The Big Bang

yogsothoth · December 2006

I presume Ahnimus's point is that choice, or at least the illusion of it, can exist under determinism without freewill.

Under determinism your choice would always be determined beforehand, and whenever you think you could made a different choice it's not actually true. Ie if the exact situation was re-run countless times then you would make the same choice under determinism every time. Under that framework the notion of free will is just an illusion.

The kicker is that every situation encountered is unique, so there is no easy way to test freewill vs determinism.

iluvcats · December 2006

Ahnimus wrote:

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

never mind

cornnifer · December 2006

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

?"

Of course he used the colors he wanted to see! thats the point. its called free will, mayonnaise brain!

iluvcats · December 2006

cornnifer wrote:

Of course he used the colors he wanted to see! thats the point. its called free will, mayonnaise brain!

mayo brain? that's cute

I think mayo brain is appropriate for a message board poster who thinks he knows more than a nasa scientist, a Nobel prize winner at that. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, ahnimus(sp?)

yogsothoth · December 2006

cornnifer wrote:

Of course he used the colors he wanted to see! thats the point. its called free will, mayonnaise brain!

And if a robot used colors it wanted to see would that be free will too?

gue_barium · December 2006

I do not have nor subscribe to any theory regarding the beginning of earth or universe. Do Ie really need one? I think it would be more fun to make up stories on how you really think it all began.

Ahnimus · December 2006

cornnifer wrote:

Of course he used the colors he wanted to see! thats the point. its called free will, mayonnaise brain!

Don't call me mayonnaise brain. From my perspective, you are seriously myopic, you are bordering on total ignorance.

Why did he want to see those colors? Because they are pleasent to him? Why?

Why do I like to see pink, while Bob likes to see blue and Adrienne likes to see red?

Why is Red the most common favorite color amongst women?

I can answer all of those questions and have, but you fail to acknowledge them. You fail. I've already discovered the answers, and I've shared them with you. You ignore these facts to stop the debate at choice and thought, not what contributes to choice and thought. Because as soon as we identify a single determining factor of choice and/or thought, you lose free-will.

Ahnimus · December 2006

iluvcats wrote:

mayo brain? that's cute

I think mayo brain is appropriate for a message board poster who thinks he knows more than a nasa scientist, a Nobel prize winner at that. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, ahnimus(sp?)

Are NASA scientists comparable to mayonnaise?

The thing is, you cannot be a cosmologist without researching Big Bang related phenomena. You can't research a steady-state universe or your funding is cut and your booted from the observatories. If you don't believe it, ask Halton Arp. Of course each and every NASA scientist is going to support Big Bang, they wouldn't have a job otherwise.

I am coming from an unbias perspective that recognizes that science should be open to debate and scientists should be allowed to research whatever they want. I recognize Arp's research and Hawking's research, as much as they conflict. That is where the uncertainty lies, in accepting all research and not being selective or elitist.

Piece of repeating shit.

gue_barium · December 2006

Ahnimus wrote:

Are NASA scientists comparable to mayonnaise?

The thing is, you cannot be a cosmologist without researching Big Bang related phenomena. You can't research a steady-state universe or your funding is cut and your booted from the observatories. If you don't believe it, ask Halton Arp. Of course each and every NASA scientist is going to support Big Bang, they wouldn't have a job otherwise.

I am coming from an unbias perspective that recognizes that science should be open to debate and scientists should be allowed to research whatever they want. I recognize Arp's research and Hawking's research, as much as they conflict. That is where the uncertainty lies, in accepting all research and not being selective or elitist.

Piece of repeating shit.

Be nice, bro.
I'm googling repeating shit theory right now.

cornnifer · December 2006

yogsothoth wrote:

And if a robot used colors it wanted to see would that be free will too?

Is that what we are? Robots?
Robots don't WANT anything. They perform the operations they were designed and programmed to do.

ClimberInOz · December 2006

Ahnimus wrote:

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)

I remember thinking that 3 seconds seemed like a long time when I read thiss, but they gave a reason for it which I have long since forgotten.

ClimberInOz · December 2006

angelica wrote:

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.

I would argue that the 'tool' we use to assess what is before us if affected by the millions of experiences that have occured to us before that point. The millions of experiences that have determined how our brain responds to things on an automatic and sub conscious level.

I don't see any paradox between this point of view and the illusion of past/present.

angelica wrote:

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.

Sorry, I wrote that first sentence way too late at night and it needs a little clarification. The thought processes that change brain processes are not, I believe, a conscious thing. And it is the synaptic pathways that are changed- research suggests that whilst it does occur later in life, it is more likely to occur when we are young.

Anyway-I am by no means a brain expert, so that is just my interpretation of what I have read on how the brain works. I think we will both agree that the brain is an amazing thing and that there is still alot left that we do not understand.

ClimberInOz · December 2006

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.

Cap'n Crunch? Never heard of it. Must be a US cereal- don't have that one in OZ. I remember whilst dirt bagging it through the US a while back being super impressed with the diversity and tastiness of your cereals- still cannot find a cereal back home that combines cinamon with all my favorite other bits. Reason number #47 why I am moving back overseas in 11 months.

Anyway, as for the free will thing... 2 points- regardless of the cereals in question- we choose one cereal based on thousands/millions of determinant factors that have influenced the way our brain interprets every event.

Secondly the C-3PO reference is a little disconcerting, given that the human brain has over 200 billion synapses and the record so far for any computer is about 100 000 simulated synapses. Whilst my mental capacity has been questioned with justified cause on many occasions, I would hope that even on the worst of days I am still firing a little better then the CPU.

angelica · December 2006

ClimberInOz wrote:

I would argue that the 'tool' we use to assess what is before us if affected by the millions of experiences that have occured to us before that point. The millions of experiences that have determined how our brain responds to things on an automatic and sub conscious level.

I don't see any paradox between this point of view and the illusion of past/present.

Fair enough. Do you see that the tool and what it shows us may indicate a small degree of reality while missing out on the many complex contexts we will undoubtedly uncover in the "future", which are entirely different than those which are beyond our human comprehension?

Sorry, I wrote that first sentence way too late at night and it needs a little clarification. The thought processes that change brain processes are not, I believe, a conscious thing. And it is the synaptic pathways that are changed- research suggests that whilst it does occur later in life, it is more likely to occur when we are young.

The thing I see though is there is a conception that because something is unconscious that we cannot access it. My aforementioned healing came from uncovering more and more of my unconscious issues. I see an unfortunate problem that when we objectify our understanding through science, etc., we sometimes take the information to be true, and really information is a reflection of what is true and real. For example, psychiatry itself could not offer me healing, however that was due to the limits of psychiatric understanding at this time. It was the front-runner visionary types who left their fields and taught something otherwise that showed me how to alter my own brain programming with dramatic results. Who is the "me" who decides to uncover my subconscious issues and reprogram my brain? It is in this gap beyond science that I perceive free will as being that ability we each have in this moment to change out of our preconceived ways. In my case, doing so was precipitated by a spiritual experience that showed me what I would do. That spiritual aspect of my nature is beyond physical law and determinism.

Anyway-I am by no means a brain expert, so that is just my interpretation of what I have read on how the brain works. I think we will both agree that the brain is an amazing thing and that there is still alot left that we do not understand.

Agreed.

Ahnimus · December 2006

angelica wrote:

Who is the "me" who decides to uncover my subconscious issues and reprogram my brain? It is in this gap beyond science that I perceive free will as being that ability we each have in this moment to change out of our preconceived ways. In my case, doing so was precipitated by a spiritual experience that showed me what I would do. That spiritual aspect of my nature is beyond physical law and determinism.

No it isn't. You just can't comprehend it, because you believe it's beyond comprehension. I can comprehend it. It's myriad of determinents that control your every thought. The thought and decision to change your preconceived ways, was predetermined by the synaptic firing of neurons in your brain. Absolutely everything that happens within your head, is a result of the brain. You are your brain.

ClimberInOz · December 2006

angelica wrote:

Fair enough. Do you see that the tool and what it shows us may indicate a small degree of reality while missing out on the many complex contexts we will undoubtedly uncover in the "future", which are entirely different than those which are beyond our human comprehension?

I certainly agree that the 'tool' only interprets a small degree of reality- but I guess we would disagree on the reality that is beyond out interpretation. I would suggest it is beyond our interpretation because it is complex/hidden and we lack the tools to observe its true nature.

Without wanting to put words into your mouth (but I am gonna try anyway), I would suggest that you perhaps would believe that we already have the tools to interpret these aspects of reality, but the ability to do so needs a greater level of self awareness of how our mind works?

angelica wrote:

The thing I see though is there is a conception that because something is unconscious that we cannot access it. My aforementioned healing came from uncovering more and more of my unconscious issues. I see an unfortunate problem that when we objectify our understanding through science, etc., we sometimes take the information to be true, and really information is a reflection of what is true and real. For example, psychiatry itself could not offer me healing, however that was due to the limits of psychiatric understanding at this time. It was the front-runner visionary types who left their fields and taught something otherwise that showed me how to alter my own brain programming with dramatic results. Who is the "me" who decides to uncover my subconscious issues and reprogram my brain? It is in this gap beyond science that I perceive free will as being that ability we each have in this moment to change out of our preconceived ways. In my case, doing so was precipitated by a spiritual experience that showed me what I would do. That spiritual aspect of my nature is beyond physical law and determinism.

I guess this discussion comes down to 2 different world views. There are things that many people believe in that fall outside the physical laws of the universe- I, for reasons based on my own life experiences, do not believe in these things (please don't feel sorry for me... for some reason that is a common response- I am quite happy, honest).

I do not proclaim, even for a second, that science can tell us everything- however this is due to our limited capacity for understanding, not a flaw in science. And whilst we may improve this capacity for understanding, I believe that some things will always remain unknown.

I can respect that some people think that there are alternate ways to understanding reality- I just do not believe them.

angelica · December 2006

ClimberInOz wrote:

I certainly agree that the 'tool' only interprets a small degree of reality- but I guess we would disagree on the reality that is beyond out interpretation. I would suggest it is beyond our interpretation because it is complex/hidden and we lack the tools to observe its true nature.

I don't disagree with this.

Without wanting to put words into your mouth (but I am gonna try anyway), I would suggest that you perhaps would believe that we already have the tools to interpret these aspects of reality, but the ability to do so needs a greater level of self awareness of how our mind works?

You know what happens when you assume.

I feel that there is much beyond our ability to perceive.

I guess this discussion comes down to 2 different world views. There are things that many people believe in that fall outside the physical laws of the universe- I, for reasons based on my own life experiences, do not believe in these things (please don't feel sorry for me... for some reason that is a common response- I am quite happy, honest).

I can appreciate all kinds of views, yours included. I do not/would not project sorrow on you for your own experience and beliefs that simply are what they are.

I do not proclaim, even for a second, that science can tell us everything- however this is due to our limited capacity for understanding, not a flaw in science.

I agree. I only differentiate that a methodology of understanding something is not the same as that something, and therefore I believe there will always be a gap between reality and science.

And whilst we may improve this capacity for understanding, I believe that some things will always remain unknown.

I can respect that some people think that there are alternate ways to understanding reality- I just do not believe them.

And of course, I respect your view as well.

gue_barium · December 2006

edit, edit, edit. too much fun sometimes.:)

boxwine_in_hell · December 2006

All universe creation theories are inherently flawed because something always arises out of nothing. Take the "Big Bang" for example. It's a fairly logical and plausable theory until you ask one question. What was before the big bang? You can't create something from nothing and that is why the Universe is and always will be a mystery.

Excuse me while I go find my bong.

yogsothoth · December 2006

cornnifer wrote:

Is that what we are? Robots?
Robots don't WANT anything. They perform the operations they were designed and programmed to do.

We are indistinguishable from very complex robots. Our actions are indistinguishable from being pre-determined.

The Big Bang

Comments

Categories