I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
But for goodness sake don't present him with a challenge!!! :eek:
I was hoping for some more Religion/godmen comparisons.
Me spirituality shopping and all as I am.
sidebar: am I the only one who thinks it's ironic that there's a whole bunch of interaction in this thread that should have been delivered by pm? And that he who complains the loudest about the rest of us hijacking threads seems to be the biggest perpetrator?
Well, I would comment on that, but I might get another smack from Kat for thread disintegrity. I don't really mind that thread wander and conversations ensue, as I'm sure you don't so long as everyone is free to do it.
yes i get that we both die ryan. but im not going to kill my child to save myself.
Alright cool. I probably would, but then rescue could bust in seconds after he dies. You just never know, but you make the best decision you can at the time.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Alright cool. I probably would, but then rescue could bust in seconds after he dies. You just never know, but you make the best decision you can at the time.
you'd kill your own child to save yourself?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Not to save myself, but if I look at the two predictable outcomes, it has the most bennefit.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
"Practically all modern philosophers of the first rank Descartes, Spinoza,
Leibniz, Locke, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Mill, Alexander, as well as many others
have been determinists in the sense of admitting the cogency of the arguments for determinism, but many have at the same time been indeterminists in the sense of hoping to find a loophole of escape from these arguments. Often they conceded that our apparent freedom is an illusion, so that the only loophole they could hope to find would be an explanation as to how the illusion could originate."
Sir James Jeans Famous British Physicist, astronomer and mathematician
First to propose that matter is continuously created throughout universe
In 1943 published a book titled Physics and Philosophy
Originally co published. by Cambridge U. Press and Macmillan Co.
Still in print, by Dover Publications
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Well, I would comment on that, but I might get another smack from Kat for thread disintegrity. I don't really mind that thread wander and conversations ensue, as I'm sure you don't so long as everyone is free to do it.
Yes. I agree lucy. The Dying Art of Conversation.
I would like to hear your comments. And I would encourage you to make them.
However recent events would have me stress that you do so in pm. If you have any concerns about the rulings that have been handed down of late, as I myself also have, you will know that some people get chastised around here and others do not.
So lucy, you have said earlier in the thread that you find spirituality for want of a better word in nature and the world around you. But do you ever find yourself seeking more than that? And are you always able to explain events to yourself in a logical, scientific fashion or do you wonder?
"Practically all modern philosophers of the first rank Descartes, Spinoza,
Leibniz, Locke, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Mill, Alexander, as well as many others
have been determinists in the sense of admitting the cogency of the arguments for determinism, but many have at the same time been indeterminists in the sense of hoping to find a loophole of escape from these arguments. Often they conceded that our apparent freedom is an illusion, so that the only loophole they could hope to find would be an explanation as to how the illusion could originate."
Sir James Jeans Famous British Physicist, astronomer and mathematician
First to propose that matter is continuously created throughout universe
In 1943 published a book titled Physics and Philosophy
Originally co published. by Cambridge U. Press and Macmillan Co.
Still in print, by Dover Publications
Determinism is interesting. But you never answered correctly baraka on her point about atom decay. Just like the point I once made about random mutations. Both of these events are, as observed today, completely random, there are no predictive explanations. Which dismisses hard determinism.
And to both of these points you answer : "well we know we don't know enough about random events to say these are truly random".
How the hell is that proof or logical argument towards hard determinism? It's barely a belief, if you don't know something it doesn't qualify as a logical argument. Perhaps one day, when science uncovered enough mysteries, we will have the answer and hard determinism will prevail. Maybe it's what will happen in the end in an all science all logical society, I just hope I won't be around to witness that.
But as of today we definitely lack data to have a clear state about this, so it's basically a philisophical conviction : you agree with determinism, I don't. Neither of us are wrong as we can't proove all of our points wrong.
Finally, if you intend to use science to make points, use scientific articles : they present data and facts. Interpretations by scientists (however good they are) are nothing more than interpretations, they are not the truth just an idea a person has by looking at facts. Quoting an interpretation does not qualify as truth.
For example, we know dinosaurs disapeared some 65 million years ago. That's fact. I believe a comet was responsible for that loss, that's interpretation.
edit : though I definitely disagree with the way you concieve and understand science you do make interesting threads, so at least thanks for that.
They're not though. The second image that you've posted here shows that. The position of the middle pyramid and the middle star are off.
You can ignore the yellow diagrams and still align the first two stars. The third is then seen to be off centre. The third star will always appear off centre, while the first two stars are in alignment.
A good book on this is 'The Orion mystery'.
RE: Atomic Decay
"This is a random process on the atomic level, in that it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay, but given a large number of similar atoms, the decay rate, on average, is predictable."
When we are talking about very small or very large systems, it's difficult for us to observe all that goes on, thus it's "impossible" to predict with our current knowledge. 5,000 years ago, a coin toss would have been considered random, but it is not. In-fact, without knowing about inertia, wind-resistence, gravity, etc... a statistical analysis provides us with a probability model for predicting the outcome of a coin toss.
"Moreover, they have demonstrated both mathematically and experimentally that the underlying physics of coin tosses appears to have a slight bias for a caught coin to be caught the same way up as it was thrown, with a probability of around 0.51. Stage magicians and gamblers, with practice, are able to greatly increase this bias, whilst still making throws which are visually indistinguishable from normal throws." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coin_toss
There is more to it than that. Such that there is a higher probability of the sequence HTH than HHH.
Coin tossing is very well understood because it is a macro scale problem. Quantum Physics and Cosmological Physics aren't as well understood and there is much controversy over them. Finally, our brains are not atomic, sub-atomic or cosmological.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Determinism is interesting. But you never answered correctly baraka on her point about atom decay. Just like the point I once made about random mutations. Both of these events are, as observed today, completely random, there are no predictive explanations. Which dismisses hard determinism.
And to both of these points you answer : "well we know we don't know enough about random events to say these are truly random".
How the hell is that proof or logical argument towards hard determinism? It's barely a belief, if you don't know something it doesn't qualify as a logical argument. Perhaps one day, when science uncovered enough mysteries, we will have the answer and hard determinism will prevail. Maybe it's what will happen in the end in an all science all logical society, I just hope I won't be around to witness that.
But as of today we definitely lack data to have a clear state about this, so it's basically a philisophical conviction : you agree with determinism, I don't. Neither of us are wrong as we can't proove all of our points wrong.
Finally, if you intend to use science to make points, use scientific articles : they present data and facts. Interpretations by scientists (however good they are) are nothing more than interpretations, they are not the truth just an idea a person has by looking at facts. Quoting an interpretation does not qualify as truth.
For example, we know dinosaurs disapeared some 65 million years ago. That's fact. I believe a comet was responsible for that loss, that's interpretation.
edit : though I definitely disagree with the way you concieve and understand science you do make interesting threads, so at least thanks for that.
I kind of agree with this. Until I see data that demonstrates to me that atomic decay is not a random process I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that it isn't.
Mutations are a bit different though. We understand many of the biochemical mechanisms that cause genetic mutation. I don't consider mutation to be a random process, even though in terms of its practical consequences it can be described as such.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
You can ignore the yellow diagrams and still align the first two stars. The third is then seen to be off centre. The third star will always appear off centre, while the first two stars are in alignment.
A good book on this is 'The Orion mystery'.
Its bullshit though. Of course you can align two of the stars. A line drawn between any two points is straight, so all you have to do is scale and rotate the constellation diagram until two of the stars lay directly over two of the pyramids. The third pyramid will always be out by a little bit. This suggests to me that its just a coincidence that its close.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
Mutations are a bit different though. We understand many of the biochemical mechanisms that cause genetic mutation. I don't consider mutation to be a random process, even though in terms of its practical consequences it can be described as such.
Of course most of the mechanism in mutations have been descibed and it is possible to predict where and how a mutation has the highest probability to hit. With bacteria it's even possible to predict the time necessary to see the occurence of a resistance.
However these mutations remain random because individually they are random. Take a transposon for instance, it will indiferently kill a gene or create a new with absolutely no predictable outcome. At best we have an idea where it will not hit. Maybe we will end up discovering and understanding these and come up with a totally deterministic system but today our knowledge is much too limited for that.
When we are talking about very small or very large systems, it's difficult for us to observe all that goes on, thus it's "impossible" to predict with our current knowledge. 5,000 years ago, a coin toss would have been considered random, but it is not. In-fact, without knowing about inertia, wind-resistence, gravity, etc... a statistical analysis provides us with a probability model for predicting the outcome of a coin toss.
I understand the point. It's true that what was random yesterday isn't today but you are jumping to conclusions. That which is understandable for a coin toss is actually out of our reach for more complex events.
So today we are stuck, we study everyday more and more events and will end up understanding them all. But until then it's useless to certify one way of thought is more true than the other. And the few things we know certainly do not justify the whole "society change" you are advocating. We (imo) should wait and see because we usually end up finding surprising things we did not suspect at all at first.
I understand the point. It's true that what was random yesterday isn't today but you are jumping to conclusions. That which is understandable for a coin toss is actually out of our reach for more complex events.
So today we are stuck, we study everyday more and more events and will end up understanding them all. But until then it's useless to certify one way of thought is more true than the other. And the few things we know certainly do not justify the whole "society change" you are advocating. We (imo) should wait and see because we usually end up finding surprising things we did not suspect at all at first.
The call was for a verifiably and well understood indeterministic system.
I am not claiming that these systems are deterministic, I'm simply saying they are not examples of well-understood indetermistic systems. Indeterminism has always been a theory of gaps. Which is fine for people to be hopeful, but it isn't entirely beneficial to use them as evidence for free-will.
The main problem is that free-will is a horrible theory, it's absolutely terrible. It doesn't take into account what we actually do know as fact, provisionally of course. It hinges on not very well understood or totally incomprehensible ideas. I think, it's pretty easy to see that determinism as a theory for approaching an explanation for human behavior is far superior to the theory of free-will.
We see these atrocities in society, with in-groups and out-groups, racism, sexism, agism, etc.. and this occurs due to false attributions of causality. So my point was, until we know for a fact that humans have such a thing as free-will, it does no good to blame it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The call was for a verifiably and well understood indeterministic system.
I am not claiming that these systems are deterministic, I'm simply saying they are not examples of well-understood indetermistic systems. Indeterminism has always been a theory of gaps. Which is fine for people to be hopeful, but it isn't entirely beneficial to use them as evidence for free-will.
The main problem is that free-will is a horrible theory, it's absolutely terrible. It doesn't take into account what we actually do know as fact, provisionally of course. It hinges on not very well understood or totally incomprehensible ideas. I think, it's pretty easy to see that determinism as a theory for approaching an explanation for human behavior is far superior to the theory of free-will.
We see these atrocities in society, with in-groups and out-groups, racism, sexism, agism, etc.. and this occurs due to false attributions of causality. So my point was, until we know for a fact that humans have such a thing as free-will, it does no good to blame it.
I strongly dislike scientists with agendas, using honest facts to push personal interpretations as legitimate proofs. When I use science, I use it as a tool to describe accurately what I study/see, I don't use it to push a personal belief. When I reason, I guess this is were dualism appears. I believe free will to be a philosophical concept which, for now, eludes science. I don't understand the free will vs determinism debate well enough to have a consistent argument so I'll refrain.
Science, in my point of view, is a very efficient tool to explain natural events. Things that elude science such as free will, for now, are left for philosophy and law to statute. Law and philosophy are both ancient research fields from which we base our societies upon, and it will stay that way until science does come up with something in such fields. In my opinion, until the debate finds a solution both parties are wrong and our society is consistent with this as free will is sometimes negated in law and sometimes isn't.
As for free will being the easy way out I fail to see that. Determinism is a much more easy convenient approach as we don't have to think too hard about ourselves or use introspection as a method to make us evolve. I can't remember who said that but someone said "thinking accurately is like singing accurately, it takes exercise which should be repeated often" (or something along that line). If we just keep blaiming causes rather than reflecting upon us and our ways of thought we will get absolutely nowhere.
Determinism works quite well for identifying our motivations for our behavior.
Free-will doesn't.
As far as philosophy goes there is no reconciliation of free-will.
As James Jeans said in the quote I posted.
"Practically all modern philosophers of the first rank Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Mill, Alexander, as well as many others have been determinists in the sense of admitting the cogency of the arguments for determinism, but many have at the same time been indeterminists in the sense of hoping to find a loophole of escape from these arguments. Often they conceded that our apparent freedom is an illusion, so that the only loophole they could hope to find would be an explanation as to how the illusion could originate." - Sir James Jeans (Physics and Philosophy; 1943)
Not much keeps the notion of free-will afloat. Mainly pride, greed, envy, shame, and religion.
There is also the argument from morality. But if you knew that there was some cause for a crime, would you feel it's moral to imprison the individual for life, or execute them?
This has been the problem throughout history. Witches burned, homosexuals and pedophiles lobotomized or hung, etc...
It's only recently that we've come to acheive understanding of various social disabilities like pervasive developement disorder (E.g. autism). Prior to these deterministic explanations we've consistently attributed cause to free-will. It's really an atrocious theory when you view it in this perspective.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I would like to hear your comments. And I would encourage you to make them.
However recent events would have me stress that you do so in pm. If you have any concerns about the rulings that have been handed down of late, as I myself also have, you will know that some people get chastised around here and others do not.
So lucy, you have said earlier in the thread that you find spirituality for want of a better word in nature and the world around you. But do you ever find yourself seeking more than that? And are you always able to explain events to yourself in a logical, scientific fashion or do you wonder?
Good question, easy for me to answer.
Actually, I don't feel a need to explain everything around me. My scientific education explains enough for me to be content, and i spend so much time at work explaining stuff to others that I am content that a rainbow is pretty without need to know more than that.
I am getting a bit intellectually lazy in my dotage.
I have mentioned from time to time a fantastic big book I have which has many pictures from the Hubble telescope it. It bewilders me anyone could see those images and not be reassured that the Universe if unimaginably vast and that enough events can be trialled in that immensity for even the smallest probability event to actually occur, gicing rise to life wihtout need for a creator. The Universe is certainly big enough to me to render the concept of there being a higher powe than it beyond absurd. I marvel at teh images of the Pillars of Creation in distant nebulae manny light years in dimension, where you can see stars being born, like big babies in the womb.
In the big picture, I am comfortable with the idea that I am an infinitesimably (is that even a word ??) small and insignificant, and that all our strivings her in this time and plaace are minutely irrelevant.
I guess that I celebrate my spirtuality in my enjoyment iof the world, without seeing anything deeper than that in it.
I'll send some PM's tomorrow maybe, you can fill me in on gossip then.
Determinism works quite well for identifying our motivations for our behavior.
Free-will doesn't.
As far as philosophy goes there is no reconciliation of free-will.
As James Jeans said in the quote I posted.
"Practically all modern philosophers of the first rank Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Mill, Alexander, as well as many others have been determinists in the sense of admitting the cogency of the arguments for determinism, but many have at the same time been indeterminists in the sense of hoping to find a loophole of escape from these arguments. Often they conceded that our apparent freedom is an illusion, so that the only loophole they could hope to find would be an explanation as to how the illusion could originate." - Sir James Jeans (Physics and Philosophy; 1943)
Not much keeps the notion of free-will afloat. Mainly pride, greed, envy, shame, and religion.
There is also the argument from morality. But if you knew that there was some cause for a crime, would you feel it's moral to imprison the individual for life, or execute them?
This has been the problem throughout history. Witches burned, homosexuals and pedophiles lobotomized or hung, etc...
It's only recently that we've come to acheive understanding of various social disabilities like pervasive developement disorder (E.g. autism). Prior to these deterministic explanations we've consistently attributed cause to free-will. It's really an atrocious theory when you view it in this perspective.
I don't read nearly enough philosophy but saying Descartes and Kant weren't advocates of free will seem ridiculous. On the other hand I have no idea who is James Jean so he may well know things I don't. But for all I know it is just another interpretation.
What I don't understand either is what you make of free will. Or more exactly what I consider free will to be : I know our behaviors are explainable by causes (hormonal levels, brain dysfunctions etc.) and some of our actions are made outside the scope of free will. I can't say free will accounts for everything I do, I don't chose to have a beating heart, I don't chose to digest and to evacuate the consequences, I don't chose most of my urges.
Free will to me is the capacity we have to reflect on our selves and evolving our way of life, not choosing my sexual preferences. Is that free will?
As for reponsibility in multiple cases the accused is deemed irresponsible of his acts, that doesn't mean everyone is actually irresponsible. If tomorrow I go and steal a few hundred thousand euros because I feel my life sucks I cannot see how I can't be held responsible for that. Your other examples of homosexuality/witch hunting etc. do not describe a modern society in which the separation between state and church is effective. Do not confuse free will and religion, a free will society does not need to pick on homosexuals - a religious one will use the argument of free will to do that but it isn't the fault of free will.
Take a look at the thread on Joshua and Eva Mauldin. Or any thread that pops up where an atrocious act has been commited. The board members display a sense of moral blame, not responsibility, but moral blame. With statements like "Sick fuckers" "If I had a bat.." and this is very very common.
As with almost all of these cases, they were mentally unhealthy. It should be assumed by now that is almost always the case. Similarly, with teenagers who murder their parents, there is almost always a situation of physical, sexual or extreme emotional abuse.
People would find causes if they looked, but they don't. They are satisfied with free-will.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Take a look at the thread on Joshua and Eva Mauldin. Or any thread that pops up where an atrocious act has been commited. The board members display a sense of moral blame, not responsibility, but moral blame. With statements like "Sick fuckers" "If I had a bat.." and this is very very common.
As with almost all of these cases, they were mentally unhealthy. It should be assumed by now that is almost always the case. Similarly, with teenagers who murder their parents, there is almost always a situation of physical, sexual or extreme emotional abuse.
People would find causes if they looked, but they don't. They are satisfied with free-will.
I agree with you here completely. And I also believe in free-will, so in my mind, this issue is independent of free-will. It's completely dependent on where the emotional evolution of humans happens to be at this time.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I agree with you here completely. And I also believe in free-will, so in my mind, this issue is independent of free-will. It's completely dependent on where the emotional evolution of humans happens to be at this time.
It has a lot more to do with knowledge than anything else. Ignorant people attribute cause to free-will.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It has a lot more to do with knowledge than anything else. Ignorant people attribute cause to free-will.
I agree with this. This is why imo, it is important for people like you and I to not also contribute to this by falsely attributing "free-will" as the cause. We need to demystify it and focus in on what is real--where the actual causes are.
You and I get this cause thing. Very few people do. We have the 'Truth'. Do we want to give our power away by adapting our arguments so that they work with the arguments of ignorance? If we do adapt and argue against ignorance, we are choosing to be responsive to ignorance. I choose not to respond to ignorance. I rather choose to construct arguments based on what is true. I choose not to use my awareness to give falsehood and illusion power. I would love to see you with me on this, however you interpret actual cause, and to see you be the creator of arguments of truth, not a reacter to ignorance.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I am reacting to ignorance. I just happen to sound like Voltaire when I do it.
I guess my model wasn't made that way Angelica.
Well all I got is my tongue an esophagus and two lungs, skeletal system plus muscle tissue and I'm done
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I am reacting to ignorance. I just happen to sound like Voltaire when I do it.
I guess my model wasn't made that way Angelica.
Well all I got is my tongue an esophagus and two lungs, skeletal system plus muscle tissue and I'm done
I realize you are you. That includes that when you learn something, you will incorporate it into your being, which is always a process.
The difference between being individuated and being tied into the "tribal" mind set is that we create a buffer between our responses to anything. We introduce awareness in the moment. By doing so, we can choose our responses, rather than reacting based on emotions beneath the conscious surface.
If you intellectually understand that by reacting to ignorance, you are perpetuating the cycle, as opposed to responding with truth, there is no choice. It's determined that you choose truth.
What this looks like is that you focus on what is logical to create. And therefore one must let go of creating more dissonance. Reacting to ignorance and allowing ignorance to lead is not logical. When we change our thoughts we must then tranform our emotional responses that include the blame you also dislike. We consciously integrate those emotions back into the entire system, in service of truth or the actual over-riding vision of what is logical. This is challenging, but the entire system IS truth, so if you align with it, it will support you. The challenging part is that it's painful to own one's own conflicts, within. It's much easier to react and try to "give them away".
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
One more thing...I want to be clear. I have consciously used my awareness for the past few years on message boards to deconstruct illusory ideas that others have and perpetuate. I do not do it in reaction. I have done it to create awareness. I'm moving into new methods now. However deconstruction is very valid, and even healthy, as long as one adheres to the even playing field. If one does not, one will air their own conflicts and dirty laundry and obscure the value of the truths one is revealing. I personally prefer to own my own conflicts and deal with them personally so that the truths stand even more clearly as IS. And so I don't look petty and foolish.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Did you by any chance edit your post where you said that you wished I would react to ignorance?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Did you by any chance edit your post where you said that you wished I would react to ignorance?
The last one I edited, was about putting the comma in the last sentence for clarity. I wish you would respond to ignorance by inplementing a buffer that enables you to adhere to the logic of creating an argument constructively in service of the truth.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
You both die. Game over.
No. Just an observation.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
yes i get that we both die ryan. but im not going to kill my child to save myself.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Well, I would comment on that, but I might get another smack from Kat for thread disintegrity. I don't really mind that thread wander and conversations ensue, as I'm sure you don't so long as everyone is free to do it.
Alright cool. I probably would, but then rescue could bust in seconds after he dies. You just never know, but you make the best decision you can at the time.
you'd kill your own child to save yourself?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Not to save myself, but if I look at the two predictable outcomes, it has the most bennefit.
also ryan you dont know that after youve killed your child, those bastards arent gonna kill you.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
"Practically all modern philosophers of the first rank Descartes, Spinoza,
Leibniz, Locke, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Mill, Alexander, as well as many others
have been determinists in the sense of admitting the cogency of the arguments for determinism, but many have at the same time been indeterminists in the sense of hoping to find a loophole of escape from these arguments. Often they conceded that our apparent freedom is an illusion, so that the only loophole they could hope to find would be an explanation as to how the illusion could originate."
Sir James Jeans Famous British Physicist, astronomer and mathematician
First to propose that matter is continuously created throughout universe
In 1943 published a book titled Physics and Philosophy
Originally co published. by Cambridge U. Press and Macmillan Co.
Still in print, by Dover Publications
Credit goes to the Happiness Show
http://thehappinessshow.com/ShowOutlines.htm
Mentioned in episode 92 A Conversation about happiness, free-will and determinism
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4497422314243094063
Yes. I agree lucy. The Dying Art of Conversation.
I would like to hear your comments. And I would encourage you to make them.
However recent events would have me stress that you do so in pm. If you have any concerns about the rulings that have been handed down of late, as I myself also have, you will know that some people get chastised around here and others do not.
So lucy, you have said earlier in the thread that you find spirituality for want of a better word in nature and the world around you. But do you ever find yourself seeking more than that? And are you always able to explain events to yourself in a logical, scientific fashion or do you wonder?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Determinism is interesting. But you never answered correctly baraka on her point about atom decay. Just like the point I once made about random mutations. Both of these events are, as observed today, completely random, there are no predictive explanations. Which dismisses hard determinism.
And to both of these points you answer : "well we know we don't know enough about random events to say these are truly random".
How the hell is that proof or logical argument towards hard determinism? It's barely a belief, if you don't know something it doesn't qualify as a logical argument. Perhaps one day, when science uncovered enough mysteries, we will have the answer and hard determinism will prevail. Maybe it's what will happen in the end in an all science all logical society, I just hope I won't be around to witness that.
But as of today we definitely lack data to have a clear state about this, so it's basically a philisophical conviction : you agree with determinism, I don't. Neither of us are wrong as we can't proove all of our points wrong.
Finally, if you intend to use science to make points, use scientific articles : they present data and facts. Interpretations by scientists (however good they are) are nothing more than interpretations, they are not the truth just an idea a person has by looking at facts. Quoting an interpretation does not qualify as truth.
For example, we know dinosaurs disapeared some 65 million years ago. That's fact. I believe a comet was responsible for that loss, that's interpretation.
edit : though I definitely disagree with the way you concieve and understand science you do make interesting threads, so at least thanks for that.
You can ignore the yellow diagrams and still align the first two stars. The third is then seen to be off centre. The third star will always appear off centre, while the first two stars are in alignment.
A good book on this is 'The Orion mystery'.
"This is a random process on the atomic level, in that it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay, but given a large number of similar atoms, the decay rate, on average, is predictable."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_Decay
When we are talking about very small or very large systems, it's difficult for us to observe all that goes on, thus it's "impossible" to predict with our current knowledge. 5,000 years ago, a coin toss would have been considered random, but it is not. In-fact, without knowing about inertia, wind-resistence, gravity, etc... a statistical analysis provides us with a probability model for predicting the outcome of a coin toss.
"Moreover, they have demonstrated both mathematically and experimentally that the underlying physics of coin tosses appears to have a slight bias for a caught coin to be caught the same way up as it was thrown, with a probability of around 0.51. Stage magicians and gamblers, with practice, are able to greatly increase this bias, whilst still making throws which are visually indistinguishable from normal throws."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coin_toss
There is more to it than that. Such that there is a higher probability of the sequence HTH than HHH.
Coin tossing is very well understood because it is a macro scale problem. Quantum Physics and Cosmological Physics aren't as well understood and there is much controversy over them. Finally, our brains are not atomic, sub-atomic or cosmological.
I kind of agree with this. Until I see data that demonstrates to me that atomic decay is not a random process I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that it isn't.
Mutations are a bit different though. We understand many of the biochemical mechanisms that cause genetic mutation. I don't consider mutation to be a random process, even though in terms of its practical consequences it can be described as such.
-C Addison
Its bullshit though. Of course you can align two of the stars. A line drawn between any two points is straight, so all you have to do is scale and rotate the constellation diagram until two of the stars lay directly over two of the pyramids. The third pyramid will always be out by a little bit. This suggests to me that its just a coincidence that its close.
-C Addison
Of course most of the mechanism in mutations have been descibed and it is possible to predict where and how a mutation has the highest probability to hit. With bacteria it's even possible to predict the time necessary to see the occurence of a resistance.
However these mutations remain random because individually they are random. Take a transposon for instance, it will indiferently kill a gene or create a new with absolutely no predictable outcome. At best we have an idea where it will not hit. Maybe we will end up discovering and understanding these and come up with a totally deterministic system but today our knowledge is much too limited for that.
I understand the point. It's true that what was random yesterday isn't today but you are jumping to conclusions. That which is understandable for a coin toss is actually out of our reach for more complex events.
So today we are stuck, we study everyday more and more events and will end up understanding them all. But until then it's useless to certify one way of thought is more true than the other. And the few things we know certainly do not justify the whole "society change" you are advocating. We (imo) should wait and see because we usually end up finding surprising things we did not suspect at all at first.
The call was for a verifiably and well understood indeterministic system.
I am not claiming that these systems are deterministic, I'm simply saying they are not examples of well-understood indetermistic systems. Indeterminism has always been a theory of gaps. Which is fine for people to be hopeful, but it isn't entirely beneficial to use them as evidence for free-will.
The main problem is that free-will is a horrible theory, it's absolutely terrible. It doesn't take into account what we actually do know as fact, provisionally of course. It hinges on not very well understood or totally incomprehensible ideas. I think, it's pretty easy to see that determinism as a theory for approaching an explanation for human behavior is far superior to the theory of free-will.
We see these atrocities in society, with in-groups and out-groups, racism, sexism, agism, etc.. and this occurs due to false attributions of causality. So my point was, until we know for a fact that humans have such a thing as free-will, it does no good to blame it.
I strongly dislike scientists with agendas, using honest facts to push personal interpretations as legitimate proofs. When I use science, I use it as a tool to describe accurately what I study/see, I don't use it to push a personal belief. When I reason, I guess this is were dualism appears. I believe free will to be a philosophical concept which, for now, eludes science. I don't understand the free will vs determinism debate well enough to have a consistent argument so I'll refrain.
Science, in my point of view, is a very efficient tool to explain natural events. Things that elude science such as free will, for now, are left for philosophy and law to statute. Law and philosophy are both ancient research fields from which we base our societies upon, and it will stay that way until science does come up with something in such fields. In my opinion, until the debate finds a solution both parties are wrong and our society is consistent with this as free will is sometimes negated in law and sometimes isn't.
As for free will being the easy way out I fail to see that. Determinism is a much more easy convenient approach as we don't have to think too hard about ourselves or use introspection as a method to make us evolve. I can't remember who said that but someone said "thinking accurately is like singing accurately, it takes exercise which should be repeated often" (or something along that line). If we just keep blaiming causes rather than reflecting upon us and our ways of thought we will get absolutely nowhere.
Free-will doesn't.
As far as philosophy goes there is no reconciliation of free-will.
As James Jeans said in the quote I posted.
"Practically all modern philosophers of the first rank Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Mill, Alexander, as well as many others have been determinists in the sense of admitting the cogency of the arguments for determinism, but many have at the same time been indeterminists in the sense of hoping to find a loophole of escape from these arguments. Often they conceded that our apparent freedom is an illusion, so that the only loophole they could hope to find would be an explanation as to how the illusion could originate." - Sir James Jeans (Physics and Philosophy; 1943)
Not much keeps the notion of free-will afloat. Mainly pride, greed, envy, shame, and religion.
There is also the argument from morality. But if you knew that there was some cause for a crime, would you feel it's moral to imprison the individual for life, or execute them?
This has been the problem throughout history. Witches burned, homosexuals and pedophiles lobotomized or hung, etc...
It's only recently that we've come to acheive understanding of various social disabilities like pervasive developement disorder (E.g. autism). Prior to these deterministic explanations we've consistently attributed cause to free-will. It's really an atrocious theory when you view it in this perspective.
Good question, easy for me to answer.
Actually, I don't feel a need to explain everything around me. My scientific education explains enough for me to be content, and i spend so much time at work explaining stuff to others that I am content that a rainbow is pretty without need to know more than that.
I am getting a bit intellectually lazy in my dotage.
I have mentioned from time to time a fantastic big book I have which has many pictures from the Hubble telescope it. It bewilders me anyone could see those images and not be reassured that the Universe if unimaginably vast and that enough events can be trialled in that immensity for even the smallest probability event to actually occur, gicing rise to life wihtout need for a creator. The Universe is certainly big enough to me to render the concept of there being a higher powe than it beyond absurd. I marvel at teh images of the Pillars of Creation in distant nebulae manny light years in dimension, where you can see stars being born, like big babies in the womb.
In the big picture, I am comfortable with the idea that I am an infinitesimably (is that even a word ??) small and insignificant, and that all our strivings her in this time and plaace are minutely irrelevant.
I guess that I celebrate my spirtuality in my enjoyment iof the world, without seeing anything deeper than that in it.
I'll send some PM's tomorrow maybe, you can fill me in on gossip then.
I don't read nearly enough philosophy but saying Descartes and Kant weren't advocates of free will seem ridiculous. On the other hand I have no idea who is James Jean so he may well know things I don't. But for all I know it is just another interpretation.
What I don't understand either is what you make of free will. Or more exactly what I consider free will to be : I know our behaviors are explainable by causes (hormonal levels, brain dysfunctions etc.) and some of our actions are made outside the scope of free will. I can't say free will accounts for everything I do, I don't chose to have a beating heart, I don't chose to digest and to evacuate the consequences, I don't chose most of my urges.
Free will to me is the capacity we have to reflect on our selves and evolving our way of life, not choosing my sexual preferences. Is that free will?
As for reponsibility in multiple cases the accused is deemed irresponsible of his acts, that doesn't mean everyone is actually irresponsible. If tomorrow I go and steal a few hundred thousand euros because I feel my life sucks I cannot see how I can't be held responsible for that. Your other examples of homosexuality/witch hunting etc. do not describe a modern society in which the separation between state and church is effective. Do not confuse free will and religion, a free will society does not need to pick on homosexuals - a religious one will use the argument of free will to do that but it isn't the fault of free will.
As with almost all of these cases, they were mentally unhealthy. It should be assumed by now that is almost always the case. Similarly, with teenagers who murder their parents, there is almost always a situation of physical, sexual or extreme emotional abuse.
People would find causes if they looked, but they don't. They are satisfied with free-will.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
It has a lot more to do with knowledge than anything else. Ignorant people attribute cause to free-will.
You and I get this cause thing. Very few people do. We have the 'Truth'. Do we want to give our power away by adapting our arguments so that they work with the arguments of ignorance? If we do adapt and argue against ignorance, we are choosing to be responsive to ignorance. I choose not to respond to ignorance. I rather choose to construct arguments based on what is true. I choose not to use my awareness to give falsehood and illusion power. I would love to see you with me on this, however you interpret actual cause, and to see you be the creator of arguments of truth, not a reacter to ignorance.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I guess my model wasn't made that way Angelica.
Well all I got is my tongue an esophagus and two lungs, skeletal system plus muscle tissue and I'm done
The difference between being individuated and being tied into the "tribal" mind set is that we create a buffer between our responses to anything. We introduce awareness in the moment. By doing so, we can choose our responses, rather than reacting based on emotions beneath the conscious surface.
If you intellectually understand that by reacting to ignorance, you are perpetuating the cycle, as opposed to responding with truth, there is no choice. It's determined that you choose truth.
What this looks like is that you focus on what is logical to create. And therefore one must let go of creating more dissonance. Reacting to ignorance and allowing ignorance to lead is not logical. When we change our thoughts we must then tranform our emotional responses that include the blame you also dislike. We consciously integrate those emotions back into the entire system, in service of truth or the actual over-riding vision of what is logical. This is challenging, but the entire system IS truth, so if you align with it, it will support you. The challenging part is that it's painful to own one's own conflicts, within. It's much easier to react and try to "give them away".
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!