|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5620 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside | |||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Syamsu
Why do you deny the reality of instants? See the link provided in the previous post. Ask questions if you need to. I am here to guide you if you are willing to be guided. Open your mind and follow the logic of that which you personally experience continually. Instants.
You can just enter it in your meandering thread about the evolution of consciousness which presents your actual knowledge of freedom. Because of obvious moderator bias and a general closed mindedness against instants and moment theory I don't think my revelations will be allowed in a real science forum. In this respect at least, namely our willingness to go against the flow and challenge conventional wisdom, we are united.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Your philosophical need to cling onto flawed notions of decisions as the progressional means of time traversation is understandable. However once you appreciate the sequential instancing of reality into snapshot perceptual moment mechanisms you will see decisions for what they are. Namely alternative moments in a trans sequential timeline of instants.
When you consider your groceries do you really decide? Is that choice between smooth or crunchy peanut butter a choice of freewill or something even more profound? Do you choose the peanut butter or does the peanut butter choose you? The answers provided by instant theory suggest that the superposition of transitive states is a conglomorate of all the available options. The past instants of the peanut butter are merged with the past instants of your own grocery experiences to form a quantised field of present perceptual moments. Thus the eventual "choice" is a sum of those moments perceived by both you and the peanut butter. The relative effect of each decision making entity in the field equation is defined by the contradiction co-efficient and the advertsing budget of the peanut butter manufacturer concerned. Such examples of instants and moment theory in everyday practical situations have affirmed my certainty in the veracity of the theory. Logic and lack of philosophical bias are inherent to the foundations of instant theory. If only you can look past decisions and see that which lies behind. That of which decisions themselves are constructed. Namely moments formed of instants. The toothbrush conundrum is where our theories part and where the two can be most easily distinguished. Toothbrushes quite evidently do not contribute to the perceptual moments field. Decision making toothbrushes are quite patently ridiculous. Read the previously linked to article to see how the gravitational effects of bathroom cabinets influence the behaviour and moral proclivities of such non-contributing mechanistic entities as toothbrushes and, to a lesser extent, toothpaste tubes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Are you not experiencing instants now? In the form of perceptualised moment mechanisms? We all have practical common knowledge of instants all of the time. Now. And now. And now. Etc.
You cannot deny this. The evidence is irrefutable.
This is not parody anymore What parody?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
How can Evolution be tested? By predicting the specifics of new observational evidence.
Would you not have to go back in time and observe the evolution? No
can't you bend the theory of evolution to fit around any data? Specific predictions of new data based on theory. You can make theory falsely fit the facts but you are not going to be able to easily make new facts fit the theory. This is the scientific way of avoiding the subjective interpretation of facts that you rightly point out as a potential problem. This is why prediction is superior to mere interpretation in terms of objectivity and reliability. Evolution has numerous examples of verification. ID, for example, has not a single one. Ask yourself why that might be.
Please give an example of evidence that would disprove evolution? Mammal fossils in the precambrian. Genetic evidence against common ancestry. A method of inheritance that does not allow for descent with modification or the inheritance of modifiable traits etc. etc. etc. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
No. Decisions are borne of instants. In each instant the different alternatives from that point in time all exist simultaneously such that perceptual moments are observed. The superposition of these transitive states is a conglomorate of all the available options. Thus the final outcome is neither a "decision" of your making nor a "decision" of any single one of any of the other entities that make up the holistic physical system in question.
Take your grocery shopping example. According to decisions theory you alone decide which items to purchase. But this ignores the different options available to the timeline sequencing of the various items in the shop that you may or may not buy. How do their decisions affect the eventual outcome? Why should the eventual decision be a product of your perceptual moment time sequence alone?Instants theory sums over paths all of the possibilities from the perceptual moment perspective of all of the entities in question. In laymans terms the final "decision" (and thus timeline taken) is a combination of all of the "decisions" of all of the entities involved. You, the eggs, the bread, the tinned tomatoes, cookies, peanut butter etc. etc. etc. all have an effective contribution with each entity weighted in terms of it's perceptual moment co-efficient. Thus decisions are an illusion. Actually they are a sum over instants with regard to perceptual moments of all the entities that make up a given physical system. I hope that is clearer? If not feel free to question. I am here to help.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
You are clinging on desperately to your outmoded concept of decisions as the progressional quanta of time.
You experience instants. All of your decisions are made in instants. You cannot divorce the decision making process from the sequential instancing of time in perceptual moments. How can you claim that the apparent "decision" of which peanut butter to purchase (for example) can viably disclude and discount the "decsions" of the jars of peanut butter themselves? Their instants and those of the shop and shopkeeper must also all be included in the calculation to make it complete and thus valid. Do you think because you own a brain that the only instants woth perceptually momentualising are your own? What about the "freedom" of the rest of the system? The peanut butter also has a "choice" expressed in instants. Instants theory is the only way to meaningfully conceptualise this. Decisions are but a poor mans aproximation. I am sure you will get there in the end.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
The common knowledge of instants is self evident and obvious to all. We all have direct experience of instants. Your denial of this is irrational and incomprehensible.
Consider the following - You "forget" your keys and are locked out. Did you decide to leave your keys inside? Obviously not. That would be stupid. Instead the instant at which this occurred was a sum over paths of the perceptual moment of both your "decision" and the "decision" of the keys in question. Taking into account the co-efficient of contradiction and weighting accordingly the keys get left behind. Each instant is a dot on the ever branchiong timeline of perceptual moments. How can the decisions theory account for the utterly stupid seeming decision to leave your keys behind? This everyday example shows the obvious flaws in your argument. ANSWER: It cannot. Instants theory is the only viable solution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
If all the evidence were different, if all the predictions of evolution had been found to be false, if all the corroborating strands of evidence pointed in a different direction to evolutionary theory.....
Then a different theory would be required. Given that scientific theories are evidenced based it is impossible to say what an alternative theory would be without the alternative evidence. Evolutionary theory is derived from evidence rather than merely being a preconceived philosophical interpretation of whatever evidence is available. Thus your question makes little sense without knowing what the nature of this "alternative evidence" might be?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
When I forget my house keys I usually say "Shit. I'm locked out"
This is obviously a consequence of instants theory and disproves the flawed notions of freedom and decisions that you are stubbornly clinging onto. If only you would study instants theory you too would see. Open your mind. Open your heart (not literally).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
In the instant my decsion making capacity was overturned by the perceptual moment. Thus resulting in my "forgotten" keys. Hence th phrase in question is evidence for my position.
Yes but Eddington was referring to the reality of past instants not decisions which he recognised as a consequence of perceptual moment mechanistic traversions in time. As is obvious if you study his work in detail. You obviously have not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Why deny the reality of instants? You are experiencing one now. Your alternative theory has been refuted through common knowledge.
Why do you persist with this philosophical madness?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
And the paper referenced in the original posting substantiates that evolution occurs through reasoned and informed decisions So evolution is true then? You are effectively a theistic evolutionist?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024