E
The Ranting/Debate Thread
- Thread starter Obeliskos
- Start date
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Vuki, I'm going to do something I really don't do very often, but I'm annoyed so...
Vuki, you blind half-breed egocentrical fuck!
Can you not read?
Quartz is saying that because our brains are based on chemistry and electric signals, that all follow laws, if we knew all the inputs, and the structure of the synapse connections in the brain, then we would be able to predict what the brain outputs. This is as Quartz said, determinism.
Whether determinism is true comes down to whether there is a system that can predict quantum physics and combine it with macroscale physics, because it's really only in quantum physics that anything is inherently random.
All the actions we make are a result of external and internal stimuli.
Vuki, whether or not you're right isn't what annoys me. What annoys me is the fact that you don't really seem to have even read Quartz posts properly, let alone tried to understand them.
Or you're trolling, in which case you are a very successful troll.
Wow, I think this is the first time I've done a direct personal attack on this forum. *Gets ready for a flood of negreps.*
Vuki, I'm going to do something I really don't do very often, but I'm annoyed so...
Vuki, you blind half-breed egocentrical fuck!
Can you not read?
Quartz is saying that because our brains are based on chemistry and electric signals, that all follow laws, if we knew all the inputs, and the structure of the synapse connections in the brain, then we would be able to predict what the brain outputs. This is as Quartz said, determinism.
Whether determinism is true comes down to whether there is a system that can predict quantum physics and combine it with macroscale physics, because it's really only in quantum physics that anything is inherently random.
All the actions we make are a result of external and internal stimuli.
Vuki, whether or not you're right isn't what annoys me. What annoys me is the fact that you don't really seem to have even read Quartz posts properly, let alone tried to understand them.
Or you're trolling, in which case you are a very successful troll.
Wow, I think this is the first time I've done a direct personal attack on this forum. *Gets ready for a flood of negreps.*
E
Exofluke
Guest
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Angry? D=
Ok, well that's what I'm arguing: evolution plays a major factor here. I'm suggesting that we are soo evolved, that the idea of understanding all functions (chemistry and electric signals or w/h) won't matter. Imagine a person who knows all those functions. Can they not choose otherwise?
If you're suggesting they can't... then why don't you show me the facts of where we have already understood the brain at a 100% level.
It seems to me that the only way your (or Quartz's) point is relevant, is when we know precisely how the brain works. Because we don't, you nor Quartz can claim such a thing.
Angry? D=
Ok, well that's what I'm arguing: evolution plays a major factor here. I'm suggesting that we are soo evolved, that the idea of understanding all functions (chemistry and electric signals or w/h) won't matter. Imagine a person who knows all those functions. Can they not choose otherwise?
If you're suggesting they can't... then why don't you show me the facts of where we have already understood the brain at a 100% level.
It seems to me that the only way your (or Quartz's) point is relevant, is when we know precisely how the brain works. Because we don't, you nor Quartz can claim such a thing.
Quartz
Evard's Tentacles of Forced Intrusion
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2010
- Messages
- 512
- Reputation score
- 16
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
I'm honestly not sure whether you're trolling or a bit dense, but either way I really don't think this is going to go anywhere so here's a link to the wiki article on
I'm honestly not sure whether you're trolling or a bit dense, but either way I really don't think this is going to go anywhere so here's a link to the wiki article on
You must be registered to see the links
If you're legitimately not understanding me, maybe that will help you. If you're just trolling, that's cool too, since this is getting boring anyways. Either way, I'm done here I think.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 11,998
- Reputation score
- 431
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Whether we understand the precise functions of our brains or not is irrelevant. We do understand the laws of physics that govern those functions. None of that suggests that free will exists in any way. As I said, Occam's razor. Adding free will requires additional assumptions, so barring any real evidence there's no reason to assume free will
So in the hypothetical case where a person knows and understands all factors that affect his decision, he can determine the decision he will make. Except that determination will affect his decision, so he has to recalculate, which in turn affects his decision, so he has to recalculate... That doesn't lead to anything and it doesn't show the existence of free will one way or another.
Whether we understand the precise functions of our brains or not is irrelevant. We do understand the laws of physics that govern those functions. None of that suggests that free will exists in any way. As I said, Occam's razor. Adding free will requires additional assumptions, so barring any real evidence there's no reason to assume free will
So in the hypothetical case where a person knows and understands all factors that affect his decision, he can determine the decision he will make. Except that determination will affect his decision, so he has to recalculate, which in turn affects his decision, so he has to recalculate... That doesn't lead to anything and it doesn't show the existence of free will one way or another.
E
Exofluke
Guest
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Determinism: "is the concept"
Enough said...
--------------
Honestly, I'm in no place to debate further only because I myself don't know the facts. I haven't read enough or studied.
However...
Here's someone who knows a shit-ton more than I, and because he has studied and learned.
*Note*
There are 39 parts to that vid, pretty wild, but worth the listen if you really are open to understanding...
what else are debates for? =/
Determinism: "is the concept"
Enough said...
--------------
Honestly, I'm in no place to debate further only because I myself don't know the facts. I haven't read enough or studied.
However...
Here's someone who knows a shit-ton more than I, and because he has studied and learned.
You must be registered to see the links
*Note*
There are 39 parts to that vid, pretty wild, but worth the listen if you really are open to understanding...
what else are debates for? =/
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 11,998
- Reputation score
- 431
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
I'm open to understanding, but not open enough to waste my time watching a 39-part youtube vid. I don't like watching videos in general as I almost always listen to music and reading is not only much more convenient, but also faster.
I'm open to understanding, but not open enough to waste my time watching a 39-part youtube vid. I don't like watching videos in general as I almost always listen to music and reading is not only much more convenient, but also faster.
E
Exofluke
Guest
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Technically it's only audio, which is basically music... xD but w/e
Technically it's only audio, which is basically music... xD but w/e
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 11,998
- Reputation score
- 431
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
No, it's not basically music. Music is something I have playing in the background while i concentrate on other stuff.
No, it's not basically music. Music is something I have playing in the background while i concentrate on other stuff.
E
Exofluke
Guest
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
What of opinion? Does it not play a role in the definition of music?
What of opinion? Does it not play a role in the definition of music?
You must be registered to see the links
? xD
Last edited:
lurker
Hentai Master
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 5,002
- Reputation score
- 202
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Allow me to rephrase what Hooker said: Music is stuff we LIKE to listen to. Anything big enough to be 39 or so parts is getting close to a Lecture, which I'm sure everyone on the planet hates at one point or another.
Allow me to rephrase what Hooker said: Music is stuff we LIKE to listen to. Anything big enough to be 39 or so parts is getting close to a Lecture, which I'm sure everyone on the planet hates at one point or another.
Unknown Squid
Aurani's Wife
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,256
- Reputation score
- 314
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Yup. Happened. =)
I learnt once before that bringing that up only causes confusion and derails the debate when someone inevitably misinterprets it. It's an interesting subject, but nearly always more or less irrelevant to the actual discussion.
Vuki, in the simplest way I can think of, the gist of what Quartz was saying is that true choice is impossible in the same way that electrical signals in a calculator do not randomly jump wires and give different results, and neither will signals in the brain. The same input=the same out everytime.
As far as our perception and any debate (other than debating determinism itself) goes though, it really doesn't matter in the slightest.
Yup. Happened. =)
I learnt once before that bringing that up only causes confusion and derails the debate when someone inevitably misinterprets it. It's an interesting subject, but nearly always more or less irrelevant to the actual discussion.
Vuki, in the simplest way I can think of, the gist of what Quartz was saying is that true choice is impossible in the same way that electrical signals in a calculator do not randomly jump wires and give different results, and neither will signals in the brain. The same input=the same out everytime.
As far as our perception and any debate (other than debating determinism itself) goes though, it really doesn't matter in the slightest.
E
Exofluke
Guest
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
I totally get that, but we have to assume that humans are capable of understanding and organizing such a mass of information. There's a reason that "determinism" is just a concept.
Debates are won based on facts, not concepts. Now I don't have enough facts to actually continue, and I do believe you haven't gotten any either. Bringing up a concept, does kinda make the case.
So I'm done.
I totally get that, but we have to assume that humans are capable of understanding and organizing such a mass of information. There's a reason that "determinism" is just a concept.
Debates are won based on facts, not concepts. Now I don't have enough facts to actually continue, and I do believe you haven't gotten any either. Bringing up a concept, does kinda make the case.
So I'm done.
OAMP
Turtle Poker
- Joined
- May 18, 2010
- Messages
- 3,793
- Reputation score
- 154
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
I'm not sure what you're even saying. That humans can't be proven to process all the information we take in?
I totally get that, but we have to assume that humans are capable of understanding and organizing such a mass of information. There's a reason that "determinism" is just a concept.
Debates are won based on facts, not concepts. Now I don't have enough facts to actually continue, and I do believe you haven't gotten any either. Bringing up a concept, does kinda make the case.
So I'm done.
I'm not sure what you're even saying. That humans can't be proven to process all the information we take in?
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 11,998
- Reputation score
- 431
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
On what basis do make such assumption and what exactly do you mean by "such a mass of information"?
On what basis do make such assumption and what exactly do you mean by "such a mass of information"?
E
Exofluke
Guest
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Okay, so based on "the concept of determinism", science can thrive in anything. No?
Okay, so based on "the concept of determinism", science can thrive in anything. No?
OAMP
Turtle Poker
- Joined
- May 18, 2010
- Messages
- 3,793
- Reputation score
- 154
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 11,998
- Reputation score
- 431
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
How do you define science so that it could based on "the concept of determinism" thrive in "anything"?
How do you define science so that it could based on "the concept of determinism" thrive in "anything"?
E
Exofluke
Guest
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Science is the process of how we organize and understand the functions that were tested (obviously), could it not be true that determinism is something that can be proven to be true?
The reason determinism is only a concept, is because we don't know the facts behind all of the functions that we can see (not including what is to be found) at the moment. We don't know how the brain works or how quantum physics plays a role, in addition to many other things.
So in order for determinism to be true, we would have to acknowledge every single particle & all the matter in existence. All of those functions would then have to be calculated and processed to then show that prediction is inevitable.
Now since we're dwelling on concepts here, why not throw some more confusion?
The one thing that determinism needs to account for is time. More specifically: the
If Time Travel were to happen, does determinism now become a paradox?
Science is the process of how we organize and understand the functions that were tested (obviously), could it not be true that determinism is something that can be proven to be true?
The reason determinism is only a concept, is because we don't know the facts behind all of the functions that we can see (not including what is to be found) at the moment. We don't know how the brain works or how quantum physics plays a role, in addition to many other things.
So in order for determinism to be true, we would have to acknowledge every single particle & all the matter in existence. All of those functions would then have to be calculated and processed to then show that prediction is inevitable.
Now since we're dwelling on concepts here, why not throw some more confusion?
The one thing that determinism needs to account for is time. More specifically: the
You must be registered to see the links
.If Time Travel were to happen, does determinism now become a paradox?
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 11,998
- Reputation score
- 431
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Science isn't process of organizing data, but the process for testing it. And in science nothing is ever proven to be true. For example, until recently we thought that general relativity was true. Now it would seem to be less certain: it's not compatible with quantum mechanics, and for it to explain the current state of the universe we have to postulate some kind of "dark energy" which can only be perceived from the way the universe is expanding. Further, the entire science is based on determinism: If X happens, then Y. Science wouldn't be possible otherwise. Even quantum physics is deterministic in statistical level, even if not in individual level: If X happens, then Y 35% of time and Z 65% of time.
Yes, determinism could be proven to be true, assuming omniscience and a computer capable of simulating the entire universe(neither of which is possible within the universe)
As for Grandfather paradox(which is what I assume you're referring to), if determinism is true, the paradox can be solved very neatly: If you travel back in time, everything happens the way it already happened and no paradox is possible: you can't do anything that would cause paradox, because that would conflict with determinism.
Science isn't process of organizing data, but the process for testing it. And in science nothing is ever proven to be true. For example, until recently we thought that general relativity was true. Now it would seem to be less certain: it's not compatible with quantum mechanics, and for it to explain the current state of the universe we have to postulate some kind of "dark energy" which can only be perceived from the way the universe is expanding. Further, the entire science is based on determinism: If X happens, then Y. Science wouldn't be possible otherwise. Even quantum physics is deterministic in statistical level, even if not in individual level: If X happens, then Y 35% of time and Z 65% of time.
Yes, determinism could be proven to be true, assuming omniscience and a computer capable of simulating the entire universe(neither of which is possible within the universe)
As for Grandfather paradox(which is what I assume you're referring to), if determinism is true, the paradox can be solved very neatly: If you travel back in time, everything happens the way it already happened and no paradox is possible: you can't do anything that would cause paradox, because that would conflict with determinism.
Last edited: