Casys 09 conference, Darwinism goes out the window
nando_r...@yahoo.com
Aristotle already understood the logic of natural selection theory,
but discarded it as an untrue view of how species come to be.
Presently many scientists are coming to the same conclusion, and many
of them gather at the CASYS conference. What distinghuishes the
scientists at CASYS from other scientists, is that these scientists
believe freedom is real. They don't believe in freedom as some kind of
political concept, but they believe that things really can turn out
one way or another, that there is a measurable future of alternatives
according to which things behave. A fundamental theory that says
systems have an anticipative relationship with their future, and not
only a causal relationship with their past.
Acknowledging freedom is real, they went about making theories where
things are described in terms of originating per decision. To conform
natural selection theory to the newly found reality, the theory was
reformulated in terms of a decisionprocess. The randomness of
mutations in natural selection translates to "uninformed"
decisionmaking. They tested this theory against the evidence, but
found that change over generations more correspond to "informed and
reasoned" decisionmaking processes, rather than uninformed
decisionprocesses.
http://www2.ulg.ac.be/mathgen/CHAOS/CASYS.html
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Erwin Moller
> fnord
>
> Aristotle already understood the logic of natural selection theory,
> but discarded it as an untrue view of how species come to be.
Aristotle?
What kind of things did he had to tell about netural selection?
That aside: What does it excactly matter what Aristotle thought?
Does that somehow change the way the laws of physics work out today?
> Presently many scientists are coming to the same conclusion, and many
> of them gather at the CASYS conference. What distinghuishes the
> scientists at CASYS from other scientists, is that these scientists
> believe freedom is real. They don't believe in freedom as some kind of
> political concept, but they believe that things really can turn out
> one way or another, that there is a measurable future of alternatives
> according to which things behave. A fundamental theory that says
> systems have an anticipative relationship with their future, and not
> only a causal relationship with their past.
That would be very interesting.
Did these scientists already find some proof for this?
Where did they publish it?
But so far I fail to see its relation with ToE.
You might be posting this in sci.physics instead.
>
> Acknowledging freedom is real, they went about making theories where
> things are described in terms of originating per decision.
Hmm, so they FIRST ackowlegded freedom is 'real', and then started
making theories.
To conform
> natural selection theory to the newly found reality, the theory was
> reformulated in terms of a decisionprocess. The randomness of
> mutations in natural selection translates to "uninformed"
> decisionmaking. They tested this theory against the evidence, but
> found that change over generations more correspond to "informed and
> reasoned" decisionmaking processes, rather than uninformed
> decisionprocesses.
>
> http://www2.ulg.ac.be/mathgen/CHAOS/CASYS.html
I checked that site and found that Prof. Luc Steels is also speaking there.
That means that this is not a nutcase convention. Steels did a lot of
worthwhile research concerning AI/robotics.
So please tell me: Who at CASYS is going to talk about the kind of
things you are describing?
Who is going to claim that mutation are "informed and reasoned"?
Regards,
Erwin Moller
PS: Try to be a big boy for once, and actually answer my questions
leaving my text intact and quoted.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
I wish I had a dollar for every time some creationut has declared the
"end of darwinism".
I could retire to the Bahamas by now.
(yawn)
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com
Inez
> Acknowledging freedom is real, they went about making theories where
> things are described in terms of originating per decision. To conform
> natural selection theory to the newly found reality, the theory was
> reformulated in terms of a decisionprocess. The randomness of
> mutations in natural selection translates to "uninformed"
> decisionmaking. They tested this theory against the evidence, but
> found that change over generations more correspond to "informed and
> reasoned" decisionmaking processes, rather than uninformed
> decisionprocesses.
Then they hit each other in the faces with pies, put on their big
floppy shoes, and went out for a beer, all piling into one small car.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
selection falls short. All talking along lines that freedom is real,
so then things originate per decision. Strong anticipation, self-
organisation are some words they use for it.
The whole conference is based on anticipation, so I would expect all
biologists attending to talk about how species originate in terms of
anticipation.
Some of the theories suppose a wave state of alternatives for DNA
itself, connected to the system. But you can have wave states at other
levels which decisions then guide the mutations, which mutations may
then still be random, chaotic, of themselves.
So the question are, what organisms does a population have in its
future, how are these possibilities arrived at, and what is the
decisionproces by which they possibilities are chosen to be.
The fundamental issue here is ofcourse that either decisions can
really turn out one way or another, called strong anticipation, or
that decisions can only turn out the optimal way, called weak
anticipation.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Erwin Moller
nothing to do with your delusions about freedom.
They address systems that are able to construct future states, like a
human mind. The anticipation is nothing more than the 'best guess' of
such a system. No magic or fearies involved.
Maybe you screwed up your brains too badly with religion, so you don't
hear what these people are really saying. I have seen that happen before.
Self organisation is also a serious field of research that has zero
overlap with your delusions about freedom.
I seriously doubt anyone will discuss the 'wavestate' of DNA if you are
referring to quantummechanics, but one can never be sure with you since
you refuse to quote.
The fact that we must use quantummechanics at the small level doesn't
lead automatically to the conclusion that your precious God is throwing
the dice. Many nutcases claimed so earlier, but as usual they don't
deliver the proof.
If all that you write is true about Dubois, which I doubt, than I can
only conclude the years caught up with him and he lost his marbles.
I must read his later work to make sure, which I didn't.
And last, do you like this way of discussing things? Just write new
texts that are only loosely connected to the former posting.
I don't.
Enjoy the conference.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
Burkhard
<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
> nando_rontel...@yahoo.com schreef:
Probably nobody. Most of the people there are reasonably sound, though
some of Dubois stuff is on the edges. It al started as very
interesting research on anticipatory systems in AI. Robert Rosen's
book is pretty much the classic on this.
While the general idea is sound (and not in any way exciting - we make
decisions based on how we think the future will turn out) a problem in
AI was to develop fully explicit models of these possible futures - so
if I walk down the stairs my mind continuously computes all the
possible states that will occur depending on where I put my foot, and
then evaluates if this is a successful or painful strategy. This is
all closely related ot machine learning, and from there it found its
way also to computational models of evolution, e.g.
Problem is that this takes way too long and was a dead end for
robotics - we do not think quite as much when going down the stairs.
So more and more projects realised that if gravity does its job, and
"the bones remember", we do not need formal representations. That is
where Dubois comes in, who defined "Strong anticipation" as an
anticipation of events built by or embedded in a system - my foot
decides for me.
You still get quite sensible and even interesting stuff out of this,
nothing of course about freedom or the supernatural , this is just
what nando reads into all this.
Admittedly, things then got a bit muddled due to several things. For
one, quantum computing came up and with that the idea that the
informal notion above that "my foot anticipates the step and decides
for me" could be real and not just a metaphor that turns out to be a
good heuristic device to program some interesting recursive decision
making into your learning algorithms.
Some on the fringes of Casys started to play around with "true"
backward causality (and it is still everybody's guess why nando thinks
that being causally determined from both the past and the future
increases, not decreases freedom) While again, most of this was on the
edges but still sound science, the usual quantum mystics barged in,
aided and abetted by the lunatic fringe of the "embodied cognition"
philosophy. When you then get a semiotician like Edwina Taborsky talk
about space time, quantum theory and the meaning of life, you do get
indeed nando-style theories - a good (bad) example is here;
http://www.library.utoronto.ca/see/SEED/Vol5-2/Taborsky.htm
Dubois unfortunately rather encouraged this metaphorical use of his
earlier computational ideas by various social scientists and published
some papers with them It is often impossible to say where the merely
problematic metaphor stops and the sheer Sokal-esque lunacy.
Most of Casys remains sound (I still buy their proceedings e.g.), the
relevance to evolution is mainly in evolutionary algorithms and
computer modelling, and of course, nothing of it has anything to do
with nando's notion of freedom (autonomy as in "autonomous agents" is
a different thing and may have led him astray) let alone with Gods.
Devils Advocaat
I really do think you are confused here Nando.
For a start this conference isn't happening until August '09, so
obviously no conclusions have been reached.
Next point, Prof. Yves Coppens will be talking about: "How, Why, Where
and When a Primate Became a Man", which doesn't sound to me like a
rejection of natural selection.
Perhaps you can explain how you reached your conclusion?
And while you are at it can you offer a source that supports your
initial contention that "Aristotle already understood the logic of
natural selection theory, but discarded it as an untrue view of how
species come to be"?
Rodjk #613
FNORD
INVITED SPEAKER at CASYS'09:
How, Why, Where and When a Primate Became a Man
Prof. YVES COPPENS
I looked up Prof Coppens, and he does not seem at all a creationist.
Why do you use this to promote your cause?
Rodjk #613
Chris Krolczyk
> Aristotle already understood the logic of natural selection theory,
Since he wasn't even alive when the modern scientific
method began to develop, this point is not only moot -
it's pathetic.
(Remainder of usual nandoesque word-salad snipped)
-Chris Krolczyk
nando_r...@yahoo.com
read it. He is on a conference based on the theorem of strong
anticipation, so he supports knowledge about freedom. Kaufmann also
makes a big tirade against creationism. But Kaufmann acknowledges
freedom in nature is real, and urges for people to be more
appreciative of this creativity in nature.
The goal of the creationist movement is to have people believe in God,
and this will happen when people think freedom is real. People will
take from Kaufmann the message that freedom is real, but discard his
message to promote something like ancestor or nature worship. People
will just support the default view of freedom, that the universe
starts with a free act, the creation, and it ends with a free act, the
final judgement, and pray by faith, which is another free act in
relation to the acts of creation and final judgement.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> fnord
>
> Aristotle already understood the logic of natural selection theory,
> but discarded it as an untrue view of how species come to be.
> Presently many scientists are coming to the same conclusion, and many
> of them gather at the CASYS conference.
sorry nando. a group of guys who dont even mention evolution and have
no experimental data to report...well they're unnoticed. you're
welcome to your delusion but that's all it is...a delusion
What distinghuishes the
> scientists at CASYS from other scientists, is that these scientists
> believe freedom is real.
and you, with your fanatical hatred of christians, dont.
if they were so influential, what happened to casys 08?
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I ve seen Dubois, Taborsky and Kaufmann talk about how natural
> selection falls short
and i've seen wilson, mayr, dobzhansky, and ayala....talking about how
natural selection works. your problem is they have data to back up
their views. you dont
. All talking along lines that freedom is real,]
you don't believe in freedom.so why do you worship people who do when
you don't
>
> Some of the theories suppose a wave state of alternatives for DNA
> itself, connected to the system. But you can have wave states at other
> levels which decisions then guid
meaningless
wf3h
> It doesn't matter what Coppens thinks about creationism, I haven't
> read it. He is on a conference based on the theorem of strong
> anticipation, so he supports knowledge about freedom. Kaufmann also
> makes a big tirade against creationism. But Kaufmann acknowledges
> freedom in nature is real, and urges for people to be more
> appreciative of this creativity in nature.
>
> The goal of the creationist movement is to have people believe in God,
hey nando..people do believe in god. just not your god. look what your
god has caused people to do in iran. look at what your hatred of
freedom has caused in iran. your view of islam killed a young woman
the other day. that's your 'freedom'
nando_r...@yahoo.com
influences the present, then we get a different time principle from
the usual relative motion notion of time. So then time is not measured
by motion, but by the sequence of decisions. So to say, if the handles
on the clock stop moving then time still progresses because looking at
the clock represents a decision to look. Or like Newton said, true
time flows without regard to anything external. We can see no external
difference, the handle on the clock did not move, yet time passed.
As far as I know, backward causality doesnt describe the normal
relationship of a thing with it's future, backward causality describes
when a thing is in an undecided state of itself, and is only decided
when it reaches a decider. For instance light is generally in an
undecided state of itself. You can make some light in the universe go
up or down past a "gravitational lens", or something, depending on how
you look at it. Only when the light reaches a decider is it decided
which way it went.
That you say that it is about decision, but not about freedom, makes
no sense obviously, there are no decisions without freedom.
You fail to appreciate that according to the theorem of strong
anticipation, it is unknowable, in theory, what the outcome of a
decision will be to full accuracy. Therein lies the mystery and the
spiritual. On the other hand in theory of weak anticipation the result
of the "decision" is always the optimal given the input, there is no
mystery. Weak anticipation is not really a theory about
decisionmaking, it is a theory about calculating an optimum from a set
of values, and acting accordingly. Although sometimes actual
decisionmaking is discussed in the context of weak anticipation.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Peter Rathmann
> You fail to appreciate that according to the theorem of strong
> anticipation, it is unknowable, in theory, what the outcome of a
> decision will be to full accuracy.
That would seem to rule out compatibility with any belief system that
includes an omniscient deity
Rodjk #613
So, you know nothing about CASYS, nothing about about what they mean
by anticipation. In short, they are a few more topics you know nothing
about...
Rodjk #613
nando_r...@yahoo.com
application of it as evolution proceeding by ¨reasoned and informed
decisions¨. So I have proven I understand all of this, it is fairly
simple. Theories that posit freedom is real, will also posit
decisions, and decisions are spiritual, so freedom inevitably leads to
creationism. You are all ignorant beyond belief that you do not
appreciate the fact that choices are spiritual, you do not understand
what that means, you do not understand what it means to make a choice.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Burkhard
> It doesn't matter what Coppens thinks about creationism, I haven't
> read it.
figures
He is on a conference based on the theorem of strong
> anticipation, so he supports knowledge about freedom.
Only because you haven't read the other technical papers either. There
is nothing mystical about freedom in them, that is just your
(mis)interpretation of the literature Casys has produced
Burkhard
> Obviously the future is an element of time, so if the future
> influences the present, then we get a different time principle from
> the usual relative motion notion of time. So then time is not measured
> by motion, but by the sequence of decisions. So to say, if the handles
> on the clock stop moving then time still progresses because looking at
> the clock represents a decision to look. Or like Newton said, true
> time flows without regard to anything external. We can see no external
> difference, the handle on the clock did not move, yet time passed.
>
> As far as I know, backward causality doesnt describe the normal
> relationship of a thing with it's future, backward causality describes
> when a thing is in an undecided state of itself, and is only decided
> when it reaches a decider. For instance light is generally in an
> undecided state of itself. You can make some light in the universe go
> up or down past a "gravitational lens", or something, depending on how
> you look at it. Only when the light reaches a decider is it decided
> which way it went.
>
> That you say that it is about decision, but not about freedom, makes
> no sense obviously, there are no decisions without freedom.
In that case, we do not need the idea of strong anticipation anyway.
Weak anticipation are decisions made on the model of future events.
Indeed, any type of evolutionary learning algorithm will have decisions.
>
> You fail to appreciate that according to the theorem of strong
> anticipation,
There is no such thing. There is a concept of strong anticipation,
described by a collection of alogorithms and formulas.
it is unknowable, in theory, what the outcome of a
> decision will be to full accuracy.
That is the case for more or less any decision theory I know, including
obviously all probabilistic theories.
Therein lies the mystery and the
> spiritual.
and hence, nothing mysterious or spiritual needed.
On the other hand in theory of weak anticipation the result
> of the "decision" is always the optimal given the input, there is no
> mystery. Weak anticipation is not really a theory about
> decisionmaking, it is a theory about calculating an optimum from a set
> of values, and acting accordingly.
which is making a decision to act (or to refrain from acting) the
optimal predicted outcome.
stew dean
> Obviously the future is an element of time, so if the future
> influences the present, then we get a different time principle from
> the usual relative motion notion of time. So then time is not measured
> by motion, but by the sequence of decisions.
And this is where you go wrong.
The concept that the arrow of time may not always go one way is one
thing, it's hard to understand but not impossible. It would still make
up on continual cause and effect sequence. As soon as you add
'decisions' you've lost the plot as we all know, from a basic level up
to a intellectual level, that decisions are what conscious entities
do.
I know you have a mental block on this subject but unless you can
separate what we consciously do and what 99.99999999999999% (etc) of
the universe does simply by folllowing the rules of nature with no
decisions, purpose, goal, foresight etc then you'll get no where,
which is exactly where you have got over the last few years. You're in
a mental dead end of your own making.
Stew Dean
stew dean
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I knew enough to find anticipation theory on the internet, and find
> application of it as evolution proceeding by ¨reasoned and informed
> decisions¨. So I have proven I understand all of this, it is fairly
> simple.
That's the point, you have proven no understanding of anticipation
theory. Ignoring evolution (something I also doubt you understand) can
you anticipation theory without adding any of your own thoughts to
it.
> Theories that posit freedom is real,
Define freedom. You always duck that one.
<snip>
Stew Dean
nando_r...@yahoo.com
applies. This is why beauty and such things are only known
subjectively, and can't be measured.
You know absolutely nothing about anything. I am sorry for myself that
I live in the same world with such an ignoramus.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
understanding of your own, you are talking wordsalad. You say
"conscious decisions", you might as well say "green decisions", or
talk about "conscious forces", it is meaningless wordsalad that you
don't understand the meaning of yourself.
There is no science paper that establishes the physics of choosing,
except professor Dubois, the chairman of CASYS, made a credible effort
at establishing that.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Wombat
Why are you such an arrogant tosser. You know how to attribute
properly as you did it once on an exchange with, I think, Ray-Ray.
So DO it.
Wombat
Wombat
Why are you such an arrogant tosser. You know how to attribute
Wombat
Why are you such an arrogant tosser. You know how to attribute
Wombat
Why are you such an arrogant tosser. You know how to attribute
Rodjk #613
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I knew enough to find anticipation theory on the internet, and find
> application of it as evolution proceeding by ¨reasoned and informed
> decisions¨. So I have proven I understand all of this, it is fairly
> simple.
It is obvious you do not, if you think that what CASYS is discussing
has anything to do with creationism.
>Theories that posit freedom is real, will also posit
> decisions, and decisions are spiritual, so freedom inevitably leads to
> creationism.
You're babbling...
>You are all ignorant beyond belief that you do not
> appreciate the fact that choices are spiritual, you do not understand
> what that means, you do not understand what it means to make a choice.
Yep...babbling.
Here is a clue...don't use someone/something as a source unless you
have actually read and understood what they are saying.
Rodjk #613
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I knew enough to find anticipation theory on the internet, and find
> application of it as evolution proceeding by ¨reasoned and informed
> decisions¨. So I have proven I understand all of this, it is fairly
> simple. Theories that posit freedom is real, will also posit
> decisions, and decisions are spiritual, so freedom inevitably leads to
> creationism.
if this is true, then why was every american slave owner a
creationist?
John S. Wilkins
And why is the employment of choice in Iran the subject of death threats
by the local Ayatollah?
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
nando_r...@yahoo.com
alliance who are united in conceiving of everything in terms of cause
and effect.
Once again:
The fox does not know which way the hare will run, and neither does
the hare know, up untill the hare decides.
Useful knowledge about freedom demonstrated.
Dubois says that natural selection is the cause an effect view. In
another paper about Mercurys perihelion he questions if or not cause
and effect is even real, saying that all physics can be done without
it.
That is how much Dubois supports natural selection.
Regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Burkhard
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The supposed moral superiority of the nazi-atheist-communist-humanist
> alliance who are united in conceiving of everything in terms of cause
> and effect.
>
> Once again:
> The fox does not know which way the hare will run, and neither does
> the hare know, up untill the hare decides.
>
> Useful knowledge about freedom demonstrated.
>
> Dubois says that natural selection is the cause an effect view. In
> another paper about Mercurys perihelion he questions if or not cause
> and effect is even real, saying that all physics can be done without
> it.
and you have a refernce for this of course?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
will go up untill it decides, because otherwise the alternative could
not be realized. You know absolutely nothing about choosing. You are a
completely and utterly ignorant to use the logic of it. The logic you
use in everyday life, you don't know anything about it. Nothing. You
are as ignorant as can be about the universe you live in. I mean
failing to notice free will of people is to completely fail to
understand people. And the rest of the universe is just the same. When
you fail to acknowledge the freedom in the system, then your knowledge
is just fundamentally flawed.
http://www.mindspring.com/~cerebroscopic/Dubois.html
"Anticipation seems to be an anti-causation, because a future event
can produce an effect in the present time. A fundamental question is :
are actual systems really causal ? In looking in equations of physics,
there is no evidence that causation plays a central role or even
exists !"
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
wf3h
>
> http://www.mindspring.com/~cerebroscopic/Dubois.html
>
> "Anticipation seems to be an anti-causation, because a future event
> can produce an effect in the present time. A fundamental question is :
> are actual systems really causal ? In looking in equations of physics,
> there is no evidence that causation plays a central role or even
> exists !"
>
really?
http://www.hellblazer.com/media/emergence-of-a-4d-world-from-causal-quantum-gravity.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_Lorentzian_quantum_gravity
http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2007-0621-202502/c1.pdf
i point these out based on a scientific american article last year on
causal quantum gravity.
Rodjk #613
The whole point here is that you pointed to CASYS as an example of
"darwinism goes out the window" and you are wrong. CASYS has nothing
to do with either ID or anti-evolution.
Rodjk #613
nando_r...@yahoo.com
¨evolution proceeding by reasoned and informed decisions¨. Now the
author of that theory strenuously denies the theory is either
creationist or ID.
But its quite clear that no atheist on the forum supports such a
theory. They categorically denounce it regardless of evidence.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
wf3h
hey nando...no christians here are leaping to its defense either. and
you, with your support of christian persecution, are the last person
who should be talking about freedom
Rodjk #613
Can you point to that link?
I did not see anything remotely like what you described.
Rodjk #613
nando_r...@yahoo.com
choosing as well.
So which Christian here supports the theory ¨evolution proceeding by
reasoned and informed decisions¨ as a valid research program?
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
the link I provided previously.
You just keep making stupid statements, while you know very well that
you are ignorant about choosing. Ask yourself how many words could you
write about free will that is factually accurate, how does the physics
of choosing work. You know nothing, even less then nothing you only
know to repress such knowledge. That willful ignorance is why you keep
asking for links which you dont do anything with.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If thats the case then these Christian creationists dont understand
> choosing as well.
>
> So which Christian here supports the theory ¨evolution proceeding by
> reasoned and informed decisions¨ as a valid research program?
>
AFAIK all of them except the creationists. but they all look alike to
you
wf3h
mohammed considers einstein an idiot so that kind of tells you where
he's coming from
Rodjk #613
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> No I cant be bothered to post that link, since you did nothing with
> the link I provided previously.
Actually, I did. I went to the site and I read several of the
abstracts there. I also looked up some of the attendees and their
work. I saw nothing like what you claimed, and so I asked for
verification.
A very reasonable request, I would think.
>
> You just keep making stupid statements, while you know very well that
> you are ignorant about choosing.
What stupid statements have I made? I asked you for a link to verify
your claims.
How difficult is that?
>Ask yourself how many words could you
> write about free will that is factually accurate, how does the physics
> of choosing work.
We are not discussing my words or work. We are discussing the CASYS
conference.
>You know nothing, even less then nothing you only
> know to repress such knowledge. That willful ignorance is why you keep
> asking for links which you dont do anything with.
I am asking you for a link to articles you say exist.
You did not provide them.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
and effect view, I post a link to Dubois doubting cause and effect
altogether, your comment is zero.
We are discussing your stupid ignorance about making choices right now
we are, which causes you to request for links that you don't do
Erwin Moller
I know how you must feel.
Erwin Moller
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Erwin Moller
Well, the next conference starts august 3 and lasts to the 8th.
You will be visiting I presume?
Do me a favor: Please discuss your ideas with Luc Steels.
Make sure you mention that mutations are "informed and reasoned".
I hope you have the balls to present us here with the answers.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
> On Jun 26, 7:23 am, nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> It doesn't matter what Coppens thinks about creationism, I haven't
>> read it. He is on a conference based on the theorem of strong
>> anticipation, so he supports knowledge about freedom. Kaufmann also
>> makes a big tirade against creationism. But Kaufmann acknowledges
>> freedom in nature is real, and urges for people to be more
>> appreciative of this creativity in nature.
>>
>> The goal of the creationist movement is to have people believe in God,
>
> god has caused people to do in iran. look at what your hatred of
> freedom has caused in iran. your view of islam killed a young woman
> the other day. that's your 'freedom'
>
And Nando is silent.
As usual when presented with unpleasant facts.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
stew dean
> You bandy terms like consciousness and choosing about, without any
> understanding of your own, you are talking wordsalad.
But I do have an understanding. Consciousness is an emergent property
of our mind which is resident in our brain. I could go on but just
assume I have more than a basic understanding of what consciousness is
and how we go about choosing between things and what feeds into the
process.
> You say
> "conscious decisions", you might as well say "green decisions", or
> talk about "conscious forces", it is meaningless wordsalad that you
> don't understand the meaning of yourself.
But I do. I'm using the commonly accepted meaning of consciousness -
that is self aware thought. I'll also add that many decisions we make
we are not that conscious of and that we do semi-automatically. It's
very easy to be affected in that semi automatic mode.
> There is no science paper that establishes the physics of choosing,
> except professor Dubois, the chairman of CASYS, made a credible effort
> at establishing that.
That paper does not cover the physics of choosing and nor should it.
The physics of choosing would cover the physics of human and other
minds and is better described as neurology. The study of the mind also
has a name, psychology. So if you want to know how we choose things
then you'll need a basic grasp of psychology.
All this information is freely available, as are decades of discussion
about the meaning of freewill, a subject you do not want to go
anywhere near other than making false claims that people are trying to
deny it exists. You would have to define it before you can make such
an acusation otherwise you're making false claims.
Certain words have a commonly understood meaning in order that we can
share knowledge and the meaning of these words can easily be uncovered
through dictionary / encyclpedia / google search. To deliberately and
repeatedly use a word to mean something else but not explain what you
definition is strikes me as a great way to avoid communicating with
others and just lead to confusion.
Stew Dean
Rodjk #613
I notice that you still have not produced a link.
It would be easier to copy and paste a link than it would be to come
up with these rants.
Rodjk #613
Erwin Moller
> The supposed moral superiority of the nazi-atheist-communist-humanist
> alliance who are united in conceiving of everything in terms of cause
> and effect.
the nazi-atheist-communist-humanist alliance ?
You really know dipshit of history.
The communists and the nazis fought each other in WW2.
But lack of factual knowledge never stopped before.
And I am surprised you didn't add the zionists, which you (and this is
just a wild guess) must dislike too.
So that would make:
the nazi-zionist-atheist-communist-humanist alliance.
Let's add the Illuminati, just to be sure: they are present in every
serious conspiracy:
nazi-zionist-atheist-communist-humanist-illuminati alliance.
We are getting there. :-)
Could you maybe add a few more?
Darwinist?
Evolutionist?
>
> Once again:
> The fox does not know which way the hare will run, and neither does
> the hare know, up untill the hare decides.
>
> Useful knowledge about freedom demonstrated.
That demonstrated nothing.
>
> Dubois says that natural selection is the cause an effect view. In
> another paper about Mercurys perihelion he questions if or not cause
> and effect is even real, saying that all physics can be done without
> it.
>
> That is how much Dubois supports natural selection.
If that is all true, which I doubt, I wish you both a nice time at Casys.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
PS: Don't forget to ask Luc Steels for his opinion on the following:
Mutation are "informed and reasoned" because 'real freedom' exists, and
the mutations are happening because something in the future decided to
do so.
Please quote his excact response in here. ;-)
>
> Regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
TomS
<4a4a0393$0$200$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>, Erwin Moller stated..."
>
>nando_r...@yahoo.com schreef:
>> The supposed moral superiority of the nazi-atheist-communist-humanist
>> alliance who are united in conceiving of everything in terms of cause
>> and effect.
>
>the nazi-atheist-communist-humanist alliance ?
>
>You really know dipshit of history.
>The communists and the nazis fought each other in WW2.
>But lack of factual knowledge never stopped before.
>
>And I am surprised you didn't add the zionists, which you (and this is
>just a wild guess) must dislike too.
>So that would make:
>the nazi-zionist-atheist-communist-humanist alliance.
>
>Let's add the Illuminati, just to be sure: they are present in every
>serious conspiracy:
>nazi-zionist-atheist-communist-humanist-illuminati alliance.
>
>We are getting there. :-)
>Could you maybe add a few more?
>Darwinist?
>Evolutionist?
What is that line from Eco's "Foucault's Pendulum", that everything
must have something to do with the Templars?
--
---Tom S.
"...ID is not science ... because we simply do not know what it is saying."
Sahotra Sarkar, "The science question in intelligent design", Synthese,
DOI:10,1007/s11229-009-9540-x
nando_r...@yahoo.com
"Current work focuses on developing the foundations of semiotic
dynamics and on fluid construction grammars. "
The paper of Taborsky talking about evolution proceeding by reasoned
and informed decisions was also in terms of semiotics. It seems Luc
Steels has largely abandoned the Darwinian approach in favor of the
symbolic approach, because Darwinism only applies for systems that are
not free.
Semiotic Dynamics Solves the Symbol Grounding Problem
http://precedings.nature.com/documents/1234/version/1
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Rodjk #613
> From Luc Steels webpage:http://arti.vub.ac.be/~steels/
>
> "Current work focuses on developing the foundations of semiotic
> dynamics and on fluid construction grammars. "
?? Which has what to do with anything being disucssed?
> The paper of Taborsky talking about evolution proceeding by reasoned
> and informed decisions was also in terms of semiotics. It seems Luc
> Steels has largely abandoned the Darwinian approach in favor of the
> symbolic approach, because Darwinism only applies for systems that are
> not free.
>
> Semiotic Dynamics Solves the Symbol Grounding Problemhttp://precedings.nature.com/documents/1234/version/1
"Language requires the capacity to link symbols (words, sentences)
through the intermediary of internal representations to the physical
world, a process known as symbol grounding. One of the biggest debates
in the cognitive sciences concerns the question how human brains are
able to do this. Do we need a material explanation or a system
explanation? John Searle’s well known Chinese Room thought experiment,
which continues to generate a vast polemic literature of arguments and
counter-arguments, has argued that autonomously establishing internal
representations of the world (called ‘intentionality’ in philosophical
parlance) is based on special properties of human neural tissue and
that consequently an artificial system, such as an autonomous physical
robot, can never achieve this. Here we study the Grounded Naming Game
as a particular example of symbolic interaction and investigate a
dynamical system that autonomously builds up and uses the semiotic
networks necessary for performance in the game. We demonstrate in real
experiments with physical robots that such a dynamical system indeed
leads to a successful emergent communication system and hence that
symbol grounding and intentionality can be explained in terms of a
particular kind of system dynamics. The human brain has obviously the
right mechanisms to participate in this kind of dynamics but the same
dynamics can also be embodied in other types of physical systems."
Thanks for including a link...
But what is that supposed to show?
wf3h
> From Luc Steels webpage:http://arti.vub.ac.be/~steels/
>
> "Current work focuses on developing the foundations of semiotic
> dynamics and on fluid construction grammars. "
>
> The paper of Taborsky talking about evolution proceeding by reasoned
> and informed decisions was also in terms of semiotics. It seems Luc
> Steels has largely abandoned the Darwinian approach in favor of the
> symbolic approach, because Darwinism only applies for systems that are
> not free.
>
a characteristic i've noticed about creationists is their VERY sloppy
use of language. 'backspace' moans incessantly about evolution being a
tautology even though he doesn't know what a tautology is. 'gabriel'
invents a unique definition of science that's not used anywhere, then
complains when evolution doesn't fit his view.
'nando' invents a completely off the wall view of freediom then says
evolution isn't science because science deals with 'free' things. god
only knows what these people mean. because their use of language seems
to be trapped in a time warp from about 1000 years ago.
Erwin Moller
> From Luc Steels webpage: http://arti.vub.ac.be/~steels/
>
> "Current work focuses on developing the foundations of semiotic
> dynamics and on fluid construction grammars. "
>
Clear.
> The paper of Taborsky talking about evolution proceeding by reasoned
> and informed decisions was also in terms of semiotics. It seems Luc
> Steels has largely abandoned the Darwinian approach in favor of the
> symbolic approach, because Darwinism only applies for systems that are
> not free.
So because Taborsky is using the word semiotic in his work, Luc Steels
thinks about evolution in terms of reasoned and informed decisions.
Do I understand your 'argument' correctly?
>
> Semiotic Dynamics Solves the Symbol Grounding Problem
> http://precedings.nature.com/documents/1234/version/1
>
You totally misinterpret what Steels is researching.
In that particular paper he is describing how some AI were trying their
'hand' at symbol grounding: that is just AI research.
This has NOTHING to do with your ideas concerning evolution.
Nothing at all.
I am surprised how inapt you are at interpreting what other people
write/say. You are simply putting your own ideas straight on ANYTHING
you seem fit, and you seem to think your ideas and the other ideas life
harmoniously ever after.
Is there a name for that particular mental disorder?
On a sidenote: You might want to pick your friends elsewhere, because
you won't find many on serious universities. Try your local mosque.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
> regards,
Erwin Moller
Hi wf3h,
Good observation.
Why do they do that?
Without their own definitions for these concepts, they wouldn't be able
to attack the strawman.
Or maybe they lack education and simply don't know what they are talking
about.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
hersheyh
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The supposed moral superiority of the nazi-atheist-communist-humanist
> alliance who are united in conceiving of everything in terms of cause
> and effect.
>
> The fox does not know which way the hare will run, and neither does
> the hare know, up untill the hare decides.
The left to right bounds of hares in escape mode are not "decided"
consciously by the hare. They are effectively random decisions,
equivalent to the reflex motion of one's knee when tapped by a soft
hammer, not made on the conscious level.
The absence of non-conscious cause-effect or conscious decision is not
called freedom; it's called randomness. And, at a population level,
randomness can be identified as having happened because it produces
*specific* mathematically expected results.
Once you remove all causal bias, what is left is, mathematically,
random variance. The *reason* why a hare's right/left leaps cannot be
individually predicted is because the 'decision' has been left
effectively to chance and not to conscious choice nor (to the extent
possible) causal bias.
> Useful knowledge about freedom demonstrated.
Your definition of 'freedom' remains unconstrained and impossible to
decipher. You use it to describe the 'decision' of planets to move in
an orbit and the 'decision' of fair dice to produce random numbers.
That is, *everything* is due to 'freedom', according to you. But a
term that can explain both random chance and causal bias is inherently
unscientific precisely because it explains everything.
> Dubois says that natural selection is the cause an effect view. In
> another paper about Mercurys perihelion he questions if or not cause
> and effect is even real, saying that all physics can be done without
> it.
>
> That is how much Dubois supports natural selection.
>
> Regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
teaching us all how decisions work. Tell me what is the physics of
choosing, how do you know all this???? And why is everything you say
filled with logical errors?
Actually what is called freedom is when there are alternatives.
Whatsmore these alternatives, in the future, can be objectively
measured.
A random decision, and a conscious decision, are both decisions. So to
say we apply basicly the same logic of decision for both, where
consciousness is a much more complex application of such logic.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
Darwinian approach is useful in more solid aspects of language (the
relevant genes, the brainmachinery) but not so useful for the basicly
fluid aspects of language.
That mimics the arguments of Dubois and Taborsky about natural
selection somewhat, who say there is not enough plasticity in natural
selection for it to work.
Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Erwin Moller
> No I simply read another abstract where Luc Steels explicitly says the
> Darwinian approach is useful in more solid aspects of language (the
> relevant genes, the brainmachinery) but not so useful for the basicly
> fluid aspects of language.
Learn to quote you maniac!
We cannot discuss anything if you keep up your childish refusal to quote.
If you insist in being an idiot, fine with me, but I will give up on you
(again), which is your loss because you didn't win my spoiled soul for
your deity.
For clarities sake: I am perfectly willing to discuss the matter futher
with you if you adopt normal nettiquette and quote the relevant parts of
the former discussion.
>
> That mimics the arguments of Dubois and Taborsky about natural
> selection somewhat, who say there is not enough plasticity in natural
> selection for it to work.
Neural plasticity is something that is MADE POSSIBLE by our genes that
coded our brain, but it happens in the brains.
It is a neurological concept, not a evolutionairy one in this context.
You clearly don't have a clue what neural plasticity is.
Here, do some basic research first:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity
>
> Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.
Probably not.
Makes me wonder what I did those years at university studying biology
and neurology...
Ah, now I remember!
I was in the local pub, pissing on religious zealots while singing
stupid songs about some teacup orbitting the Earth.
Those were the days. :-)
stew dean
> No I simply read another abstract where Luc Steels explicitly says the
> Darwinian approach is useful in more solid aspects of language (the
> relevant genes, the brainmachinery) but not so useful for the basicly
> fluid aspects of language.
Okay, but do you understand what that means? it appears to be talking
about artificial intelligence. The world of AI is made up of two types
of approaches, 'old fashioned' AI which is very much about symbols etc
and new AI (the name used for it I forget) which uses natural
processes like evolution to make them work. The new approach is harder
to get solid results from as it takes more time and you don't have
direct control but instead have set up an environment for things to
happen in. But the results are more solid, flexible and has a degree
of real intelligence as opposed to old fashioned AI where the
intelligece lives outside of the system.
> That mimics the arguments of Dubois and Taborsky about natural
> selection somewhat, who say there is not enough plasticity in natural
> selection for it to work.
From what I remember from past arguments that's simply not true.
You've misunderstood what has been written.
> Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.
And you do? So far you have not demonstrated that.
Stew Dean
Burkhard
> Darwinian approach is useful in more solid aspects of language (the
> relevant genes, the brainmachinery) but not so useful for the basicly
> fluid aspects of language.
So, challenged on why you think Steels work is a problem for a
darwinian approach, you give us a link to a paper where he does _not_
say anything like that , and when this is pointed out to you, you get
abusive and claim to have read some other paper where he does - but
utterly fail to give us a link or a proper reference. Great!
>
> That mimics the arguments of Dubois and Taborsky about natural
> selection somewhat, who say there is not enough plasticity in natural
> selection for it to work.
Not really, no. For starters, even D and T do not really argue about
NS, that is your distorted interpretation of what they say. And even
if they did, Steels work does not "mimic" anything they are saying.
He is using evolutionist models to describe language acquisition in
AI. Now this may or may not be a good way of applying darwinist to
evolutionist ideas in a new context, but whether or not that new
application is successful has little impact on whether the theory of
evolution is valid.
His workuses evolutionist models and ideas throughout, see e.g.
Steels, L. (2004) Analogies between Genome and Language Evolution.
In: Pollack, J. et.al. (eds) Proceedings of Alife 9. The MIT Press
Cambridge Ma.
Steels, L. (2004) Social and Cultural Learning in the Evolution of
Human Communication. In: D. Kimbrough Oller and Ulrike Grieb (eds.)
(2004) Evolution of Communication Systems. The MIT Press, Cambridge
Ma. p. 69-90
Steels, L. (2006) The Recruitment Theory of Language Origins. In:
Nehaniv, L., Lyon, C. and Cangelosi, A. (eds.) Emergence and Evolution
of Linguistic Communication. Springer, Berlin
Steels, L. (2006) How to do Experiments in Artificial Language
Evolution and Why. In Cangelosi, A., Smith, A. and Smith, J., editors,
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on The Evolution of
Language (EVOLANG6), London. World Scientific Publishing.
which has as conclusion:
"There is a growing number of computer simulations, analytic models,
and experiments
in artificial language evolution which shine new light on the age-old
question of the origins of communication systems with the features of
human natural
languages. A large number of issues has not been tackled yet and we
only
have solid results so far for some of the most basic questions, such
as how can
a population develop a shared set of names. So this presents enormous
opportunities
for young researchers coming in the field. At the same time useful
dialog
is already possible and ongoing with the other approaches to language
evolution,
that emphasise the linguistic and anthropological data or constraints
from neurobiology"
So he is pretty much fully signed up to an evolutionist explanation of
language acquisition in humans, and he also thinks AI can learn from
it. At the same time, being a researcher, he _of course_ does not
think that all problems are solved already, or that we may not need to
adjust, refine and amend out theory
stew dean
> Once agains somebody who knows ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about choosing,
> teaching us all how decisions work. Tell me what is the physics of
> choosing, how do you know all this???? And why is everything you say
> filled with logical errors?
Please learn to quote. Reading the post you replied to the only think
I would disagree with is the use of random but otherwise it's pretty
good. The rabbit runs in a direction determined by it's brain, inputs
come in, goes through the circuitary, rabbit moves in a different
direction. It's cause and effect and, in this situation, the Rabbit is
fairly certain to run in a particular situation and it may be
predictable. The Rabbit also may think it can go the other direction
but then find out it can't.
This means that the alternatives the rabbit thought existed do not
really exist.
> Actually what is called freedom is when there are alternatives.
> Whatsmore these alternatives, in the future, can be objectively
> measured.
The problem with this view is mentioned above. What alternatives we
think we have are not the same as the the objective realities much of
the time. We guess based upon our experience. Outcomes are in the
future, not alternatives, they happen at the time of choosing and
desciding and are perceived only.
You can't apply choosing to physics. It doesnt work. But science will
tell you about how we choose and why we choose, but that won't be
physics.
> A random decision, and a conscious decision, are both decisions. So to
> say we apply basicly the same logic of decision for both, where
> consciousness is a much more complex application of such logic.
Regardless they are decisssions and are based upon perceived
alternatives that lead to an outcome. Which is all fairly bloody
obvious.
Stew
nando_r...@yahoo.com
choosing will replace the logic of cause and effect. The spiritual is
what does the job of deciding, so its enough to establish
creationism.
As mentioned, Luc can talk about evolution all he wants, people are
just going to take the message from him that freedom is real, and
revert to the default view on freedom, which is creationism.
There arent any atheists on the newsgroups that believe freedom is
real. They never use logic of choosing, even when discussing animal
behaviour they conjure up only causes forcing and no choices.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There arent any atheists on the newsgroups that believe freedom is
> real. They never use logic of choosing, even when discussing animal
> behaviour they conjure up only causes forcing and no choices.
>
there's little evidence creationists think freedom is real. in fact,
the track record of creationists is virulently anti-freedom
Chris Krolczyk
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As mentioned, Luc can talk about evolution all he wants, people are
> just going to take the message from him that freedom is real, and
> revert to the default view on freedom, which is creationism.
Boy, that sounds familiar.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
The resemblance between your nonsensical,
theocratic gobbledygook and the sort of
disinformation Orwell was warning against
in _!984_ is becoming more and more apparent
with every screed you post.
Once again: do you ever think this garbage
through before you post? Ever?
-Chris Krolczyk
Erwin Moller
Not on the small level (atoms and smaller) and not on the psychological
level and not on the philosophical level.
What is worse: You think you can cherrypick you pet theories from
mainstream science: The ones you LIKE are good science (your
misinterpretations of Dubois), the ones you don't like are bad science
(evolution).
Appearantly you are unable to see the bigger picture behind it all.
You are unable to see there is only one 'good science', the one that is
based on facts, testable theories: in short: the one that survives the
scrutiny of fellow scientists.
It doesn't matter if that approach is used on biology, astronomy or
quantummachanics.
It is the approach of thinking, smart people.
Dogmatic maniacs will probably never understand it, being unable to
leave their psychological jail.
The bottomline is that the scientific method delivers.
Your pet theories, religion, and other phantasies never delivered
anything worthwhile.
Your 'science' is just a collection of misinterpreted parts of normal
science.
You are part of the nazi-muslim-creationists-doublethinkers aliance.
As long as you refuse to mentally grow up, you'll stay in the shithole
you dug for yourself.
Enjoy.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
nando_r...@yahoo.com
1940-1946
You can see in the logic of Stew Dean about freedom in the thread,
replacing the spiritual with all kinds of mechanisms, as what does the
job of deciding. Score 1 for atheism by moving out the spiritual, but
making everything mechanical means score 0 for freedom, everything is
forced.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Chris Krolczyk
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Obviously for Darwinists being forced=acting freely. Thats 1984 and
> 1940-1946
Prove it. Anecdotes that don't provide
actual cites don't count as such.
I have an interesting theory about you: the less
that your "arguments" have an actual point, the more
inclined you are to throw a baseless Godwin into
the mix. Actually, the more *insane* your "argument"
is, the more likely it is that a Hitler reference
will be showing up in an effort to effort to prop it
up.
> You can see in the logic of Stew Dean about freedom in the thread,
> replacing the spiritual with all kinds of mechanisms, as what does the
> job of deciding.
In case you were wondering, all your pissing
and moaning about "the spiritual" serves to
do is point out how much you use an omnipotent
god as a *replacement* for all the mechanistic
thought you're whining about. Some "freedom"
there, eh?
> Score 1 for atheism by moving out the spiritual,
Still can't get over the idea that
atheism doesn't equate to science
or "Darwinism", can you?
Clueless git.
> but
> making everything mechanical means score 0 for freedom, everything is
> forced.
Since your bizarre idea of "freedom"
equates to nothing more than an omnipotent
deity making decisions for every natural
phenomenon in existence, I'd like to know
where "freedom" ends and absolute dictatorship
begins in your strange little world.
There seems to be not much in the way of
actual differences between the two, so
how about it? Are you actually willing to
admit how impoverished and pointless your
idea of "freedom" is, or are you going
to start frothing at the mouth and
accuse people of being Nazis again
instead?
-Chris Krolczyk
nando_r...@yahoo.com
That is the truth.
My notion of freedom is to have alternatives in the future, which is
the normal notion of freedom.
When Darwinists run an election you can vote for Hitler or Hirohito.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
wf3h
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So after all its the darwinists that equate being free=being forced.
> That is the truth.
says the islamist who believes christianity must be suppressed so
muslims won't feel 'lonely' (sic)
>
> My notion of freedom is to have alternatives in the future, which is
> the normal notion of freedom.
>
> When Darwinists run an election you can vote for Hitler or Hirohito.
>
says the man who believes bin laden is god.
stew dean
Forced by what? For something to be forced something would have to do
the forcing. If a decission is mechanical then how does that differ
from your definition of freedom?
You're reacting but not explaining, I believe your thoughts are forced
by limited information and ego. In that resepect I consider myself
more free than you.
Unless you know what freedom is, which you clearly don't, how can you
comment about it?
So, again, define freedom if you can.
stew dean
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So after all its the darwinists that equate being free=being forced.
> That is the truth.
Depends what you mean by free and being forced. You, for example, are
'forced' to do many things but are lead to believe that they are free
will, only your ego tells you otherwise, foolishly. For example you
have used the drinking coffee example before. There are many aspects
of drinking coffee where you are 'forced' to drink coffee - the
chemical responce, the cultural pressure and the affect of the TV and
advertising you watch. We are all part of or want to be part of a
group of socierty and the actions off our peers is more likely to lead
to us doing what they do.
Free will is an illusion and to be free you have to be aware of that.
Freedom is knowing what affects you decisions and being aware of what
is important and not. Ignorance leads to you making decissions and not
knowing why you choose what you do.
I don't think you know or understand that.
> My notion of freedom is to have alternatives in the future, which is
> the normal notion of freedom.
That is not the normal notion of freedom at all. It is dishonest to
claim so.
>
> When Darwinists run an election you can vote for Hitler or Hirohito.
Hitler, by his own words, was a creationist. Other Nazis misused
Darwin's words but Hitler himself wanted little to do with it and felt
he acted according to God's will.
Stew Dean
nando_r...@yahoo.com
> Free will is an illusion and to be free you have to be aware of that.
It's a quote from Orwell's book 1984 I gues.
You have no chance arguing this way. Try arguing along the lines that
freedom is real, and then try and be an atheist still. That is the
real challenge.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Chris Krolczyk
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So after all its the darwinists that equate being free=being forced.
> That is the truth.
Still can't be bothered to cite actual proof, I see.
I'm beginning to understand why you never bother to quote
other posts when you "respond". It's not ineptitude; it's
a self-serving way to rant without providing any sort
of material that could contradict your little fantasies.
How convenient.
> My notion of freedom is to have alternatives in the future, which is
> the normal notion of freedom.
*Everybody* already has "alternatives in the future", including
you. You just presuppose that those alternatives are controlled
by an omnipotent deity instead of the mechanistic explanation
you continue to whine about.
It's nice to know that you proved my point by ignoring it,
though, so thanks for inadvertently conceding it.
> When Darwinists run an election you can vote for Hitler or Hirohito.
They're both dead, thanks. And concerning
your ignorance of history, only one of them
was *appointed* as the leader of his govern-
ment after gaining a pluraity in the Reichstag;
Hirohito wasn't "elected" by anybody because
he was the _sitting emperor of Japan_ when
World War 2 broke out, you idiot.
Of course, since you vastly admire people
who don't want elections, prefer to live in
a medieval era one step above outright barbarism
and who would rather gun down women in a
disused soccer field for violating their
twisted interpretation of religion, I'm
not surprised that you pulled another Godwin
out of your hat.
-Chris Krolczyk
stew dean
> On 2 jul, 12:02, stew dean <stewd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Free will is an illusion and to be free you have to be aware of that.
>
> It's a quote from Orwell's book 1984 I gues.
No, it's just something you will never understand.
> You have no chance arguing this way.
First true thing you've said for a long time.
> Try arguing along the lines that
> freedom is real, and then try and be an atheist still. That is the
> real challenge.
Freedom is real. I am an atheist. Freedom is the ability to act upon
decissions, it's not the same as free will, which is the ability to
descide a course of action independent of any controlling factors.
This would make free will impossible as we are constant bombarded by
all kinds of things that influence us. And if you think you're free
from that then you're more influenced that someone who is aware of how
culture, advertising etc affect us.
You may have freedom, but total free will is, as I say, an illusion.
But if you believe in magic like you do maybe it possible, either that
or you're delusional.
Stew Dean
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Erwin Moller
> On 2 jul, 12:02, stew dean <stewd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Free will is an illusion and to be free you have to be aware of that.
He can do it!
He can do it!
A QUOTE !!!
/me jumps and dances around Nando.
Good job Nando. :-)
Really, I am so proud of you now.
>
> It's a quote from Orwell's book 1984 I gues.
>
> You have no chance arguing this way. Try arguing along the lines that
> freedom is real, and then try and be an atheist still. That is the
> real challenge.
No, that is not the real challenge: that is a challenge set by you AFTER
accepting a bunch of illogical statements concerning your delusions
about freedom and some god.
That is not a fair challenge to a sane (=scientific) person.
The REAL challenge is trying to understand how the universe works, how
it came into existence, if it will end, if there are more universes, etc.
The REAL challenge is understanding human conciousness.
The REAL challenge is discovering new laws of physics, or
understanding/rephrasing the older ones so the better fit with observations.
etc. etc.
Gaining real knowledge about the universe will fail if you are incapable
of questioning dogmas thought to you.
Dogmatic people typically don't learn.
And you are a dogmatic guy squared.
Anybody who takes holy books as a reliable source for factual knowledge
is bound to stay as smart as his great-great-great-etc-grandfathers were.
Science is about improvement of our understanding of the natural world.
So far it is also the ONLY thing that worked when you want reliable
information.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
PS: Congratulations again with your quote!
Garamond Lethe
> nando_r...@yahoo.com schreef:
>> On 2 jul, 12:02, stew dean <stewd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Free will is an illusion and to be free you have to be aware of that.
>
> He can do it!
> He can do it!
>
> A QUOTE !!!
>
> /me jumps and dances around Nando.
>
> Good job Nando. :-)
> Really, I am so proud of you now.
Let me add my congratulations. Nando, this is a huge step forward for you.
Well done, we're all very pleased.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
hundreds of pages of technical phrases in a day, untill their higher
minds are conditioned for nothing else. Knowing nothing about freedom,
where things can turn out one way or another, and the spiritual does
the job of realising the one alternative, and discarding the other.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
wf3h
it's funny, on this july 4, to read an islamist religous fanatic who
approves of the repression of christians, and who knows nothing of the
concept of history, lecturin people on freedom.
his idea of freedom, it seems, applies only to taliban oriented
muslims who have the 'freedom' to repress others. regarding freedom
for everyone? dont get your hopes up.
stew dean
You are a hypocrite. You reject knowledge on any level in favour of
your own 'common sense'. You would rather be right an ignorant then to
be informed but have the doubt that knowledge brings.
It is a claim of fools that because they don't get involved with the
scientific, the technical, with the explaining of how the universe
works that they are somehow more spiritual. This is complete rubbish.
The more you know about this universe we live in the more spiritual
you can become but that is not the only thing in your mind so it does
not hold domain.
In short don't claim to be any more spiritual than the others on this
group as you have far less meaning of what that actual means than even
the self professed atheists in this group. Believing in 'magic' and
the super natural is not the same as being spiritual.
The more you learn, or allow yourself to know, the less you know and
the more wonder there is in the universe and the more free you are.
Free will may be an illusion but freedom is not.
Boikat
So, deciding to embrace willful ignorance brings you closer to God.
No thanks. If God wants stupid sheeple, then I'm not interested.
Boikat
hersheyh
Any day in which you expound your so-called 'insights' is, indeed, "[a]
nother day of ignorance... on Gods earth.'
> Students reading
> hundreds of pages of technical phrases in a day, untill their higher
> minds are conditioned for nothing else. Knowing nothing about freedom,
> where things can turn out one way or another,
Things turning out one way or another is not the same thing as
"freedom" in most definitions of that word. In fact, it is always
true that "things turn out one way or another" and that fact renders
the definition you give meaningless. It describes and explains any
and everything; terms like that cannot be be tested.
What scientists and students try to do is determine the causal factors
that bias or affect *which* way (and how frequently) things turn out
the way they do. When all significant causal factors are known and
controlled, what is left is due to chance, which produces results in a
predictable mathematical pattern at the population level.
You seem to be claiming that inanimate objects with mass *choose* to
fall toward the earth's center of mass and *could* choose not to by
power of will. Such denial of empirical experience in favor of
magical wishfulness makes you look totally nuts.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
Sometimes a photon can go alternative ways, and sometimes it can only
go one way.
You are obviously a retard when it comes to knowledge about choosing.
This must be because you are not trying, otherwise it is simple.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Its not true that things can always turn out one way or another.
Indeed, there are usually more than two options available.
> Sometimes a photon can go alternative ways, and sometimes it can only
> go one way.
But it ends up only going one way.
>
> You are obviously a retard when it comes to knowledge about choosing.
How do you know you're not the one with the problem? After all,
you're the one that thinks rocks make decisions, and decide which way
to fall, or not fall. Have you ever seen a dropped rock not fall?
Have you seen a dropped rock sing off to the left or right when simply
dropped, or just hang there, hovering, because it couldn't make up
it's mind? If so, what drugs were you on at the time?
> This must be because you are not trying, otherwise it is simple.
Lots of things are simple if you allow your brain to turn into mush,
like believing in the Tooth Fairy, or invisible magical pixies, or
that rocks have minds capable of making decisions and rocks possessing
free will.
It must be nice to be insane; no real world constraints.....
Boikat
nando_r...@yahoo.com
many reasons. And you were a retard about it for years already, and
you probably will be to the end of your life, and then basicly at the
end you understand the universe except the freedom in it. Which is
certainly a sinful waste.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Boikat
Not accepting your delusions does not make one "retarded".
> and that is a big problem for
> many reasons.
Only for you, it seems.
> And you were a retard about it for years already, and
> you probably will be to the end of your life, and then basicly at the
> end you understand the universe except the freedom in it.
Ah, so, as long as I do not accept your delusions (which have nothing
to do with reality), I will be sane to the very end. I like that
idea.
> Which is
> certainly a sinful waste.
Not as wasteful as using your skull to store tapioca, like you do...
Boikat
hersheyh
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Its not true that things can always turn out one way or another.
That was what *you* said constituted "freedom", not me.
The words "Knowing nothing about freedom, where things can turn out
one way or another," does rather imply that "freedom" is where things
can turn out one way or another.
The above were *your* words. I can't help it if your argument is
incomprehensible even to yourself. That isn't my problem.
> Sometimes a photon can go alternative ways, and sometimes it can only
> go one way.
If there are environmental conditions under which a photon "can only
go one way", then those conditions represent "causality" and not
"randomness". In fact, we know a lot about factors that control the
direction that light (composed of photons) go. There is an entire
field of physics related to optics.
But the above sentence actually seems to imply that going alternative
ways is somehow distinguishable from going one of those alternative
ways. Perhaps you are thinking of some quantum mechanical principles
under which some quantum objects can be in two different places
simultaneously. But, of course, that has no bearing on macro-level
objects.
> You are obviously a retard when it comes to knowledge about choosing.
Hard to tell, since *you* cannot even agree with your own argument
long enough to make sense of it. Under what conditions do photons "go
alternative ways"? Under what conditions do photons "only go one
way"? And how is that "one way" different from any of the
"alternative ways" of the other option?
> This must be because you are not trying, otherwise it is simple.
If, as appears to be the case, you are on both sides of your argument
and don't know what you are saying and what it means, yeah, anything
is simple. Again, how does one distinguish between a photon going
"alternative ways" (that presumably includes all specific individual
ways) and a photon that goes one of those possible ways?
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Jul 4, 9:06 pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
><nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Still you are a retard about choosing,
>
>Not accepting your delusions does not make one "retarded".
In fact, quite the opposite :)
--
Bob.
stew dean
> On Jul 4, 9:06 pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>
> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Still you are a retard about choosing,
>
> Not accepting your delusions does not make one "retarded".
Exactly. If anyone did want to accept Nando's delusions I doubt they
could because of the lack of anything to take on. Trying to decode
what Nando means in any real world way I find impossible. How can
rain clouds think - why should they? At what point do these so called
decisions happen? How can we choose based upon things that exist only
in the future?
Even if you wanted to play along and explore Nando's ideas you soon
realise there is nothing to play along with other than the same words
used to mean something else and if you try and find out what that
something else is you get some kind of fuzzy spiritual nothingness.
It's impossible to agree with him as there doesnt appear to be
anything to agree with.
Stew Dean
nando_r...@yahoo.com
hope that the decision will turn out left, or know through dread that
the decision will turn out right. That is the way of common spiritual
knowledge.
So you see creationist logic is easy and is the normal understanding
of things going one way or another.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
wf3h
except, of course that, for thousands of years, it explained nothing
about freedom OR nature. other than that it's been a great success
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If there is a decision to go left or right, then you can know through
> hope that the decision will turn out left, or know through dread that
> the decision will turn out right. That is the way of common spiritual
> knowledge.
No. That was meaningless blathercrap.
>
> So you see creationist logic is easy and is the normal understanding
> of things going one way or another.
If that's "creationist logic", then you need to be placed in a nice
quiet room with padded walls and "elevator music" playing in the
background..
Boikat
stew dean
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If there is a decision to go left or right, then you can know through
> hope that the decision will turn out left, or know through dread that
> the decision will turn out right. That is the way of common spiritual
> knowledge.
Let me pick this apart. First the decision is based upon the known
alternatives and lots of other factors both conscious and
subconscious. To say that left and right are hope or dread is only
applicable in a few conscious decisions. Conscious decisions, that is
ones we are aware of as opposed to automatic ones we make, make up a
small percentage of all the decisions we make.
The concept of common spiritual knowledge is not something that has
been defined, mostly because if you look at the spirituality of
individual people it is radically different from person to person.
What is common are the human emotions and the way people's minds work
- psychology and neurology. So to say there is some common spiritual
knowledge between people is not true. You usage of words and meaning
are a good demonstration of that as was you claim to know appears to
be unique to yourself.
> So you see creationist logic is easy and is the normal understanding
> of things going one way or another.
I do not see. I also do not see how this is anyway related to past
conversations I have had with creationists (and there have been many).
Creationists do not talk about decisions and would probably state the
common sense answer that we make decisions by looking at everything
and making a conscious decision much like most humans. Some may say
God guides them but the creationism doesn't go anywhere near what ever
you're attempting to talk about but failing to be clear about.
The understanding of things going one way or other sounds like
causality to me, something happens that makes something else happens.
Either that or it's probability or luck. Any of these terms you can
use and be understood. By using words that already have a meaning that
is different from what you mean you will always be misunderstood just
as I can't understand you now.
You're going to have to have a better go at explaining what you mean.
Stew Dean
nando_r...@yahoo.com
error, you dont understand choosing.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Boikat
However, there are events that are automatic, in that if "X"
happens"Y" will follow.
> that is just a logical
> error,
Nope. If the soil supporting a rock gives way, the rock will roll
down the hill. Simple, isn't it?
> you dont understand choosing.
Actually, the problem is that nobody uses your definition of
"choosing", whatever it may be. And whatever your definition is, it
does not appear to have any attatchment to reality.
Boikat
hersheyh
Who or what makes the decision? And is that entity the same as the
"you" in this context? We were talking about photons, I thought.
hersheyh
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There are no decisions that are automatic, that is just a logical
> error, you dont understand choosing.
If you are *still* too stupid to include the text to which this is a
response, could you at least post who you are responding to so we can
guess what your blather is in response to?
Note: In most systems, there is a function called "reply" that
automatically includes the previous text.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
hersheyh
> hope that the decision will turn out left, or know through dread that
> the decision will turn out right.
And why the heck would anyone or anything *always* regard a decision
to make a left turn to be dreadful and a right one to be hoped for?