Gawain,
Here's the Leprechaun test: Do you believe in Leprechauns? Why or why not?
Printable View
Gawain,
Here's the Leprechaun test: Do you believe in Leprechauns? Why or why not?
Is that supposed to be clever? I find it easier to believe that someone or something made all this ,than all of this came from nothing. Again science also takes a giant leap in faith as most of it you cant prove.Quote:
Here's the Leprechaun test: Do you believe in Leprechauns? Why or why not?
Gawain,Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Just answer the questions, please. Do you believe in Leprechauns? Why or Why not?
Funny I have always seen free will to be independent of society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
It is your choice as an individual not those of society.
Stuck alone on a desert island... it is my choice when to go to sleep, what to hunt and gather, where to go and what to do. I am free of social constraints and the clock. I am the clock and I am the society... even if it requires a bit more talking to myself outloud.
I didn't came up with a revelation, you came up with a question: Can you prove that God is an idea? Well i answered to that, you still didn't answered to me and are just making insults like "no brainer". If it's a "no brainer" then figure the answer for yourself to my questions and give an answer already. You seem to answer always with "no brainer" or i prefer that or that, than with a real answer, not another question an answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
PS: I don't really see why you people discuse free will as a certain thing when even the highest minds on social science don't agree about the existence of such a thing.
Its because free will is not a science its a philisophy. Man's ability to think beyond the immediate survival situations is what constitutes Free Will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Nice twist. I never asked that you said that god was an idea not me.Quote:
I didn't came up with a revelation, you came up with a question: Can you prove that God is an idea?
Well now, I suppose that myself and the rest of my rugby team oughta come clean here.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
~;)
Seamus
Wow, you that dug deep into this thread to quote my post and bring us that absolute 'gem' of a 'joke'.
Alright, I'll admit that Seinfeld isn't feeling threatened by my comic talents. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
As to depth, I actually read this thread for the first time today. Some of the longer ones I steer clear of til I have time.
Seamus
What an arrogant statement, only the elite in social science who can't even agree can decide. You really love your social elites now... :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
It is not limited to social science, it actually goes into hard core science, when examning neural networks in computer science and physics (ie mapping out what consitutes AI).
Pape,Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
You can't take the machine out of man, because man is a machine.
This machine obeys chemical rules. Those chemical rules state:
1) Survive and Reproduce.
"Free will" is secondary and survival mechanisms always override it. Unless of course when you try to sleep, and there's a Wild Cat (Lion) beside you. You will either fight or run away from that threat. You will not say "goodnight big kitty" and count sheep. If you see a Wild Cat outside your window, you won't run away or fight it since it's not an immediate threat, instead you will call the police to get rid of the threat.
"Free will" is a function of society because without Society, you'll always be on Survival mode. You will worry about predators night and day and where you get your food all the time.
Inside of Society, survival is relatively easy. Combine that with the many "choices" Society offers and you get the illusion of "free will".
1) I think you need to read up about emergence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
2) The actions of survival of the fittest is not a chemical rule set. It is a gene rule set, more akin to computer rules then chemistry rules. The imperfect replicator does not have to be based on chemistry.
1) Emergence is "philosophy". You need to elaborate on how emergence factors into all this first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
2) Chemical pathways are encoded in the DNA. Your whole (initial) body structure is encoded in the DNA. What are you talking about?
Actually emergence is more then just philosophy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
It is why we don't all just study physics and use fundamental physics to explain the world around us.
Yes i know that, but they're making assunptions over the principle of the existence of such a thing. It has a wide aplication on science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
I'm not being condecendent just for the placer of being one, but you really didn't give me any direct answer. I assume that here you're asking me to prove you that God's an idea. Or on the other hand you're saying that there's no point on the disscusion because neither of the points are superior, and there will never be a way to prove the superiority. Either way i would ask you to answer my questions again, if you don't want to do it, then simply say so, if you want to do it then do it. Anyway i didn't mean to be condecending, i forget some times that this kind of discussion is not at all trandescendent. From my side is all cool ~:cheers: .Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Ok, where's the connection between emergence and whatever is your argument is?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
My point is:
All the chemical pathways are encoded your DNA, as well as the structure of your body and everything else including immune system, learning etc. The mechanisms are already there.
All you really do is Survive (breathe, eat, sleep, drink, sleep, poop, avoid predators etc.) so the mechanisms inside your body will continue:
Then you Reproduce, so all the chemical mechanisms that was naturally selected will continue in your offspring.
Everything else is an ILLUSION! Call it "free will" call it spinning-your-head-on-the-table-while-balancing plates. It's all an illusion!
Can you describe all chemical properties purely using fundamental physics particles?Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Can you describe cells purely using fundamental physics particles?
Can you describe multicelluar creatures purely using fundamental physics particles?
Can you describe interactions between multicelluar creatures purely using fundamental physics particles?
Why or why not would you do it purely using fundamental physics particles?
What does it have anything to do with specific chemical pathways in your body that evolved inside your body? It's Organic chemistry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
So when you get hit by a car and your arm is broken - its all an illusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Now that is just to damn funny. Your getting out of science into philisophy.
You seemed to have missed the word in bold: Survive. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Not at all - I am addressing the use of the word illusion. Man functions in an environment that is far from being an illusion. To attempt to break it down to chemical reactions and then claim everything else is only illusion discounts how the environment and human beings interact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
You have talked yourself into a circle - if everything out side of survive and reproduce is illusion - then your no longer talking about science - your discussing philisophy.
Again - if you are hit by a car and your arm is broke is it an illusion? or is it reality?
If you are looking at a car and you notice that the tire is flat - is it an illusion or is it reality?
Simple questions - simple answer.
Now the hard one.
If a tree falls in the woods and no-one is there does it make a sound?
If there is no such thing as free will, then why are we posting here?
Shouldn't we all be clubbing an animal or something?
Precisely my point. Organic Chemistry has a different set of properties that have emerged from using multiple fundamental particles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Cells then have emergent properties that are different to those of chemistry.
Multicellular have emergent properties.
A multicellular neuron structure can do things that a single neuron cannot... thinking is an emergent ability.
Well this is large enough to another thread. But not make assumptions to fast, the most eminents minds on Earth try to reamain agnostic to this matter and simply ignore it because of the many problems on aplication that denying it totally or accepting it totally will provoque.Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoose
The main question is: How do you know that you are not determined from the beggining of time and space to do what you do? And also the acceptance will also imply many other things that cannot be discussed here in extent, but one of them is: That you're omniscient in some way and you know exactly how many options do you have to fulfill your "free will", threfore it implies a perfect knowledge of the universe that surrounds you. Those are just two matters that surround the question.
I used exactly the same frase (though wrong written- as always :embarassed: ) to state the same point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
I missed it when you wrote it - its a good philisophical question though is it not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Yes ~:cheers: . But the idea it proposes it's already accepted as scientific truth in sociology and as simply true in philosophy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
If it is an airless wood then no sound ~:cool: