Hi, Syamsu.
Syamsu writes:
Professor Dubois really is a notable scientist, and it really is a first for some scientist to explain free will mathematically like that.
So what? Who cares whether Dubois is a "notable scientist"? Reputation doesn't automatically make one's argument true, nor does it even make one's argument
more likely to be true, nor does it make one any less of a jackass.
In fact, more often than not, I'd say that it's the exact opposite.
Syamsu writes:
So regardless of the merit of my argument, you should not blunder into something that is new and respected in science with your I've seen it all before attitude.
You must really have a language-barrier problem, because your opposition in this thread has only asked for you to explain your arguments, and you continue to treat this as if it’s a manifestation of our bad attitudes and hostility. How am I showing an "I've seen it all before" attitude?
Perhaps it's because I'm just writing, and you're reading into it whatever emotions you believe I'm showing towards you. Try reading it at the end of a non-stressful day, and imagine that it's from somebody who is really, genuinely trying to understand what you have to say, and then maybe you'll realize that I am not bringing any sort of attitude into this discussion beyond the usual, skeptical attitude that
all scientists, including Dubois, are supposed to have when they talk about science.
-----
You listed three posts in which you mentioned that decisions come from nothing (
Message 50,
Message 63 and
Message 199). In message 50, here is what you wrote:
Syamsu, message 50 writes:
I mean the regular concept of freedom, as in "I can go left, or right", and then formalized into a general principle.
- alternatives in the future
- a decision is the act of realizing the one alternative discarding the other
- historical time is a sequence of decisions
- the decision comes from nothing, ie there is no brain, or knowledge, or any substance or process at the origin, there is instead nothing
- what makes a decision is in the spiritual domain, only subjective notions of love and such are valid
Ah, there
is a mention of “coming from nothing,” after all. My mistake. But, I’m afraid it causes more confusion, because, in the very next message,
Message 51, Straggler asks for further explanation, and your answer, in
Message 52, goes like this:
Syamsu, message 52 writes:
I suppose it is easiest explained in math, that you take alternative values for future times, so for instance the alternative values for some property of a thing at times t+1=3 and t+1'=4. But then
the thing itself also computes it's state with past and present times t0=4, t-1=6.
. and .
Syamsu writes:
So the role of decision is that by it the thing itself acts, it computes it's next state.
Here, you are clearly stating that objects
do make decisions. Yet, you expect me to have gleaned from your posts that your argument has been that objects do
not make decisions. How silly of me to make that mistake.
-----
You also referenced
Message 63 in your last post. Here’s what message 63 says:
Syamsu, message 63 writes:
We observe variation in results everywhere in inanimate nature, it indicates freedom in the system. Lets also not forget that there is great variety in rocks, liquids and gasses, in inanimate nature, it is not so simple as you make it out to be. And to observe
anything in consideration of
it coming from nothing by decision from the spiritual domain, is a very enjoyable and scientific way to get to know about a thing. It leads to correct historical thinking, and wonder at the spirit of such decisions.
This may just be an English problem, but your sentence doesn’t say anything about decisions coming from nothing. You see the two bolded words---“anything,” and “it”? The way you have them arranged in this sentence, “it” is referring back to “anything,” so you actually said that the object comes from nothing, and have not said anything about where the decision comes from.
I read this sentence as saying, “objects decide to come from nothing,” or, maybe, “the spiritual domain decides to make things from nothing,” neither one of which links the word “nothing” to the word “decision.” So, there is no reason for me to think you meant "decisions come from nothing."
-----
You also referenced
Message 199 in your last post. Frankly, though, message 199 doesn’t say anything about where the decisions came from, just that decisions were made that resulted in the creation of elephants.
-----
So, let me ask a better question this time:
Can I make a decision for myself?
Can any object make a decision for itself?
Or, are all decisions made only by the “spiritual domain”?
-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.
™ Version 4.2
