I know I am "spiritually" (but very naturally in terms of natural law) BEYOND being merely the brain functions. Due to this experience, I cannot go back to believing that such determinants control me. Although I recognize until people awaken to their actual power, they are essentially controlled by such determinants.

And so it comes to this... you have 'awakened' and we have not. I mean this with the greatest respect as you obviously someone who thinks about this frequently, and my motto for life is to appreciate everyone's beliefs, as long as they have thought about them and can honestly justify what they believe to themselves (even if I disagree). It is just that it is hard to argue with someone who believes they have awoken to something that the rest of us have missed, ( but perhaps we all feel like that).

angelica wrote:

Further, my waking up to my power entitles me to live in a holistic moment, knowing the past and the future are merely constructs of our minds, which allow us to theorize and create more complexly in the now. In reality all we have is the ongoing "now".

This statement I agree with- the illusion of the past and future. I once read that the time frame for the present is 3 seconds. It relates to the time it takes to interpret events and their meanings- in other words we make our way through consciousness 3 seconds at a time.

A simple analogy is to imagine that everybody is viewing their own movie of existence. Like a standard movie, frames are continuously displayed. In our present, each frame lasts for 3 seconds, before being replaced by the next. Our movie lasts as long as we do, and despite being related to all other movies of existence, our movie is unique, and plays our consciousness at speeds related to our position and motion. Anyway, sorry... distracted.

Ahnimus

I would say the movie, that is conciousness, is in about 500 ms frames. That's based on the time it takes between the firing of an action potential and our awareness of it. (Libet. 1980)

Free-will is a necissary illusion for those who choose to point blame, feed their own pride and be intolerant of others. Without those things, free-will has no place.

Even my closest friends and relatives, the nicest people I know, have pride and blame others. I do myself. It's unavoidable. But I don't attribute it to freedom of my will.

Before I was awaken to determinism. I got so frustrated with things. But I also recognized to a degree that I was not in control. So I would go head first into something and watch as an observer. If anyone has ever spoken to the media infront of 5000 people, including the PM, you might now how beneficial being an observer can be. I wasn't nervous, just going for the ride.

The most difficult part for people to grasp is that all of their thoughts, every one of them is the result of an action potential in the brain. When they think "Well, I can make a choice, watch, see I made that choice of my own free-will" that is a series of neurons firing in a sequence that produces those thoughts and is a direct result of the physical brain.

cornnifer

ClimberInOz wrote:

Just out of curiosity, without the spiritual aspect do you still see a case for free will?

Personally I consider free will an illusion. I view our decision making process as being influenced by an enormous number of determinant factors. These factors determine non-conscious neural processes that give our decisions the illusion of being voluntary.

Never opened the cabinet and had to choose from Froot Loops and Cap'n Crunch?

Maybe YOUR free will is an illusion. Maybe you should shut down for awhile
C-3PO.

Ahnimus

cornnifer wrote:

Never opened the cabinet and had to choose from Froot Loops and Cap'n Crunch?

Maybe YOUR free will is an illusion. Maybe you should shut down for awhile
C-3PO.

Making a choice is not evidence of free-will.

angelica

ClimberInOz wrote:

This statement I agree with- the illusion of the past and future. I once read that the time frame for the present is 3 seconds. It relates to the time it takes to interpret events and their meanings- in other words we make our way through consciousness 3 seconds at a time.

A simple analogy is to imagine that everybody is viewing their own movie of existence. Like a standard movie, frames are continuously displayed. In our present, each frame lasts for 3 seconds, before being replaced by the next. Our movie lasts as long as we do, and despite being related to all other movies of existence, our movie is unique, and plays our consciousness at speeds related to our position and motion. Anyway, sorry... distracted.

If you recognize the illusion of the past and future, I'm wondering why you would consider determinism valid. Within the context of the now being the only time, the rest of it is a construct of our minds, our linear portion of our minds at that. What comes before and what comes after is a logical construct that we use to assess what is before us. I personally choose to utilize such a tool, while at the same time not confusing it's lens with being reality.

ClimberInOz wrote:

I would suggest that it is possible to change brain processes and correct such conditions through certain behaviors (thought patterns etc.)- although it may be rare, and perhaps not understood even by the individual affecting such changes. I do not believe that this is an argument for free will.

I thought in the below quote you were suggesting that ingrained synaptic pathways indicated the opposite of free will. Therefore I thought it made perfect sense to believe that conversely, the opposite of your stance could then make a valid case for free will. Either way, I don't see my linear understanding as showing the whole picture of my existence and where I've stemmed from, nor does logic assess value, purpose, meaning and full understanding, imo. I consider it a view through which I look at my life. To me how a brain filters life and experience does not necessarily capture the truth of reality.

ClimberInOz wrote:

Synaptic pathways in our brain can be strengthened over time (although this occurs with greatest significance when we are young), which makes them more likely to be followed. In other words the deterministic factors influence which synaptic pathways are likely to be followed which influence our decisions.

ClimberInOz wrote:

And so it comes to this... you have 'awakened' and we have not. I mean this with the greatest respect as you obviously someone who thinks about this frequently, and my motto for life is to appreciate everyone's beliefs, as long as they have thought about them and can honestly justify what they believe to themselves (even if I disagree). It is just that it is hard to argue with someone who believes they have awoken to something that the rest of us have missed, ( but perhaps we all feel like that).

I understand how to alter my mental/emotional patterns in a way that is conducive to my own harmony and to my own personal benefit. Others have done so, while many others have not. Many continue to argue against our ability to do so. I am able to be the thinker of my thoughts, rather than see myself as the product of them. Where others put themselves on this continuum is about their own view of themselves, and is independent of me. I value all views and understand the validity of each from each context. And still, my own worldview can only be what it is.

cornnifer

Ahnimus wrote:

Making a choice is not evidence of free-will.

like hell it isn't.

The other day, like i do many days, i sat down with my four year old son to color a picture. My son colored the boys hair purple, his face lime green, and his hands lemon yellow. i asked him "why did you color the boys hair purple"? His response: "i just wanted to". i asked the same question about the boys lime green face and lemon yellow hands, as well as why the two didn't even, at least match. Same response. "thats just how i wanted to do it.
My sons hair is brown, both of his brothers have brown hair as well, as does my wife and i (mine speckled with more than a little gray). He has never seen anyone with purple hair, or lime green and lemon yellow skin. There really are no pre determinates there. There was a brown crayon in the box, as well as several other colors more appropriate for hair, and plenty of fleshtones as well. The colorscheme he chose was a pure excercise of imagination and free-will. no question about it. Alogical, illogical, or whatever you wish to call it. But definitely expression of freewill.

(i can't believe i'm still bothering withthis conversation)

Ahnimus

cornnifer wrote:

like hell it isn't.

The other day, like i do many days, i sat down with my four year old son to color a picture. My son colored the boys hair purple, his face lime green, and his hands lemon yellow. i asked him "why did you color the boys hair purple"? His response: "i just wanted to". i asked the same question about the boys lime green face and lemon yellow hands, as well as why the two didn't even, at least match. Same response. "thats just how i wanted to do it.
My sons hair is brown, both of his brothers have brown hair as well, as does my wife and i (mine speckled with more than a little gray). He has never seen anyone with purple hair, or lime green and lemon yellow skin. There really are no pre determinates there. There was a brown crayon in the box, as well as several other colors more appropriate for hair, and plenty of fleshtones as well. The colorscheme he chose was a pure excercise of imagination and free-will. no question about it. Alogical, illogical, or whatever you wish to call it. But definitely expression of freewill.

(i can't believe i'm still bothering withthis conversation)

How is that evidence of free-will?

I wouldn't expect a 4 year old to color a person as they are colored in nature. That's just fucking boring. A 4 year old is likely to color based on what colors they want to see. Also, a 4 year old isn't going to be able to tell you why they chose those colors. A child psychologist, might be able to tell you why though. Just like most adults can't tell you why they do everything because they don't know enough about themselves. A psychologist might be able to answer that question though.

Your son may have answered "I picked the first color that came to mind" that would seem like a reasonable parallel to "I don't know why", "I just thought of a color and used it.". So whatever color that came to mind was the color used. Where did that color come from? The BRAIN. It was the result of an algorithm performed by the brain. People can not choose what they think. You can't choose your favorite color, it's your favorite because (i) your retinas allow for definition in that color, (ii) it has sentimental significance.

You cling to the concept of free-will by ignoring the deeper aspects of thought. By ignoring the question "Where do thoughts come from?"

iluvcats

Ahnimus wrote:

I've always had trouble buying this theory. Sounds like a load of crap to me.

One alternative, of course, being a solid-state universe.

Any thoughts?

you should email john mather at NASA who just won the Nobel prize for his book on the big bang, The Very First Light: The True Inside Story of the Scientific Journey Back to the Dawn of the Universe (Paperback)
and tell him how you feel

Ahnimus

iluvcats wrote:

you should email john mather at NASA who just won the Nobel prize for his book on the big bang, The Very First Light: The True Inside Story of the Scientific Journey Back to the Dawn of the Universe (Paperback)
and tell him how you feel

Fuck that nut, he won't listen to opponents of Big Bang.