Please voice your support to allow to talk about freedom on this
nando_r...@yahoo.com
insane, unscientific etc. But the thing is these same people that say
that do not apply any other idea about freedom. So basically what this
means is that all knowledge about freedom is surpressed on this forum.
Obviously my ideas about freedom can be subject to criticism. But I
just made an honest attempt to arrive at correct logic, and my logic
is similar to that of experts in the field of anticipatory computing.
So really those who say catgorically that nothing can turn out one way
or another, we all have heared you. The point is heared and dismissed,
so now be fair and stop badgering the 1 point, and allow for some
intelligent discussion on the subject that things can turn out one way
or another.
Obviously freedom can explain a lot. It can explain unpredictability
in escape, and surprise in attack in predator prey relationships. It
can explain the origins of organisms in terms of decisions. It can
explain instantaneous action at a distance, it can explain searching a
database by only possibly running a search algorithm, it can explain
the workings of MRI and the newly 3rd generation MRI etc.
So if you want more explaining on this forum in terms of things
turning out one way or another, including intelligent design and
creationism, then please voice your support here.
raven1
>Lots of people here say that my opinions about freedom are bizarre,
>insane, unscientific etc.
Why do you think that might be?
Prof Weird
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Lots of people here say that my opinions about freedom are bizarre,
> insane, unscientific etc. But the thing is these same people that say
> that do not apply any other idea about freedom. So basically what this
> means is that all knowledge about freedom is surpressed on this forum.
Translation : 'people won't simply BELIEVE me !1!1!1!'
> Obviously my ideas about freedom can be subject to criticism. But I
> just made an honest attempt to arrive at correct logic, and my logic
> is similar to that of experts in the field of anticipatory computing.
And you 'determined' that your ideas actually correspond to what they
were saying is what again ?
You 'determined' that their ideas apply macroscopically how
(randomness rules on the quantum scale, doesn't fare so well on the
larger scale. Your car COULD teleport through the walls of your
garage, but the odds of that ever happening even once in the history
of a few billion universes is pretty slim.)
Do you have any idea about how many MOLECULES the moon has ? A 20
atom group may be subject to quantum uncertainty effects, but I DARE
you to try doing the math for something the size of even a tennis
ball, and report how much 'choice' it could have !
No planetary bodies 'compute' their next position - they merely follow
the laws of nature.
So, given a FORMULA descriping orbital motion and OBSERVED starting
parameters, one can predict where the moon will be well into the
future. Your blubberings about the moon 'making decisions' implies it
could 'decide' to suddenly reverse direction, leap out to Jupiter,
then come back.
> So really those who say catgorically that nothing can turn out one way
> or another, we all have heared you. The point is heared and dismissed,
> so now be fair and stop badgering the 1 point, and allow for some
> intelligent discussion on the subject that things can turn out one way
> or another.
Translation : 'you meanies REFUSE to believe that I am smarter than
everyone !1!11!1!'
I keep 'choosing' to be a millionaire, but the bank computers keep
'choosing' to ignore me ... !
> Obviously freedom can explain a lot. It can explain unpredictability
> in escape, and surprise in attack in predator prey relationships.
Nothing a simple random number generator couldn't simulate - and most
computers don't actually use 'random' numbers. They have an explicit,
defined FORMULA for generating their 'random' numbers - know the
formula and the seed number, you can predict EACH AND EVERY NUMBER IT
WILL GENERATE.
You don't really need nandonian 'freedom' to explain unpredictability
- just the ability to make an arbitrary decision.
x = rand(1)
if x<.5 go left; else go right.
How, EXACTLY, could you tell the difference between the output of
something like that and your gibbering 'freedom' ?
So, in your deranged 'theory' of choices, the prey 'decides' to be
caught by the predator ? Or does the predators 'choice' override the
prey's 'decisions', THUS MEANING THE PREY HAS NO REAL CHOICE IN THE
MATTER ?
> It
> can explain the origins of organisms in terms of decisions.
RiiIiiIIiiIIGHT ! The organism somehow 'decided' to poof into
existence from where ever it was before.
> It can
> explain instantaneous action at a distance, it can explain searching a
> database by only possibly running a search algorithm, it can explain
> the workings of MRI and the newly 3rd generation MRI etc.
Too bad your 'understanding' of those points is so pathetic; more like
a willful misunderstanding of an analogy of an analogy of a badly
phrased anecdote.
> So if you want more explaining on this forum in terms of things
> turning out one way or another, including intelligent design and
> creationism, then please voice your support here.
bpuharic
>Lots of people here say that my opinions about freedom are bizarre,
>insane, unscientific etc. But the thing is these same people that say
>that do not apply any other idea about freedom. So basically what this
>means is that all knowledge about freedom is surpressed on this forum.
you mean like the US constitution? you seem to ignore that. and what
does the constitution or other concepts of freedom have to do with
science?
yes, you're right. your ideas are bizarre and insane
>
>Obviously my ideas about freedom can be subject to criticism. But I
>just made an honest attempt to arrive at correct logic, and my logic
>is similar to that of experts in the field of anticipatory computing.
freedom existed before 'anticipatory computing' and has nothing to do
with is
nando_r...@yahoo.com
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:58:42 -0800 (PST), "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>
> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Lots of people here say that my opinions about freedom are bizarre,
> >insane, unscientific etc.
>
> Why do you think that might be
Because there are lots of fucking lunatics here whose intellectual
world would collapse if they would admit the simple fact that freedom
is real.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
about anything turning out one way or another, because in his
delusional world this is only for politics.
On 28 feb, 21:05, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:58:42 -0800 (PST), "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
nando_r...@yahoo.com
proffesor weird on this forum, who sabotage any discussion of anything
turning out one way or another.
The theory that the moon may end up at place X1 instead of X2 is not
by definition false or anti-scientific. There are lots of reasons for
thinking this is the case, lots of logically sound theory, that can
explain the measured variation in the orbit.
Desertphile
> Lots of people here say that my opinions about freedom are bizarre,
No: everyone says your usage of the word "freedom" is bizarre.
(CUTS)
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
"Lotta soon to die punks here." -- igotskillz22
Dana Tweedy
Or, alternately, you are the lunatic. No one here denies that "freedom
is real". Your problem is that your own definition of "freedom" is
bizarre, insane, and unscientific.
DJT
raven1
Nando, which is more likely? That literally *everyone* here besides
you is a lunatic, or that your opinions about freedom are bizarre,
insane, and unscientific?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
talk about the fucking moon turning out one way or another. Or is that
fucking anti-scientific.
On 28 feb, 21:54, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:58:42 -0800 (PST),
>
> "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com" <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Lots of people here say that my opinions about freedom are bizarre,
>
> No: everyone says your usage of the word "freedom" is bizarre.
>
> (CUTS)
>
nando_r...@yahoo.com
On 28 feb, 22:03, Dana Tweedy <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
marks...@yahoo.com
If people want to suggest tiny fairies are responsible for quantum
effects , or mice are the real world rulers, or whales are great poets
then let them. Easy enough to ignore the thread.
>it can explain searching a database by only possibly running a search algorithm
I am pretty certain that you dont get results without performing an
action but I am old fashioned that way.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
freedom is allowed you stupid fucking asshole Darwinist.
> action but I am old fashioned that way.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
Frank J
You already have much more freedom here than at Uncommon Descent, the
chief blog that promotes ID. As you might know, Ray Martinez - a
creationist who embraces ID in general if not the DI's approach - had
been banned at UcD, but is free to say whatever he wants here. The
problem with him and you and most other evolution-denies here is that
you keep "expeling" yourselves by (1) constantly evading simple
questions about your own mutually contradictory "theories," (2) very
rarely saying anything to other evolution-deniers aside from cheering
their misrepresentations of evolution.
So I 100% support your telling us: (1) how many years ago the first
life appeared on Earth, (2) whether humans share common ancestors with
other species, and (3) whether you have challenged evolution-deiniers
who disagree with you on one or both of those basic points.
Vend
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You see, yet another fucking asshole. What fucking knowledge about
> freedom is allowed you stupid fucking asshole Darwinist.
Insults aren't likely to stimulate productive discussion.
Mike Lyle
> Lots of people here say that my opinions about freedom are bizarre,
> insane, unscientific etc. But the thing is these same people that say
> that do not apply any other idea about freedom. So basically what this
> means is that all knowledge about freedom is surpressed on this forum.
Your views don't seem to be suppressed here. You're allowed to post as
freely as you like.
[...]
--
Mike.
Scott Balneaves
> Obviously my ideas about freedom can be subject to criticism. But I
> just made an honest attempt to arrive at correct logic, and my logic
> is similar to that of experts in the field of anticipatory computing.
> So really those who say catgorically that nothing can turn out one way
> or another, we all have heared you. The point is heared and dismissed,
> so now be fair and stop badgering the 1 point, and allow for some
> intelligent discussion on the subject that things can turn out one way
> or another.
Yes! I would like to hear about this. Can you please define for me:
1) Freedom
2) events or objects "turn(ing) out one way or another".
I look forward to your responses!
bpuharic
>So case in point, another asshole who simply insists on not knowing
>about anything turning out one way or another, because in his
>delusional world this is only for politics.
it's valid only for people. your fanatiicsm causes you to think
electrons are freed.
Burkhard
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Lots of people here say that my opinions about freedom are bizarre,
> insane, unscientific etc. But the thing is these same people that say
> that do not apply any other idea about freedom. So basically what this
> means is that all knowledge about freedom is surpressed on this forum.
Quite on the contrary, you are and remain free to post them. Others
however are equally free to point out that they don't make any sense
whatsoever. freedom works in both ways.
>
> Obviously my ideas about freedom can be subject to criticism. But I
> just made an honest attempt to arrive at correct logic, and my logic
> is similar to that of experts in the field of anticipatory computing.
Something you claim, but were never really able to show, and in fact
several quotes from articles were given by me and others tat indicate
that the similarity is very very superficial at best. .
> So really those who say catgorically that nothing can turn out one way
> or another, we all have heared you. The point is heared and dismissed,
> so now be fair and stop badgering the 1 point, and allow for some
> intelligent discussion on the subject that things can turn out one way
> or another.
>
"Freedom" also means it's not up to you to proscribe your preferred
terms of debate on others
David Hare-Scott
> So point of fact there are dozens of fucking lunatics such as
> proffesor weird on this forum, who sabotage any discussion of anything
> turning out one way or another.
>
> The theory that the moon may end up at place X1 instead of X2 is not
> by definition false or anti-scientific. There are lots of reasons for
> thinking this is the case, lots of logically sound theory, that can
> explain the measured variation in the orbit.
>
Then how is it in a dozen attempts you haven't given one reason or shown one
measurement that supports this idea. That is what people mean by
unscientific, when you have no data to support your idea.
David
Iain
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Lots of people here say that my opinions about freedom are bizarre,
> insane, unscientific etc.
Try incomprehensible.
--Iain
marks...@yahoo.com
>You see, yet another fucking asshole. What fucking knowledge about
>freedom is allowed you stupid fucking asshole Darwinist.
Excellent reasoned debate. I support your right to post whatever you
want , and question your suggestion of an event that happens without
a cause , and I am an asshole Darwinist ?
What in my response to you shows Darwinist ?
You really should see a mental health professional , you have
issues .
nando_r...@yahoo.com
freedom. So what the fuck are you doing in a thread about freedom you
fucking asshole?
> who disagree with you on one or both of those basic points.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
nando_r...@yahoo.com
logic that people use when they talk in terms of choosing in daily
life. After all that is where these words were invented. Also to use
common knowledge as the start gives a common ground for communicating.
So using that definition as the default hypothesis, and then adjust it
to what fits the evidence.
so in common knowledge freedom is when something can turn out one way
or another.
For example the holocaust might not have happened if the decisions had
turned out differently. In common knowledge what does the job of
realizing an alternative is spiritual (love, hate etc). Spiritual
means it is only known to exist by making a decision that it is there,
not by measuring it. So we can't measure hate, although we may decide
that hate is what made the alternative of the holocaust happen, over
other alternatives.
Or
a photon may be in an undecided state, also talked about as entangled.
By setting things up one can search a database by only possibly
running a search algorithm. In that case it is looked at if an
alternative of the photon could reach a point. If set up then if 2
alternatives arrive at the same point, then next the photon will
always go one way. But if just 1 alternative arrives at a point, then
next the photon will go one way or another.
And even for this single photon as a principle matter what did the job
of realizing the alternative is spiritual. It is not unscientific to
say it was love or something. It is outside of reasonable judgement,
which is a subjective issue.
So what with the holocaust a historian might formulate a reasonable
judgement on it, which is an art not a science. But scientists still
can look to which decisions resulted in the holocaust. For example a
few years back the explicit order for the genocide of Hitler was
pinpointed.
So there you have human history of things turning out one way or
another, and a single photon. In the brain there are electrons, which
also can behave similar like photons turning out one way or another.
So that way you can make a theory about free will etc.
On Feb 28, 11:07�pm, Scott Balneaves <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
Mark Isaak
> On 28 feb, 21:54, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:58:42 -0800 (PST),
>>
>> "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com" <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Lots of people here say that my opinions about freedom are bizarre,
>>
>> No: everyone says your usage of the word "freedom" is bizarre.
>>
>> (CUTS)
>>
> Again then which fucking logic is allowed. Is it fucking allowed to
> talk about the fucking moon turning out one way or another. Or is that
> fucking anti-scientific.
Of course it is allowed to talk about things that have not happened and
are not going to happen. That genre is called "fantasy." Unless you
believe they really happened or will happen, in which case it is called
"lunacy". One can also talk about things that might or might not happen,
which, at least when talking to you about them, is called "a waste of
time."
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
nando_r...@yahoo.com
that there indeed is slight variation in the orbit of the moon, and
Darwinists have admitted this is the case. So you just make some phony
bullshit accusation, and the result is to sabotage any discussion
about freedom, which is your intention, because of being a fucking
asshole.
On Feb 28, 11:36�pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
nando_r...@yahoo.com
way or another can be discussed, without you being a stupid asshole
about it.
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Lots of people here say that my opinions about freedom are bizarre,
Because they are, when you apply "freedom" to inanimate objects in the
same contezt as yu do to animate, thinking, beings, likw prople.
> But the thing is these same people that say
> that do not apply any other idea about freedom.
Correct. "freedom" does not apply to inanimate objects, such as rocks
or planets.
> So basically what this
> means is that all knowledge about freedom is surpressed on this forum.
No, it means "freedom" oly applies to crein things.
>
> Obviously my ideas about freedom can be subject to criticism. But I
> just made an honest attempt to arrive at correct logic, and my logic
> is similar to that of experts in the field of anticipatory computing.
Pleas cite *one* example of a scientist that clearly agrees with you,
that comets *choose* their orbit.
> So really those who say catgorically that nothing can turn out one way
> or another, we all have heared you. The point is heared and dismissed,
> so now be fair and stop badgering the 1 point, and allow for some
> intelligent discussion on the subject that things can turn out one way
> or another.
Pure blathercrap!
>
> Obviously freedom can explain a lot. It can explain unpredictability
> in escape, and surprise in attack in predator prey relationships. It
> can explain the origins of organisms in terms of decisions. It can
> explain instantaneous action at a distance,
Nope.
> it can explain searching a
> database by only possibly running a search algorithm,
Not really.
> it can explain
> the workings of MRI and the newly 3rd generation MRI etc.
Not likely.
It also cannot explain variations in planetary orbits, like you also
claim.
>
> So if you want more explaining on this forum in terms of things
> turning out one way or another, including intelligent design and
> creationism, then please voice your support here.
What oes your idiotic delusios have to do with it?
Boikat
nando_r...@yahoo.com
happened but didn't, then that is the same as it couldn't have
happened, because both did not happen. That is against all reason.
This stupid fucking asshole needs to fuck off in a thread about
freedom.
And as mentioned before, we can see when 2 alternatives arrive at a
point, instead of 1. So we can measure if an alternative exists or
not, regardless of the alternative being realized.
On Mar 1, 12:31�am, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So point of fact there are dozens of fucking lunatics such as
> proffesor weird on this forum, who sabotage any discussion of anything
> turning out one way or another.
You need to see a shrink.
>
> The theory that the moon may end up at place X1 instead of X2 is not
> by definition false or anti-scientific.
It is if you think it's goint to decide to be some place else on it's
own, because it *decides* to.
> There are lots of reasons for
> thinking this is the case, lots of logically sound theory, that can
> explain the measured variation in the orbit.
>
Name one that relies on the moon making the *decision* to be
elsewhere, and the process by which it accomplishes it's goal.
I hear the crickets aready...
Boikat
nando_r...@yahoo.com
mistaken to think that scientists and science fans are always open to
reasonable discourse, sometimes they are just evil bastards and need
to be told off.
Denying freedom is real is only passable if one is very good at the
logic of it. But if one is denying it, and is also stupid about it,
then that is just somebody being a bastard.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
predetermine the result, and it can't turn out an alternative way,
like with a chess computer.
So that is the 20th time this fucker boikat has referred to his
definition of choice where there is no freedom at all. He will do that
a hundred times, it makes intelligent discussion impossible when you
have such embiciles.
Why the fuck can't the position of the moon be decided? Why the fuck
not? It explains the variation in the orbit, that there is freedom in
the system, and that it is decided. What problem does this fucking
asshole have that if there is some freedom found in that system, that
then his intellect collapses?
Bruce Stephens
> Well obviously you are just a fucking liar, because it was established
> that there indeed is slight variation in the orbit of the moon, and
> Darwinists have admitted this is the case.
All that's been admitted is that the moon's orbit can't be precisely
predicted because we can't precisely measure its position and velocity
(or its mass, or the masses, positions, etc., of all the other objects
that'll affect its orbit). That's all. (In the same way, we can't
measure anything at all entirely precisely.)
There may be more variation than that, but you'll have to establish
that.
I've no idea why you think it's a good idea to try doing that on
talk.origins, which is mostly about evolution (or otherwise) of living
things.
[...]
marks...@yahoo.com
The moon orbits according to the laws of physics. Earth has a seond
satelite which also tags along in orbit. There are forces that apply
to the earth and moon according to the relative positions and the
positions of the Sun and other planets.
I too would like to know more about this freedom. I dont follow if
you are equating freedom with choice, or freedom as the amount of play
in a mechanical system.
marks...@yahoo.com
perhaps if you posted a simple statement of your view in Dutch , we
could translate and see if its coming across clearly ?
Frank J
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Those are not questions that are phrased in terms of knowledge about
> freedom. So what the fuck are you doing in a thread about freedom you
> fucking asshole?
Not cursing.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Inez
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well obviously you are just a fucking liar, because it was established
> that there indeed is slight variation in the orbit of the moon, and
> Darwinists have admitted this is the case. So you just make some phony
> bullshit accusation, and the result is to sabotage any discussion
> about freedom, which is your intention, because of being a fucking
> asshole.
>
Will in New Haven
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Lots of people here say that my opinions about freedom are bizarre,
> insane, unscientific etc
Only because you are a fucking moron who thinks a stone _decides_
which way to fall when it is thrown into the air. You _trivialize_ the
decision-making process of sapient life by assigning volition to
rocks, threes, you and other inanimate objects.
And your arguments, even for a person arguing such an odd position,
are singularly stupid.
--
Will in New Haven
Will in New Haven
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Again then which fucking logic is allowed. Is it fucking allowed to
> talk about the fucking moon turning out one way or another. Or is that
> fucking anti-scientific.
The moon is going to go where the laws of physics PUT it.
Will in New Haven
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You see, yet another fucking asshole. What fucking knowledge about
> freedom is allowed you stupid fucking asshole Darwinist.
I know it is frustrating being so stupid and having people point OUT
how stupid you are. Have you ever considered shutting the fuck UP?
UC
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Lots of people here say that my opinions about freedom are bizarre,
> that do not apply any other idea about freedom. So basically what this
> means is that all knowledge about freedom is surpressed on this forum.
>
> Obviously my ideas about freedom can be subject to criticism. But I
> just made an honest attempt to arrive at correct logic, and my logic
> is similar to that of experts in the field of anticipatory computing.
> So really those who say catgorically that nothing can turn out one way
> or another, we all have heared you. The point is heared and dismissed,
> so now be fair and stop badgering the 1 point, and allow for some
> or another.
>
> Obviously freedom can explain a lot. It can explain unpredictability
> in escape, and surprise in attack in predator prey relationships. It
> can explain the origins of organisms in terms of decisions. It can
> explain instantaneous action at a distance, it can explain searching a
> database by only possibly running a search algorithm, it can explain
> the workings of MRI and the newly 3rd generation MRI etc.
>
> So if you want more explaining on this forum in terms of things
> turning out one way or another, including intelligent design and
> creationism, then please voice your support here.
Whatever are you blathering on about?
Dana Tweedy
> So which logical construct of freedom can be discussed?
One that doesn't depend on a delusional and bizarre definition of the
term.
Do you have one?
DJT
David Hare-Scott
>> nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> So point of fact there are dozens of fucking lunatics such as
>>> proffesor weird on this forum, who sabotage any discussion of
>>> anything turning out one way or another.
>>
>>> The theory that the moon may end up at place X1 instead of X2 is not
>>> by definition false or anti-scientific. There are lots of reasons
>>> for thinking this is the case, lots of logically sound theory, that
>>> can explain the measured variation in the orbit.
>>
>> Then how is it in a dozen attempts you haven't given one reason or
>> shown one measurement that supports this idea. That is what people
>> mean by unscientific, when you have no data to support your idea.
>>
>> David
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Well obviously you are just a fucking liar, because it was established
> that there indeed is slight variation in the orbit of the moon, and
> Darwinists have admitted this is the case. So you just make some phony
> bullshit accusation, and the result is to sabotage any discussion
> about freedom, which is your intention, because of being a fucking
> asshole.
>
The more shrill and unreasonable you get the more crazy you seem. Show that
the variations in the orbit of the moon cannot be explained by a more
conventional cause, show us the math, that's what it takes not wild
assertions. Show that there is some other corroboration of your idea, that
there is more reason to consider it than just your say-so. Publish the
result so that others can check your calculations. Until you do those things
you are just one more crackpot and all the bad language you can spew doesn't
make one bit of difference.
David
Scott Balneaves
> Well first I think the basis of definition should be the practical
> logic that people use when they talk in terms of choosing in daily
> life. After all that is where these words were invented. Also to use
> common knowledge as the start gives a common ground for communicating.
> So using that definition as the default hypothesis, and then adjust it
> to what fits the evidence.
Alright, so you're defining "Freedom" in the usual sense that people
normally associate with it:
1. The state of being free; exemption from the power and
control of another; liberty; independence.
[1913 Webster]
> so in common knowledge freedom is when something can turn out one way
> or another.
I wouldn't say so. Freedom allows us to make the choice, exempt from the
power and control of another. Things "turning out one way or another", which
by the way, is a very inexact way of saying "Consequences of choices" are
affected by our choices.
> For example the holocaust might not have happened if the decisions had
> turned out differently.
With you so far. Powerful people, by dint of their power, had the Freedom
to make choices. Because they were powerful, they were able to limit or
remove Freedom of choice from other people. The outcomes of which are a
matter for the history books.
> In common knowledge what does the job of
> realizing an alternative is spiritual (love, hate etc). Spiritual
> means it is only known to exist by making a decision that it is there,
> not by measuring it.
So you're saying we can't measure emotions? Why do you say this? I would
think it quite easy to provide some kind of rough, subjective measurement of
emotional state. For example, "On a scale of one to ten, how much do you
love your wife?"
> So we can't measure hate, although we may decide
> that hate is what made the alternative of the holocaust happen, over
> other alternatives.
First point of intrest: the Holocaust was a human disaster: dreamed up by
humans with the power of reason, free will, and Freedom, as you first
defined it, and inflicted upon other humans, who also had free will,
reason, but because of their predicament, had no Freedom.
> a photon may be in an undecided state, also talked about as entangled.
Second point of interest: Photons do not have reason, free will, or Freedom,
by our first definition. Photons have uncertainty which is a natural
outcome of quantum theory.
As an aside joke, Heisenberg was speeding down the highway one day, when
he was pulled over by a traffic policeman. The Officer asked him: "Do you
know how fast you were going?!" to which Heisenberg replied "No, but
I know PRECISELY where I am!!"
> By setting things up one can search a database by only possibly
> running a search algorithm.
Search algorithms are entirely deterministic, as are all computer programs.
Even random number generators are entirely deterministic. The only way to
introduce entropy into them is to attempt to gain it by looking at real-world
inputs which might introduce "randomness", i.e. mouse movements of the user,
network interrupts, etc.
> In that case it is looked at if an
> alternative of the photon could reach a point. If set up then if 2
> alternatives arrive at the same point, then next the photon will
> always go one way. But if just 1 alternative arrives at a point, then
> next the photon will go one way or another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality#Treatment_in_modern_quantum_mechanics
You are talking about wave-partical duality of photons, which is a well
understood phenomenon. At no point do the photons ever have Freedom, as
in our definition of the word from the start.
> And even for this single photon as a principle matter what did the job
> of realizing the alternative is spiritual. It is not unscientific to
> say it was love or something. It is outside of reasonable judgement,
> which is a subjective issue.
Here is where you lose me. Are you saying that photons experience emotion?
Are you attempting to ascribe human emotions to an elementary physical
partical?
How would a photon even begin to feel an emotion? It has no mass, and
because it is travelling at 2.99x10^8 metres/sec, time for it stands still.
> So what with the holocaust a historian might formulate a reasonable
> judgement on it, which is an art not a science.
Accurate history is neither an art, or a science. It's book keeping.
> But scientists still
> can look to which decisions resulted in the holocaust.
> For example a
> few years back the explicit order for the genocide of Hitler was
> pinpointed.
I'm failing to see how you're tying the Holocaust, our single photon,
and Freedom together. One certainly WAS an act of free will, the
other runs on the iron rails laid down for it by quantum theory.
> So there you have human history of things turning out one way or
> another, and a single photon. In the brain there are electrons, which
> also can behave similar like photons turning out one way or another.
> So that way you can make a theory about free will etc.
Trying to track an *individal photon* has uncertainty. Trying to track
the millions of ionic reactions in the brain, statistically, becomes quite
predictable.
The problem is: your definition of things "turning out one way or the other"
is completely and utterly negated by your own argument.
To use your reasoning:
1) I require a decision
2) Neurons interact via ions, which have unpredicability
3) Freedom is introduced because we don't know how this reaction
may turn out, at a quantum level.
If this is your hypothesis, then let me ask you a question:
How does memory work? Is it reliable?
Looking forward to your answer.
Scott
chris thompson
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So point of fact there are dozens of fucking lunatics such as
> proffesor weird on this forum, who sabotage any discussion of anything
Isn't Prof. Weird just being free?
Chris
snip
Klaus Hellnick
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 12:47:01 -0800 (PST), "nando_r...@yahoo.com"
> <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> So case in point, another asshole who simply insists on not knowing
>> about anything turning out one way or another, because in his
>> delusional world this is only for politics.
>
> it's valid only for people. your fanatiicsm causes you to think
> electrons are freed.
>
I suspect poor language skills are a major part of Nando's problem (in
addition to insanity). He strings together words to make phrases that do
not seem to make any sense in the context. He has never been able to
clearly state what he means by "freedom" or things "turning out one way
or another". In fact, he seems to get enraged if anyone tries to restate
his sentences in plain English, and ignores all refutations to what he
says as if they were irrelevant.
Klaus
jillery
.
> You see, yet another fucking asshole. What fucking knowledge about
> freedom is allowed you stupid fucking asshole Darwinist.
A poor way to gather support for you or your cause, no matter what you
believe in.
Klaus Hellnick
> Look this asshole fucker is saying that if something could have
> happened but didn't, then that is the same as it couldn't have
> happened, because both did not happen. That is against all reason.
> This stupid fucking asshole needs to fuck off in a thread about
> freedom.
>
> And as mentioned before, we can see when 2 alternatives arrive at a
> point, instead of 1. So we can measure if an alternative exists or
> not, regardless of the alternative being realized.
>
What does this have to do with freedom? There are small uncertainties in
orbits because limits in the precision of our measurements of gravity,
position, and velocity, as well as limitations in our computers and
mathematics to solve multibody problems. In time, these uncertainties
will become greater due to reiterative processes described in Chaos
Theory. However, we can calculate how the errors will build up, even if
we don't know exactly what the errors will be.
Klaus
Devils Advocaat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Lots of people here say that my opinions about freedom are bizarre,
> insane, unscientific etc. But the thing is these same people that say
> that do not apply any other idea about freedom. So basically what this
> means is that all knowledge about freedom is surpressed on this forum.
>
> Obviously my ideas about freedom can be subject to criticism. But I
> just made an honest attempt to arrive at correct logic, and my logic
> is similar to that of experts in the field of anticipatory computing.
> So really those who say catgorically that nothing can turn out one way
> or another, we all have heared you. The point is heared and dismissed,
> so now be fair and stop badgering the 1 point, and allow for some
> or another.
>
> Obviously freedom can explain a lot. It can explain unpredictability
> in escape, and surprise in attack in predator prey relationships. It
> can explain the origins of organisms in terms of decisions. It can
> explain instantaneous action at a distance, it can explain searching a
> database by only possibly running a search algorithm, it can explain
> the workings of MRI and the newly 3rd generation MRI etc.
>
> So if you want more explaining on this forum in terms of things
> turning out one way or another, including intelligent design and
> creationism, then please voice your support here.
A scenario for Nando.
I am standing in an open field.
In one hand I am holding a tennis ball.
In the other hand I am holding a string attached to a balloon filled
with helium gas.
When I release my grip on the ball it falls to the ground.
When I release my grip on the balloon it rises into the air.
No matter how many times I do this the outcome is the same.
If freedom is as you say, things turning out one way or another, then
other outcomes should be observable.
Perhaps you can explain from your point of view on freedom why the
ball always falls and the balloon always rises.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
> nando_rontel...@yahoo.com <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Well first I think the basis of definition should be the practical
> > logic that people use when they talk in terms of choosing in daily
> > life. After all that is where these words were invented. Also to use
> > common knowledge as the start gives a common ground for communicating.
> > So using that definition as the default hypothesis, and then adjust it
> > to what fits the evidence.
>
> Alright, so you're defining "Freedom" in the usual sense that people
> normally associate with it:
>
> 1. The state of being free; exemption from the power and
> �control of another; liberty; independence.
> �[1913 Webster]
No what I said was I look at the logic that people use in daily life
when they talk in terms of choosing. A definition like freedom is free
is a useless definition, there is no logical progression in it. The
rest of what you write is also philosophical meandering.
That in common knowledge what does the job of realizing an alternative
can't be measured is a logical construct. That is simply the way the
construct works, and it doesn't work another way. So for you to say
you can measure emotions, then you are just playing a wordgame. You
say hate is such and such you can measure it. Fine. Then can this what
you can measure do the job of realizing an alternative? Definitely it
cannot, the logic simply does not work anymore. What you measure
forces a result without a possible alternative.
The rest of what you write is also just philosophical. You have no
functional logic of freedom.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
way the choice turns out. With force no new information enters the
universe, only time passing is the new information for a force
equation. You can measure the value once and then use the formula to
derive the information about all the other times, no new information
is added.
So choosing, freedom, explains origins, force does not explain the
origins of anything.
On 1 mrt, 01:17, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
Bruce Stephens
> In a choice new information enters the universe, the information which
> way the choice turns out. With force no new information enters the
> universe, only time passing is the new information for a force
> equation. You can measure the value once and then use the formula to
> derive the information about all the other times, no new information
> is added.
Perhaps. I'm not inclined to agree or disagree with such an informal
statement (I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "information", for
example, or what it might mean for something to "enter the universe").
I would argue that (as far is known) the moon's orbit *is* determined.
(OK, there are quantum effects, but they're not signficant for the
moon's orbit. And they're random anyway.)
> So choosing, freedom, explains origins, force does not explain the
> origins of anything.
Again, possibly true, but not relevant to the moon's orbit.
[...]
nando_r...@yahoo.com
force principle when the qm is interpreted in terms of freedom. And it
is shown valid that qm should be interpreted in this freedom way and
not statistiscally etc. by the experiment of the search algorithm
possibly running. That experiment establishes that what could happen
is a matter of objective fact, and not a matter of uncertainty of the
observer.
Below some reference to indeterminate celestial mechanics, so to
indicate that the point of view that things turning out one way or
another is useful.
Random walk in celestial mechanics
http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=p3l1621717814n43&size=largest
On 1 mrt, 10:41, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
Boikat
> predetermine the result, and it can't turn out an alternative way,
> like with a chess computer.
So what? That only means that in some cases there is no "choice" or
"freedom". Welcome to reality.
>
> So that is the 20th time this fucker boikat has referred to his
> definition of choice where there is no freedom at all. He will do that
> a hundred times, it makes intelligent discussion impossible when you
> have such embiciles.
>
As opposed to imbiciles that think rocks make decisions, ant that
comets "decide" to stay in a certain orbit?
> Why the fuck can't the position of the moon be decided? Why the fuck
> not?
What the fuck are you talking about? The position of the moon is not
"decided" to begin with, shit-for-brains. The position cn be
*calculated* to a very high degree of precision, however.
> It explains the variation in the orbit, that there is freedom in
> the system, and that it is decided.
It's called "margine of error", and has nothing to do with the moon
"deciding" anything, since the moon has no brain, and cannot make
decisions.
> What problem does this fucking
> asshole have that if there is some freedom found in that system, that
> then his intellect collapses?
The fucking problem is that you attribute minute variations due to
errors in measurement to the moon deciding to vary it's orbit. The
fucking problem is that you are insane, and you're too fucking
ignorant to see that.
Boikat
Burkhard
> On 1 mrt, 03:40, Scott Balneaves <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>> nando_rontel...@yahoo.com <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Well first I think the basis of definition should be the practical
>>> logic that people use when they talk in terms of choosing in daily
>>> life. After all that is where these words were invented. Also to use
>>> common knowledge as the start gives a common ground for communicating.
>>> So using that definition as the default hypothesis, and then adjust it
>>> to what fits the evidence.
>> Alright, so you're defining "Freedom" in the usual sense that people
>> normally associate with it:
>>
>> 1. The state of being free; exemption from the power and
>> control of another; liberty; independence.
>> [1913 Webster]
>
> No what I said was I look at the logic that people use in daily life
> when they talk in terms of choosing. A definition like freedom is free
> is a useless definition, there is no logical progression in it. The
> rest of what you write is also philosophical meandering.
>
> That in common knowledge what does the job of realizing an alternative
> can't be measured is a logical construct.
Leaving aside the question if everyday language/understanding is really
as good basis for scientific inquiry (whales are not fish whatever
people may think), I also rather doubt that you describe correctly how
people talk about choosing. While we may indeed say things like: "I
could have chosen chocolate ice cream rather than vanilla", or "I could
have decided not to go to the cinema today", if you ask a simple follow
up question, what you would typically find is that this does _not_ mean;
"Everything being equal, I could have chosen differently." rather,
people will give you a slightly changed set of circumstances that woudl
have caused the other outcome - "If I had known then how bad the film
was, I would not have gone" or "If I were no allergic to vanillin, I
would have chosen vanilla". The jump to a non-deterministic notion
freedom first, and then to quantum mysticism, seems entirely unwarranted
and unnecessary for this.
Vend
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Whatever you find significant is subjective, it is categorically not a
> force principle when the qm is interpreted in terms of freedom.
Quantum mechanics appears to include non-deterministic phenomena. It's
not known whether this apparent non-determinism is irreducible or
results from the complex, chaotic interaction of deterministc
phenomena. This is still an open question in physics.
Anyway, if quantum mechanics is truly non-deterministic then it means
that randomness is a fundamental part of nature. I would see no reason
to call this randomness "freedom" or "choice".
> And it
> is shown valid that qm should be interpreted in this freedom way and
> not statistiscally etc. by the experiment of the search algorithm
> possibly running.
The expression "the search algorithm possibly running" doesn't mean
anything.
> That experiment establishes that what could happen
> is a matter of objective fact, and not a matter of uncertainty of the
> observer.
I don't think there is any known practical way of distinguishing
apparent randomness from true randomness.
Anyway, I don't understand how anything of this could be possibly
related to biological evolution.
You keep complaining that the evil darwinists are "suppressing
knowledge about freedom", while the darwinian theory of evolution is
actually intrinsically non-deterministic:
Mutations are assumed to be random, and even natural selection is
considered partially random (resulting in genetic drift).
Whether this apparent randomness at biological level results from true
funamental physical randomness or deterministic chaotic processes is
irrelevant to the theory of evolution.
Burkhard
Scott Balneaves
> On 1 mrt, 03:40, Scott Balneaves <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>> nando_rontel...@yahoo.com <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Well first I think the basis of definition should be the practical
>> > logic that people use when they talk in terms of choosing in daily
>> > life. After all that is where these words were invented. Also to use
>> > common knowledge as the start gives a common ground for communicating.
>> > So using that definition as the default hypothesis, and then adjust it
>> > to what fits the evidence.
>>
>> Alright, so you're defining "Freedom" in the usual sense that people
>> normally associate with it:
>>
>> 1. The state of being free; exemption from the power and
>> control of another; liberty; independence.
>> [1913 Webster]
>
> No what I said was I look at the logic that people use in daily life
> when they talk in terms of choosing.
Alright, so you disagree with my dictionary definition of Freedom.
The problem is, I don't understand what is meant by "...the logic that
people use in daily life when they talk in terms of choosing" owing
to the vagueness of the definition. Could you please provide me with
your definition for Freedom?
Would:
Freedom: 1. The state of being able to use rational thought in order
to choose a course of action from several possibilities.
be closer to your definition?
> A definition like freedom is free
> is a useless definition, there is no logical progression in it.
I think if you read beyond the first sentence, there is "exemption
from power and control of another", so my definition was not
self-referential.
> The
> rest of what you write is also philosophical meandering.
This appears to be an attempt to either avoid addressing my points, or
simply shutting down the debate entirely. You asked if someone wanted
to honestly discuss your ideas. I've respected you by addressing your
points, and trying to honestly discuss what you're trying to put forward.
If you're really wanting to discuss this issue, you'll discuss it. If
you want to pretend to "Play the victim" by pretending that no one wants
to debate your ideas, that's fine, but it's a fallacy.
> That in common knowledge what does the job of realizing an alternative
> can't be measured is a logical construct.
Are you trying to say: "We don't currently understand how conscienceness
works"?
> That is simply the way the
> construct works, and it doesn't work another way.
Currently, yes, we don't understand the nature of conscienceness fully.
that doesn't mean neuralogical scientists won't *ever* discover how
conscienceness works.
> So for you to say
> you can measure emotions, then you are just playing a wordgame. You
> say hate is such and such you can measure it. Fine. Then can this what
> you can measure do the job of realizing an alternative?
There are two types of freedom. The freedom of thought/will is based upon
human conscienceness, combined with such things as memories of our experiences,
emotions, rational thought, and our hopes and dreams. Mix all of
these things together and you get freedom of thought. Now, capital F
Freedom is a social construct. It is the Freedom to take our thoughts
and decisions and put them into action.
To continue on with your Holocaust example (since you've raised it),
the Jew who was in the "showers" may have had the freedom of thought
to decide that s/he really didn't want to stay in that room and
be gassed with Cyclon-B gas, but didn't have the Freedom to leave
the room, owing to the locked doors, armed guards, etc.
> Definitely it
> cannot, the logic simply does not work anymore. What you measure
> forces a result without a possible alternative.
Yes, there are lots of things in this life that force a result
without a possible alternative. I may stand on the Golden Gate
Bridge, and I have both free will to decide I want to step over
the railing, and I also have the Freedom to do so, since the
railings are easy enough to get over. I also have the free will to
decide I'd like to step off the edge, and the Freedom to do so since
all I need to do at that point is allow my centre of gravity to
extend out in a forward directon beyond my feet.
However, once I'm on the way down, no matter how much I'd like to be
back on the bridge, there's no other possible alternative for me other
than impacting the water at terminal velocity.
Free will is an act of conscienceness to weigh alternatives, and
devise a course of action. Freedom is the ability to actualize the
idea within my physical environment.
Actions have consequences.
> The rest of what you write is also just philosophical. You have no
> functional logic of freedom.
Again, you simply seem to be wanting to shut down the debate, by
effectively saying, "You don't know what I'm talking about".
If you make assertions, you must defend them. I suppose now things
will "Turn Out One Way Or The Other" ( (c) Nando International Ventures),
and you'll either ignore these points, or engage in an honest debate.
Your move.
hersheyh
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well first I think the basis of definition should be the practical
> logic that people use when they talk in terms of choosing in daily
> life. After all that is where these words were invented.
When people talk about "choosing in daily life" they are talking about
something that *they* (*they*, when they think about it, being
extended to other sentient living beings we call 'humans'). Ordinary
people, excluding those from tribes still practicing animistic
beliefs, typically do not talk about their coffee 'choosing' to be
drunk or their building 'choosing' to collapse in an earthquake or the
sun 'choosing' to come up in the east and at a certain time. They
limit 'choosing' to themselves and, to some extent, to a few other
species. *And* they recognize constraints on their ability to
'choose'; on their 'freedom' to 'choose'. They make a distinction
between things that they are 'free to choose' and 'things where they
have no such capability'. They recognize that they cannot 'choose' to
transport themselves to work via a quantum leap nor gently float to
the concrete if they walk out the 23rd story window.
In ordinary (at least in English) usage, people do NOT attribute the
attributes of 'freedom' and 'choosing' to inanimate objects like
moons. Nor do they claim that even they are 'free' to 'choose'
whatever they wish; they recognize constraints on the 'freedom' to
'choose'. So it is *you* who are using the words/phrases 'freedom'
and 'choosing' in some sort of non-standard (at least in English, but
I also imagine in Dutch) way.
You may be using these some technical sense, but you seem incapable of
telling anyone what that technical sense is. You certainly are NOT
using them in a sense that could be called "common knowledge" or
"standard usage".
> Also to use
> common knowledge as the start gives a common ground for communicating.
Which is the problem. *You* claim to be using these terms in their
"common knowledge" sense, yet it is quite clear that you are not doing
so.
> So using that definition as the default hypothesis, and then adjust it
> to what fits the evidence.
And what is the definition you are using? You still haven't actually
provided one. Not even a dictionary definition. All you have said is
"common knowledge" and "freedom is when something can turn out one way
or another", which is actually a definition of 'indeterminancy' or
'uncertainty' and not 'freedom'. Indeterminancy can be a
philosophical term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminacy_%28philosophy%29
From which we see:
"Philosophers and scientists generally try to eliminate indeterminate
terms from their arguments, since any indeterminate thing is
unquantifiable and untestable; similarly, any hypothesis which
consists of a statement of the properties of something unquantifiable
or indefinable cannot be falsified and thus cannot be said to be
supported by evidence that does not falsify it."
>
> so in common knowledge freedom is when something can turn out one way
> or another.
> For example the holocaust might not have happened if the decisions had
> turned out differently.
Since, in common usage, 'freedom' is something done by humans, this
can be (and was) true but has no relevance wrt the orbit of the moon.
> In common knowledge what does the job of
> realizing an alternative is spiritual (love, hate etc). Spiritual
> means it is only known to exist by making a decision that it is there,
> not by measuring it. So we can't measure hate, although we may decide
> that hate is what made the alternative of the holocaust happen, over
> other alternatives.
This is irrelevant to the orbit of the moon.
>
> Or
>
> a photon may be in an undecided state, also talked about as entangled.
> By setting things up one can search a database by only possibly
> running a search algorithm. In that case it is looked at if an
> alternative of the photon could reach a point. If set up then if 2
> alternatives arrive at the same point, then next the photon will
> always go one way. But if just 1 alternative arrives at a point, then
> next the photon will go one way or another.
>
> And even for this single photon as a principle matter what did the job
> of realizing the alternative is spiritual. It is not unscientific to
> say it was love or something. It is outside of reasonable judgement,
> which is a subjective issue.
As pointed out, the indeterminancy of quantum mechanics (or its
uncertainty) involves pairs of observations and is effectively
irrelevant (at least insignificant compared to other uncertainties) at
the macro level.
>
> So what with the holocaust a historian might formulate a reasonable
> judgement on it, which is an art not a science. But scientists still
> can look to which decisions resulted in the holocaust. For example a
> few years back the explicit order for the genocide of Hitler was
> pinpointed.
Yes. But because of the way time works, that history is unchangable.
And no one here has argued that *humans* do not have some 'freedom' to
make alternative choices. Nor that there are quantum effects
(indeterminancy) at a quantum level. What is in question is the degree
that macro level inanimate objects exhibit 'freedom', which is one
mechanism (apparently limited to conscious beings) that can generate
indeterminancy. Other mechanisms include measurement error and
simplified or unknown assumptions that go into prediction.
>
> So there you have human history of things turning out one way or
> another, and a single photon. In the brain there are electrons, which
> also can behave similar like photons turning out one way or another.
> So that way you can make a theory about free will etc.
>
> On Feb 28, 11:07 pm, Scott Balneaves <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>
> > nando_rontel...@yahoo.com <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Obviously my ideas about freedom can be subject to criticism. But I
> > > just made an honest attempt to arrive at correct logic, and my logic
> > > is similar to that of experts in the field of anticipatory computing.
> > > So really those who say catgorically that nothing can turn out one way
> > > or another, we all have heared you. The point is heared and dismissed,
> > > so now be fair and stop badgering the 1 point, and allow for some
> > > intelligent discussion on the subject that things can turn out one way
> > > or another.
>
> > Yes! I would like to hear about this. Can you please define for me:
>
> > 1) Freedom
> > 2) events or objects "turn(ing) out one way or another".
>
> > I look forward to your responses!
Mark Isaak
> nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Look this asshole fucker is saying that if something could have
>> happened but didn't, then that is the same as it couldn't have
>> happened, because both did not happen. That is against all reason.
>> This stupid fucking asshole needs to fuck off in a thread about
>> freedom.
So you are free to change the past? I don't believe you.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Davej
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Lots of people here say that my opinions about freedom are bizarre,
> insane, unscientific etc. But the thing is these same people that say
> that do not apply any other idea about freedom. So basically what this
> means is that all knowledge about freedom is surpressed on this forum.
How is talk.origins the proper forum for you to discuss the nature of
your psychosis? I think you should go to alt.usenet.kooks and stay
there.
Kermit
wrote:
> bpuharic wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 12:47:01 -0800 (PST), "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
> > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> So case in point, another asshole who simply insists on not knowing
> >> about anything turning out one way or another, because in his
> >> delusional world this is only for politics.
>
> > it's valid only for people. �your fanatiicsm causes you to think
> > electrons are freed.
>
> I suspect poor language skills are a major part of Nando's problem (in
> addition to insanity). He strings together words to make phrases that do
> not seem to make any sense in the context. He has never been able to
> clearly state what he means by "freedom" or things "turning out one way
> or another". In fact, he seems to get enraged if anyone tries to restate
> his sentences in plain English, and ignores all refutations to what he
> says as if they were irrelevant.
> Klaus
I suspect translation problems are a minor player here. His rage at
attempts to clarify; his using the same terminology for electrons,
rainclouds, Luna, and people; his beliefs that all other Creationists
are with him on this issue; all suggest a profound confusion, possibly
pathology.
His monomaniacal fitting of all subjects to his obssesions with
"freedom" is the classic sign of a crackpot at best. He is not at all
clear when claiming all scientists suppress discussion of "things
turning out one way or another". I can't imagine any interpretation
of that term which fits this use of it.
Kermit
Max
On Feb 28, 4:17�pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So which logical construct of freedom can be discussed?
>
> On 28 feb, 22:03, Dana Tweedy <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > On 2/28/10 1:40 PM, nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On 28 feb, 20:20, raven1<quoththera...@nevermore.com> �wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:58:42 -0800 (PST), "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>
> > >> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> �wrote:
> > >>> Lots of people here say that my opinions about freedom are bizarre,
> > >>> insane, unscientific etc.
>
> > >> Why do you think that might be
>
> > > Because there are lots of fucking lunatics here whose intellectual
> > > world would collapse if they would admit the simple fact that freedom
> > > is real.
>
> > Or, alternately, you are the lunatic. � No one here denies that "freedom
> > is real". �Your problem is that your own definition of "freedom" is
> > bizarre, insane, and unscientific.
>
> > DJT
Desertphile
> So point of fact there are dozens of fucking lunatics such as
> proffesor weird on this forum, who sabotage any discussion of anything
> turning out one way or another.
No.
> The theory that the moon may end up at place X1 instead of X2 is not
> by definition false or anti-scientific.
Nobody claimed the theory of gravity is false or anti-scientific.
> There are lots of reasons for thinking this is the case, lots
> of logically sound theory, that can explain the measured
> variation in the orbit.
Yes, Newton and others explained it a long time ago. Albert
Einstein came along and explained it better.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
"Lotta soon to die punks here." -- igotskillz22
Desertphile
"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 28 feb, 21:54, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:58:42 -0800 (PST),
> > "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com" <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Lots of people here say that my opinions about freedom are bizarre,
> > No: everyone says your usage of the word "freedom" is bizarre.
> >
> > (CUTS)
> Again then which fucking logic is allowed. Is it fucking allowed to
> talk about the fucking moon turning out one way or another. Or is that
> fucking anti-scientific.
I have no idea what you're talking about, any more than you do.
Desertphile
<sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
> nando_r...@yahoo.com <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Obviously my ideas about freedom can be subject to criticism. But I
> > just made an honest attempt to arrive at correct logic, and my logic
> > is similar to that of experts in the field of anticipatory computing.
> > So really those who say catgorically that nothing can turn out one way
> > or another, we all have heared you. The point is heared and dismissed,
> > so now be fair and stop badgering the 1 point, and allow for some
> > intelligent discussion on the subject that things can turn out one way
> > or another.
> Yes! I would like to hear about this. Can you please define for me:
>
> 1) Freedom
> 2) events or objects "turn(ing) out one way or another".
>
> I look forward to your responses!
That there is a fine path to madness. In Nando's world, dice
choose which of their serfaces to rest upon; victims of rape
choose to be raped; planets choose to move around contrary to the
curved spaces around them. It's all so very magical, and he's the
only person on the planet with this special knowledge.
jillery
wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 13:18:49 -0800 (PST),
>
> > On 28 feb, 21:54, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:58:42 -0800 (PST),
> > > "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com" <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Lots of people here say that my opinions about freedom are bizarre,
> > > No: everyone says your usage of the word "freedom" is bizarre.
>
> > > (CUTS)
> > Again then which fucking logic is allowed. Is it fucking allowed to
> > talk about the fucking moon turning out one way or another. Or is that
> > fucking anti-scientific.
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about, any more than you do.
Neither do I, but if it has anything to do with fucking, he and
Igotskillz might be suitable cellmates.
Jack Frieze
wrote:
<SNIP>
> I have no idea what you're talking about, any more than you do.
>
hersheyh
I think nando has had his freedom supressed on alt.usenet.kooks. But
talk.origins is always open, so he comes here.
bpuharic
>Well obviously you are just a fucking liar, because it was established
>that there indeed is slight variation in the orbit of the moon,
how could creationism have anythiing to contribute vis a vis the
moon's orbit, when creationism did not develop the math needed to
calculate it, and instead, relied on demons and angels to explain it?
Dick C.
In the Freedom for All catagory
> This stupid fucking asshole needs to fuck off in a thread about
> freedom.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@gmail.com
nando_r...@yahoo.com
right? You say I choose this, I choose that etc. There are rules in
the way you use those words. That is the logic of freedom that you
use. For example the words "could have" applies to an alternative you
didn't chose. Now you investigate your own common knowledge and not
some dictionary, because now you present no functional logic, there is
nothing to discuss.
> Your move.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
nando_r...@yahoo.com
was a creationist, and he applied his creationism directly to orbits
in several ways.
1 that the instantaneous action at a distance in gravity must have a
spiritual element
2 that for long term stability of the orbits in the solar system the
intervention of God was needed
On 2 mrt, 00:57, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:31:55 -0800 (PST), "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
Devils Advocaat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Why do you continue that rubbish? As mentioned twice before, Newton
> was a creationist, and he applied his creationism directly to orbits
> in several ways.
>
> 1 that the instantaneous action at a distance in gravity must have a
> spiritual element
> 2 that for long term stability of the orbits in the solar system the
> intervention of God was needed
But was he able to demonstrate this empirically?
No he wasn't.
And neither has anyone else been able to demonstrate empirically that
God needs to intervene in this way to ensure the stability of the
orbits in the solar system.
Fact: saying a thing is so, doesn't make it so.
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Why do you continue that rubbish? As mentioned twice before, Newton
> was a creationist, and he applied his creationism directly to orbits
> in several ways.
>
> 1 that the instantaneous action at a distance in gravity must have a
> spiritual element
If true, says who?
> 2 that for long term stability of the orbits in the solar system the
> intervention of God was needed
Newton was unaware of gravity well induced time dialation, among other
things, so his conclusion of "intervention" is simply his opinion.
Boikat
Dan Listermann
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:nando-21ebc9cd-6f54-4...@t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> Why do you continue that rubbish? As mentioned twice before, Newton
> was a creationist, and he applied his creationism directly to orbits
> in several ways.
>
> 1 that the instantaneous action at a distance in gravity must have a
> spiritual element
> 2 that for long term stability of the orbits in the solar system the
> intervention of God was needed
>
Do you honestly believe that, given the data we have today, Newton would
still hold to the above?
.
Desertphile
> On 2 mrt, 00:57, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:31:55 -0800 (PST), "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
> >
> > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >Well obviously you are just a fucking liar, because it was established
> > >that there indeed is slight variation in the orbit of the moon,
> >
> > how could creationism have anythiing to contribute vis a vis the
> > moon's orbit, when creationism did not develop the math needed to
> > calculate it, and instead, relied on demons and angels to explain it?
> Why do you continue that rubbish? As mentioned twice before, Newton
> was a creationist, and he applied his creationism directly to orbits
> in several ways.
No.
> 1 that the instantaneous action at a distance in gravity must have a
> spiritual element
Gravity is not "instantaneous:" scientists have measured and are
measuring its speed and have found it consistant with the speed of
light. Curved space is curved by mass as a wave function (i.e.,
ripples) which cannot happen if curved space gets curved and is
observed "instantaneous."
> 2 that for long term stability of the orbits in the solar system the
> intervention of god was needed
Yees, he was wrong: (1) gods are not required and (2) the solar
system is *NOT* stable.
Sheeeish.
--
Desertphile
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 2 Mar, 09:28, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Why do you continue that rubbish? As mentioned twice before, Newton
> > was a creationist, and he applied his creationism directly to orbits
> > in several ways.
> >
> > 1 that the instantaneous action at a distance in gravity must have a
> > spiritual element
> > 2 that for long term stability of the orbits in the solar system the
> > intervention of god was needed
> But was he able to demonstrate this empirically?
>
> No he wasn't.
>
> And neither has anyone else been able to demonstrate empirically that
> god needs to intervene in this way to ensure the stability of the
> orbits in the solar system.
>
> Fact: saying a thing is so, doesn't make it so.
The solar system isn't stable: if the gods tried to make it
stable, they failed. The solar system is chaotic, and flying apart
even as I type this. Nando's gods don't seem to care, or they
aren't all that smart.
Desertphile
<boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Mar 2, 3:28�am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Why do you continue that rubbish? As mentioned twice before, Newton
> > was a creationist, and he applied his creationism directly to orbits
> > in several ways.
> >
> > 1 that the instantaneous action at a distance in gravity must have a
> > spiritual element
> If true, says who?
The speed of gravity was thought, for a time, to be
"instantaneous" for the same reason all points on an inclined
plane are "instantaneously" at the same angle. Attempts to measure
the speed of gravity show it is finite, and that there are
probably waves of gravity. Lots of physicists dissagree, though.
> > 2 that for long term stability of the orbits in the solar system the
> > intervention of god was needed
> Newton was unaware of gravity well induced time dialation, among other
> things, so his conclusion of "intervention" is simply his opinion.
Newton did not know that the Solar System isn't stable.
Devils Advocaat
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 03:00:53 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat
>
>
>
>
>
> <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 2 Mar, 09:28, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
> > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Why do you continue that rubbish? As mentioned twice before, Newton
> > > was a creationist, and he applied his creationism directly to orbits
> > > in several ways.
>
> > > 1 that the instantaneous action at a distance in gravity must have a
> > > spiritual element
> > > 2 that for long term stability of the orbits in the solar system the
> > > intervention of god was needed
> > But was he able to demonstrate this empirically?
>
> > No he wasn't.
>
> > And neither has anyone else been able to demonstrate empirically that
> > god needs to intervene in this way to ensure the stability of the
> > orbits in the solar system.
>
> > Fact: saying a thing is so, doesn't make it so.
>
> The solar system isn't stable: if the gods tried to make it
> stable, they failed. The solar system is chaotic, and flying apart
> even as I type this. Nando's gods don't seem to care, or they
> aren't all that smart.
Exactly, how about that Shoemaker Levy 9? That's evidence against
God's intervention in keeping the orbits stable, if ever anything
could be. :P
>
> --http://desertphile.org
nando_r...@yahoo.com
> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
aspect to the gravity propogating at the speed of light. Since an
instaneous relationship is the reason for Newton to assume the
spiritual, then he would still assume the spiritual even today.
An instantaneous relationship assumes the fact that time progresses
per decision. And what does the job of realizing an alternative is
spiritual, therefore an instantaneous relationship assumes the
spiritual.
Cause and effect logic does no work with instantaneous relationships.
Dan Listermann
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:nando-39a01cdb-05c1-4...@t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
Well you are wonderfully silly.
.
Scott Balneaves
No, in fact I didn't. I came up with a definition that I tried to discern
from what you were saying on the subject. In order for you and I to have a
rational discussion on the matter, we have to agree on the terms.
Could you please provide for me, in your own words, how you would
define Freedom?
> You talk in terms of choosing
> right? You say I choose this, I choose that etc.
Correct. For me, my reason, memories, emotions and free will allow me
to evaluate situations, and make choices about what course of action
I'd like to take. My Freedom as a citizen of Canada then allows me
to act on those choices.
> There are rules in
> the way you use those words.
Correct. And I'm trying to discern from you what those rules are. Will
you tell me how I am using the words "free will" and "Freedom" incorrectly
in your view?
> That is the logic of freedom that you
> use. For example the words "could have" applies to an alternative you
> didn't chose.
In some cases, yes. In other cases no. Saying "I could have stopped
at Tim Hortons for a coffee this morning, but instead I chose to grind
my own and bring it with me in a thermos" is a true statement, and does
represent a choice I made, based upon my love of coffee and amount of free
time I had this morning to prepare my own.
Saying "I could have transported myself to Alpha Centuri this morning, but
instead I decided to just go to work" is utter nonsense, because I have
no physical way of transporting myself over distances involving light-years.
These two options do not represent a valid choice, seeing as how one of my
options was physically impossible for me to meet.
> Now you investigate your own common knowledge and not
> some dictionary,
Fine. My common knowledge tells me that only entities which have a certain
amount of reasoning, memory, conscienceness and free will can make choices,
and further, only these entities that are sufficiently free from the
control of another entity with the same attributes can be said to have
Freedom.
> because now you present no functional logic, there is
> nothing to discuss.
I've presented a logical argument several times, and have asked you
several times for your definitions of these words, and have tried to
come to an agreement with you on what these words mean.
I would like *everyone* on t.o. to take note that I have not resorted to
foul language, ad hominum, or any other method to try to get out of
debating your idea on your terms.
If you shut down the debate at this point, while I am honestly trying
to understand your viewpoint, then it may be safely asserted that
the only thing preventing the discussion of Freedom in t.o. is
*you*, and your attempts to paint yourself as "victimized" by "atheists"
and "evolution scientists" was entirely disingenuous.
Desertphile
> 2 that for long term stability of the orbits in the solar system the
> intervention of god was needed
If the gods move planets around, that denies freedom. Nando hates
freedom.
--
nando_r...@yahoo.com
philosphical. In what percentage of cases when you talk in terms of
choosing in daily life, do you talk as if things could turn out one
way or another?
On 2 mrt, 16:06, Scott Balneaves <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> When you talk about Alpha centuri, then you are obviously talking
> philosphical.
Did his point simply fly over your head, or did you have to duck in
order to miss it?
> In what percentage of cases when you talk in terms of
> choosing in daily life, do you talk as if things could turn out one
> way or another?
Most likely, any time a choice must be made. DUH!
Boikat
>
nando_r...@yahoo.com
an optimum is not appropiately called choosing, because it can't turn
out an alternative way, only the optimal way. That is appropiately
called forced, and it is only for convenience that calculating an
optimum is called choosing. An actual choice is the act of realizing
an alternative, that it could have turned out another way.
Boikat
What do you have against brains?
> It is shown that calculating
> an optimum is not appropiately called choosing,
But it is still making a choice.
> because it can't turn
> out an alternative way, only the optimal way.
Who says the result of a choice always has to result in an "optimal
way"? I can choose to eat a nice "heathy" dinner consisting of a
salad, lean meat, and some vegies, or I can choose a bacon-cheese
burger, with all the drippins-n-fixings, and greasy french fries,
smothered in ketchup. "optimal" has nothing to do with it.
> That is appropiately
> called forced, and it is only for convenience that calculating an
> optimum is called choosing.
True. And the problem with that is...?
> An �actual choice is the act of realizing
> an alternative, that it could have turned out another way.
Fine and dandy, as long as you are not trying to apply that to
inanimate objects, like rocks, planets, comets, and so on. And just
why is that fact so hard for you to grasp? What is it about that
simple aspect of reality that just fries your brain and sends you into
a frothing panic? Whys is the idea that a *rock* can think and
"decide" so important to you when it is obvious that such a belief is
contrary to reality?
Boikat
Will in New Haven
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So then stop your bullshit about brains. It is shown that calculating
> an optimum is not appropiately called choosing, because it can't turn
> out an alternative way, only the optimal way. That is appropiately
> called forced, and it is only for convenience that calculating an
> optimum is called choosing. An �actual choice is the act of realizing
> an alternative, that it could have turned out another way.
Do you have any idea how stupid that is, how stupid YOU are? There are
lots of ways of choosing. PEOPLE, and some animals have a huge variety
of ways to react to different situations. ONE of them is to calculate
an optimum solution for the problem. It is actually pretty rare to
work out an optimum solution in detail and even rarer to do it
accurately because people aren't generally very bright, but it is one
way to make a decision. I probably do it more than you do because you
are an imbecile but the average Border Collie probably does it more
often than I do because they are very serious and care more about
results.
You seem to <I need a word that means "think without the capability to
think" here> that choosing must be random in some sense or their isn't
any freedom.
--
Will in New Haven
bpuharic
>Why do you continue that rubbish? As mentioned twice before, Newton
>was a creationist, and he applied his creationism directly to orbits
>in several ways.
really? where in F=MA can we see anything to do with creationism
in fact his references to creationism were wrong. he said god keeps
the orbits stable
he was wrong.
and he was an alchemist, too. alchemy is in the garbage heap of ideas.
>
>1 that the instantaneous action at a distance in gravity must have a
>spiritual element
there is no such thing.
>2 that for long term stability of the orbits in the solar system the
>intervention of God was needed
prove it.
bpuharic
>On 2 mrt, 14:06, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:nando-21ebc9cd-6f54-4...@t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Why do you continue that rubbish? As mentioned twice before, Newton
>> > was a creationist, and he applied his creationism directly to orbits
>> > in several ways.
>>
>> > 1 that the instantaneous action at a distance in gravity must have a
>> > spiritual element
>> > 2 that for long term stability of the orbits in the solar system the
>> > intervention of God was needed
>>
>> Do you honestly believe that, given the data we have today, Newton would
>> still hold to the above?
>>
>Yes, because in theory there is again an instantaneous anticipation
>aspect to the gravity propogating at the speed of light. Since an
>instaneous relationship is the reason for Newton to assume the
>spiritual, then he would still assume the spiritual even today.
information can not travel faster than light. so anticipation is
meaningless
>
>Cause and effect logic does no work with instantaneous relationships.
that's why creationism is a failure and explains nothing
Scott Balneaves
> When you talk about Alpha centuri, then you are obviously talking
> philosphical.
Alpha Centauri is one of our closest astral neighbours. Nothing
philisophical about it: I've been to the southern hemisphere and
*seen* it in a telescope. And no matter how much I've chosen to
go there, I haven't. Because my *choice* is something in my mind: a
mental construct of a thinking, rational conscienceness. However,
I am limited in my Freedom to do so because there currently exists
no technology capable of getting me there. That's not *philosophy*,
that's just *fact*.
The point is, sometimes our rational choices are constrained by
the physical universe.
> In what percentage of cases when you talk in terms of
> choosing in daily life, do you talk as if things could turn out one
> way or another?
When I, as a human being with a conscienceness make a choice with
which I have the Freedom to act upon, then yes, things do tend to
turn out one way or the other.
My question to you is:
You seem to define *choice* as "things turning out one way or
the other". Many creationists tend to argue that if things are
intelligently designed, then there must be an intelligent designer.
So my question is, if things turn out one way or the other, then
there must have been a choice of an intelligent *chooser*, correct?
So for your photon example, where is the intelligent chooser?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
construct. When you say choosing, I don't know what you mean. You
added in consciousness, mind, thinking, rational, to your defining.
Having established that a choice applies to things turning out one way
or another, then next what is consciousness functionally doing in a
choice?
I don't think you can safely base it on practical common knowledge
that choices are conscious. In practical knowledge some choices seem
to be conscious, but many seem not to be. Practical knowledge is
unclear in this way.
In building a logical construct you must apply Occam's razor,
distinghuish what applies to some choices, and what applies to all
choices. First thing is to find what logic applies to all choices, and
that should be your definition of choosing.
So having accepted alternatives, and that the act of realizing an
alternative is a choice, then next you might suggest that the
relationship between the alternatives prior to them being chosen is
consciousness. That's one way you can fit in consciousness. But you
can't just mention consciousness without it giving it any functional
role in your logical construct. Otherwise you might suggest that the
relationship between the alternatives is mind. But it seems that you
are talking about very complex applications of choice, rather then
arguing towards a fundamental definition of it.
Your questions about an intelligent designer can be answered if you
build a logical construct, and address the issue of what does the job
of realizing an alternative in a choice in practical common knowledge.
There is a very specific way in which things that do the job of
realizing an alternative are regarded in practical common knowledge.
They are generally regarded subjectively.
On 3 mrt, 03:05, Scott Balneaves <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Your questions are arbitrary when you dont reference a logical
> construct. When you say choosing, I don't know what you mean. You
> added in consciousness, mind, thinking, rational, to your defining.
Those are ctually *requirements* in making a choice, for the most
part.
> Having established that a choice applies to things turning out one way
> or another, then next what is consciousness functionally doing in a
> choice?
Doing the choosing. That should be obvious to anyone with a
functional grasp of reality.
>
> I don't think you can safely base it on practical common knowledge
> that choices are conscious.
Name one that's not.
> In practical knowledge some choices seem
> to be conscious, but many seem not to be. Practical knowledge is
> unclear in this way.
Given your tenious grasp of reality, I'm not surprised you think that.
>
> In building a logical construct you must apply Occam's razor,
Why? You do not.
> distinghuish what applies to some choices, and what applies to all
> choices. First thing is to find what logic applies to all choices, and
> that should be your definition of choosing.
Posessing a brain helps. That rules out rocks, planets, comets,
tennis balls and helium filled balloons, along with other inanimate
objects, as being capable of making decisions.
>
> So having accepted alternatives, and that the act of realizing an
> alternative is a choice, then next you might suggest that the
> relationship between the alternatives prior to them being chosen is
> consciousness. That's one way you can fit in consciousness. But you
> can't just mention consciousness without it giving it any functional
> role in your logical construct. Otherwise you might suggest that the
> relationship between the alternatives is mind.
*Mind* is pretty much the same thing as "consciousness".
> But it seems that you
> are talking about very complex applications of choice, rather then
> arguing towards a fundamental definition of it.
>
> Your questions about an intelligent designer can be answered if you
> build a logical construct, and address the issue of �what does the job
> of realizing an alternative in a choice in practical common knowledge.
However, using Occam's Razor, no "intelligent designer" is needed.
> There is a very specific way in which things that do the job of
> realizing an alternative are regarded in practical common knowledge.
> They are generally �regarded subjectively.
>
Oh? Do you still think *gravity* is subjective?
Boikat
Scott Balneaves
> Your questions are arbitrary when you dont reference a logical
> construct.
Neither do yours. "Things turning out one way or the other" is no
more logical than me saying "I used my rational mind to analyze the
alternatives presented to me, and made a choice.". In fact, mine
is much more specific, while yours is much more vague.
> When you say choosing, I don't know what you mean.
1. To make choice of; to select; to take by way of preference
from two or more objects offered; to elect; as, to choose
the least of two evils.
[1913 Webster]
This is a common understanding of choose. What's your defintion. I note
with some amusement that you're very good at saying what you think words
DON'T mean to you, but rather thin on telling me what you actually think
they DO mean.
I also notice you never, in good usenet style, address things point by
point. Rather, you simply top-post a Wall Of Text that fails to adequately
address any of the points I raise below. Why is this?
> You
> added in consciousness, mind, thinking, rational, to your defining.
Because this is the common understanding that most people have. Just
about everyone around attributes choosing to the act of conscious entities.
Why SHOULD'NT it be part of the definition?
> Having established that a choice applies to things turning out one way
> or another.
By your previous statement, we *haven't* established that, since we're
still debating what the terms Freedom and choice mean. You're positing
that choice merely implies "things turning out one way or the other".
But this definition disregards who is doing the choosing. There needs
to be a consciousness in order to choose.
To boil it down:
Nando: "Choice" does not need a chooser.
Scott: "Choice" requires a chooser.
Am I correct in your assertion?
> then next what is consciousness functionally doing in a
> choice?
Making it :)
> I don't think you can safely base it on practical common knowledge
> that choices are conscious.
From before:
>> > In what percentage of cases when you talk in terms of
>> > choosing in daily life, do you talk as if things could turn out one
>> > way or another?
So, first you ask me to think about my concept of choosing in terms of my
pactical common knowledge, then you tell me I *can't* think about choice
in terms of practical common knowledge? Which is it?
> In practical knowledge some choices seem
> to be conscious, but many seem not to be. Practical knowledge is
> unclear in this way.
In practical knowledge, *ALL* choices are conscious. Cause and effect
and the laws of nature are not. Choosing implies some thought has gone
into making the choice. Thought is a function if consciousness.
> In building a logical construct you must apply Occam's razor,
> distinghuish what applies to some choices, and what applies to all
> choices. First thing is to find what logic applies to all choices, and
> that should be your definition of choosing.
Correct, and I have. Choice implies choosing. Choosing implies
thinking about the alternatives, and selecting one. Thinking implies
a consciousness. Consciousness implies a brain.
> So having accepted alternatives, and that the act of realizing an
> alternative is a choice,
You use words like "accepted" and "realizing", both of which imply
consciousness. I accept I am going to die. The rock cannot accept
being hit with a hammer: it has no choice in the matter.
> then next you might suggest that the
> relationship between the alternatives prior to them being chosen is
> consciousness.
I don't suggest that, you do. And if you suggest that, then you must
back it up.
For instance, as an effect of Quantum Field Theory, which I'm assuming
you ascribe to since you mentioned photon entanglement, you have
empty space vacuum. Instantaneously, a particle/anti-particle pair
come into existance, and then destroy each other.
Now, that particular piece of empty space was, by definition, empty.
Things did have the option of turning out one way or the other: i.e.
there could have been a quantum virtual particle pair created, or not.
So, please explain for us, what, in your view, is doing the choosing
here? The vacuum? The P/AP pair which don't exist yet? What?
> That's one way you can fit in consciousness. But you
> can't just mention consciousness without it giving it any functional
> role in your logical construct. Otherwise you might suggest that the
> relationship between the alternatives is mind. But it seems that you
> are talking about very complex applications of choice, rather then
> arguing towards a fundamental definition of it.
I've been asking YOU for YOUR definition of choice!
> Your questions about an intelligent designer can be answered if you
> build a logical construct, and address the issue of what does the job
> of realizing an alternative in a choice in practical common knowledge.
Quote from above:
> I don't think you can safely base it on practical common knowledge
> that choices are conscious.
So, which is it? You've managed to contradict yourself TWICE on the SAME
POINT within one posting.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
applied or formalized. X1 or X2, there something like that. There is
also obviously a timeprinciple involved in common knowledge that X1
and X2 refer to the future.
Now formalize "using a rational mind to analyze the alternatives
presented to me, and made a choice." X? Y? Z? P?????
You also define choice with choice ".....and made a choice"
And you reference a dictionary which defines choice with choosing, and
choice.
I did not contradict myself I make a distinction between what does the
job of deciding and consciousness. I make a logical construct in which
the parts are functionally distinghuished.
What does the job of realizing an alternative according to common
knowledge is known subjectively. So supposing in some Hollywood movie
a person is making some dramatic decision, then the other actors will
regard what made the decision turn out one way instead of another
subjectively with qualifiers such as courage, cowardice, love, hate
etc. Those things are said to do the job of realizing the alternative,
and they basicly know those things to exist by deciding they are
there, not measuring them. So the logical construct in common
knowledge is closed to measurement, you can only know about what does
the job of deciding, by making another decision yourself about it. So
never is there any factual evidence, only subjective opinion.
On Mar 3, 4:32�pm, Scott Balneaves <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
Scott Balneaves
> Things turning out one way or another is very logical, it's easily
> applied or formalized. X1 or X2, there something like that. There is
> also obviously a timeprinciple involved in common knowledge that X1
> and X2 refer to the future.
>
> Now formalize "using a rational mind to analyze the alternatives
> presented to me, and made a choice." X? Y? Z? P?????
You're attempting to formalize something that defies formalization, which
is what choice is, and makes choice different from simple probability.
Are you married? I am. Been that way for close to 19 years. There's
no formal logical contstruct that I can apply to explain why I love
my wife over the 2.5-billion-or-so other "choices" I had, I simply do.
That's a product of my mind. My love, fear, apathy, etc, are no less
real simply because I can't quantify them, and express them in an
exact logical construct. Does science currently understand
consciousness? No, it doesn't fully explain it. May science understand
it one day? Possibly. Personally, I'd bet on it. We're smart, us
funny little apes, and we like to figure things out.
But even if we come up with a complete explaination of how a group
of cells trading ions produces this marvellous thing called
"consciousness", that won't *in any way* lessen or cheapen what I've
experienced, felt, loved, hated, and *chosen* in my life.
But all of this requires my mind. Choice is an act of the mind. It's
defined that way. Physical phenonmena that do NOT involve intelligence
are merely ruled either by the laws of physics (tennis balls dropping
in fields, for example) or simple probability.
> You also define choice with choice ".....and made a choice"
>
> And you reference a dictionary which defines choice with choosing, and
> choice.
I'm giving you examples of definitions. Your first paragraph is as close
as you've come to so far with your own definition.
So, according to you, choice is merely:
Given <n> possible outcomes X1...Xn, choice is merely:
C = X1 or X2 or X3 ... Xn
OK, next question, and lets limit ourselves, for sake of simplicity
between simple choice systems: ones in which there are only two
possible outcomes.
Given that choice is merely defined as X1 or X2, what kind if factors
go into putting weight into one of the choices or the other?
As an example from another thread:
I am holding an item with Mass M, on the surface of this planet,
and let it go. There are two choices this object has to make:
The object will drop to the ground.
The object will NOT drop to the ground.
What factors will go into the object making this choice?
> I did not contradict myself I make a distinction between what does the
> job of deciding and consciousness. I make a logical construct in which
> the parts are functionally distinghuished.
You did not contradict yourself, no.
Question: does "not contradicting yourself" imply the lack of any
logical fallicy?
> What does the job of realizing an alternative according to common
> knowledge is known subjectively. So supposing in some Hollywood movie
> a person is making some dramatic decision, then the other actors will
> regard what made the decision turn out one way instead of another
> subjectively with qualifiers such as courage, cowardice, love, hate
> etc.
OK, the coward will not choose to take "The Leap Of Faith" over the
invisible bridge over the gorge, but Indiana Jones will, 'cuz
dad's got a bullet in the gut, and that thousand year old knight
WAS a pretty cool dude. Gotcha.
> Those things are said to do the job of realizing the alternative,
No. Indiana Jones's mind *decides* he'll walk out where there appears
to be no bridge. The "alternative" isn't actually *realized* until Harrison
Ford screws up his ugly sweating mug, sticks out his foot, and takes the
step.
> and they basicly know those things to exist by deciding they are
> there, not measuring them.
Um, no.
If I stand in a field, and let go of a tennis ball, I do not
decide it's on the ground, I can *measure* it's on the ground, by
measuring the distance between the bottom of the ball and the
ground, and the top of the ball and my hand.
Same with Indy's leg. We could pull out our tape measure and see
he's taken the step.
You seem be following two different tacks here: On one hand, you
want to be precise and logical reductio ad absurdum, i.e. Choice
can't imply conciousness, since we can't express consciousness as
a logical entity, but then you say, no you can't actually measure
the result of a choice, you simply decide that it's there.
So which is it? Is conciousness involved in this process or not?
> So the logical construct in common
> knowledge is closed to measurement,
So, how do we know anything? Does this mean that all forms of
measurement are subjective?
> you can only know about what does
> the job of deciding, by making another decision yourself about it. So
> never is there any factual evidence, only subjective opinion.
An experiment:
1) Obtain a hammer. Don't be a wimp, get a nice 20 ounce framing
hammer, the kind with the knurled finish on the face.
2) Stick your hand on a nice, hard, flat surface. A large rock,
or the face of an anvil.
3) Choose to bring the hammer down with all the force you can
muster on the back of your hand.
4) "Things will turn out one way or the other"
5) Give us your subjective opinion on the back of your hand.
Subnote:
If you perform steps one through three as I've outlined them,
I won't need to wait for step 5 to know how it will turn out.
C'mon Nando, you *know* there are such things as factual
evidence. The fact that we're having this conversation
over such a fantastic piece of technology as computers
and the internet positively DEMANDS it.
Physical phenomenon such as electrons flowing down a gigabit
ethernet line are entirely dependent on regularity, order,
and "Things only turning out one way".
Choice is a construct of the mind. And that's just something
we don't understand yet.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
it works for you, in your marriage and all that. Well sorry but your
concept of it is simply chockful of things you value, and not the way
things actually work. You consider you should think before deciding so
you put thinking in the definition and not spontaneity. You consider
you should act rationally, so you put rational in the definition, and
not emotion. Sure this definition can serve to make you more rational
and considerate.
So then you should think twice before talking about how choosing
really works, because that will likely uproot your morality, because
choosing does not work at all the way you think it does. It's
especially vulgar of you to basically doubt subjectivity being valid
altoghether, or somehow consider it the moral opposite of
objectivity.
On 3 mrt, 22:53, Scott Balneaves <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
Scott Balneaves
> So basically what you are saying is, you like your concept of choice
> it works for you, in your marriage and all that.
It's not *MY* concept of choice. It's the vast majority of humanity's
concept of choice. Most human beings would not say inanimate objects
have a choice. Humans have choice. Animals may have choice. Since
we really can't say how conciousness works, I'll go so far as to
even grant that *INSECTS* may possibly have choice.
Rocks, tennis balls, photons, helium baloons, etc. do not.
> Well sorry but your
> concept of it is simply chockful of things you value, and not the way
> things actually work.
Setting aside your assertion which you've IN NO WAY proven yet, of course
my concept of things is chockful of things I value. As are yours. It
can't be any other way. The only person you will ever really *know* in
this life, Nando, the only persons feelings, hopes, desires, fears, ideas
etc, that you will TRULY understand... are yours.
But besides that, you assert this isn't the way things actually work.
OK
How do they actually work?
> So then you should think twice before talking about how choosing
> really works, because that will likely uproot your morality, because
> choosing does not work at all the way you think it does.
How will talking about how something really works uproot my morality?
You've never met me. On what authority do you feel justified in
passing judgement that my morality is so flimsy that the merest
*hint* of the truth that you are intimating that you possess will
send me into a moralistic tailspin?
I'm just photons to you at this point.
> It's
> especially vulgar of you to basically doubt subjectivity being valid
> altoghether, or somehow consider it the moral opposite of
> objectivity.
I *haven't* doubted subjectivity at all, I've been arguing that chosing
*is* subjective, as it's a product of consciousness.
And please quote exactly where I said subjectivity is the moral opposite
of objectivity.
--
-=+=- | "There are many causes I am prepared to die for,
Scott Balneaves | but no causes I am prepared to kill for."
-=+=- | -- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi