John could I talk to you?

I`m not John but try this to warm up with....I see no evidence that intragalactic magenta gerbils exsist, I see no evidence that your God exists, why do you think I should believe in your God and not the aforementioned vacuum dwelling rodents?

sorry double post....[This message has been edited by joz, 12-14-2002]

I`m not sure I *believe* anything, I pretty much assume a priori a material universe, as we discussed earlier nobody has yet managed to really dig metaphysics out of the hole that Hume dug, I guess you could call that a form of belief if you include tentativity in your definition....Following on from this concept of the universe I assume that matter/energy and its interactions can be observed and models of how these interactions occur can be constructed....All else follows....As for things I have no evidence for I stick them in a holding bin of disbelief untill such a time as evidence of interstellar chartereusse rodents, semitic tribal deities etc becomes available to assess....Now I`m sure some would term that agnosticism but personally I consider it *weak* atheism (weak in that new evidence could change my opinion)....[This message has been edited by joz, 12-14-2002]

Hey John if you don`t mind me asking what are those minor changes? Just curious.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
What is the average IQ rate for most people, lets try and think globally? I would venture to guess most of the population (again my scope is limited I don't live everywhere in every culture) is really not all that brilliant. Would you agree with that?

---

If certain objections are vald i.e,

quote:

---

From What's Wrong With Standardized Tests? | FairTest

​

Do IQ tests measure intelligence?
IQ tests assume that intelligence is one thing that can be easily measured and put on a scale, rather than a variety of abilities. They also assume intelligence is fixed and permanent. However, psychologists cannot agree whether there is one thing that can be called intelligence, or whether it is fixed, let alone meaningfully measure "it." Studies have shown that IQ scores can be changed by training, nutrition, or simply by having more friendly people administer the test. In reality, IQ tests are nothing more than a type of achievement test which primarily measures knowledge of standard English and exposure to the cultural experiences of middle class whites.

---

I`d say that most of the global population would do rather poorly....The whole question assumes that IQ can be measured by tests that are completely objective, I personally don`t think they are.....[This message has been edited by joz, 12-16-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gzus:
...But if the laws of physics can be used to explain and predict the human mind, then there is no freedom. this has, sadly not yet been achieved, but some of us believe that the human body and mind obey the laws of physics. (if you don't, good for you, it's ok)...

---

See I`m going to have to disagree with you there because so much of what happens in the brain is on the quantum scale I don`t think we will ever be able to perfectly "explain and predict the human mind", Theres this fella called Heisenburg that says it just can`t be done.....

Gzus are you talking about chaos theory here? if not what?I`ve never heard of such a curious (oxymoronic?) "law of randomness"....On another note its probably worth pointing out that for someone who sees free will together with an omnicogniscient God as impossible (i.e Mark, John and I amongst others) the fact that free will seems to exsist (due to the uncertainty principle) is a pretty potent evidence against said omnicogniscient Gods exsistence....I mean thank "blind naturalistic forces" that we didn`t find out that there is no free will, then both sides would be up a certain body of water with no means of propulsion.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
joz, i would think that the reverse is true instead... if nature is all that exists, everything is determined since everything that is *now* is simply a consequent of an immediately preceding antecedent state of affairs... it takes the supernatural (or metaphysical if you will) for freedom of choice to be true

​

in your worldview, aren't your reason, your mind, your beliefs, your brain a part of nature? in your worldview, what can account for those things that is not material?

​

if so, they must of necessity be determined since naturalism states that everything in nature is dependent on the antecedent state of the rest of nature as determined by those self-same natural laws

​

and joz, if *all* your beliefs are determined, then any one belief would obviously be determined... isn't this true? and if it is true that any particular belief is determined, you have no choice but to believe it... no freedom of will at all, if naturalism is true

​

that leads, inexorably, to the fact that any single belief is held not on the basis of good reason, but because it is the consequent of all preceding antecedent causes...

​

you do not choose your beliefs, joz... you hold the beliefs you do because of the antecedent state of the universe, whether that belief is true or not... unless, of course, something other than the material exists... something like, for example, the God who created us and endowed us with the attributes he possesses

---

Only if cause and effect hold and down at the scale at which the brain works quantum mechanics and A certain Mr Heisenburgs uncertainty principle boot causality out of the window....Without cause and effect you can`t predetermine that a certain outcome will occur given the starting conditions, down at the level of firing neurons there is no such animal as causality per se....Oh and for a macroscopic example there's weather, given all the starting conditions you still can`t predict what will happen months in advance because a nasty little bugger called chaos theory rears its ill aspected little head, again throwing causality per se out the picture....

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
ok, i'd like to take this in slow steps so i don't miss anything... how does the fact that we can't predict weather months in advance have any bearing on whether or not that weather is contingent upon antecedent states of affairs?

---

from: http://www.advancedforecasting.com/...ation/chaostheory.html Does that help?And while it also says... What do you think billions upon billions of random interactions at the quantum level will do two two identical systems with identiccal starting conditions?BTW shall we take this over to that other thread or let that one drop down the page and keep it here? Your choice but it seems wastefull to argue the same points on 2 threads simultaneously...