|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Your philosophy is not consistent with your practical common knowledge. Why fantasize about how freedom might work, when you have practical knowledge of freedom that already works. So just find the general principles in the common knowledge, they work, your theory simply does not work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rueh Member (Idle past 3661 days) Posts: 382 From: universal city tx Joined: |
You keep restating this, however you never say why. Give me an example. Please explain why my philosophy, that decision making is a function of the brain, is inconsistent with my practical common knowledge that, decision making is a function of the brain.
So just find the general principles in the common knowledge, they work, your theory simply does not work. Please show me an example of the general principles in common knowledge. Whatever that means.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
As before, I can go left or right, the alternatives are in the future. Now it is pretty more important to acknowledge this time principle, rather then the brain. We are interested in general principles, not particulars. So the structure is x has alternative futures, the act of realizing the one instead of the other is a decision. etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2697 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Straggler.
Staggler writes: Lets not submit to that outrageously philosophical position borne of evidence and observation that brains have a rather important role to play in decision making. PhD tuition here at Kentucky costs about nine thousand a semester, which all seems like such a waste now that I know I would have been better off just buying a toothbrush for a dollar and seventy-eight cents. Edited by Bluejay, : A little paring action. -Bluejay Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2697 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Syamsu.
Syamsu writes: So the structure is x has alternative futures, the act of realizing the one instead of the other is a decision. etc. Is this all you mean when you say, "The alternatives are in the future?" Let's say that there are four possible outcomes of a certain event. When the event happens, we observe that outcome #3 happens, and outcomes #1, #2 and #4 do not. How could you show me that this was an active decision and not a random effect? How could you show me that outcomes #1, #2 and #4 even existed? -Bluejay Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Right, I should look for more tightly evidenced examples of anticipation theory, such as about an harmonic oscilator, slime moulds, mercurys perihelion as ive seen mentioned on the internet. And then I will just reference these examples as a basis in the more broad and speculative researchprogram of creationism. But why oh why you all oppose such reasoning as with the creation of the elephant still remains a deep mystery to me. Your opposition says direct evidence means nothing, which is unexplainable. You have direct experience of alternatives in the future, and yet here you go asking me......nullifying direct experience, and supposedly that is the scientific thing to do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2697 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
What do you have against answering questions?
Bluejay writes: How could you show me that this was an active decision and not a random effect? How could you show me that outcomes #1, #2 and #4 even existed?
Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given. -Bluejay Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
People dont talk about being brainbroken, they talk about being heartbroken. People have had heart transplants without any indication of a complete change of personality or moral outlook. People with brain damage have undergone large scale personality change and, decision making ability impairement and even radical changes in moral outlook. http://www.findcounseling.com/..._truths_about_morality.html
So that indicates that your braintheory is just philosophy with no practical use To deny the role of brains in the decision making process is like explaining night and day without acknowledging the existence of the sun. Syamsu I think you need help.............
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
As mentioned before, the debate hinges on whether the alternatives are in the future, or if they are in the present. When they are in the future, then creationism is true, and when they are in the present then materialism is true. Or so to say either everything is by decision, or everything is by causes. Currently mainstream-science has alternatives in the present, except this new science of anticipation theory. But you previously said you believed alternatives are in the future, so then your are just arguing in favor of creationism.
Or perhaps you want to have 2 separate time functions in the universe, one time which only works from the past, or present and contains the future in itself leading to perfect predictability, and one in which tme progresses by a decision on alternatives in the future. That leads to a historical view of the universe of unique events and imperfect predictability. Now we all know that the last is true, that creationism is true, and why anybody would oppose that is some kind of philosophical game they are playing for God only knows what benefit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4189 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Now we all know that the last is true, that creationism is true BS, there are many who hold that creation is mythological + the fact that for creation to be true all physics laws would have to have changed, which is more fantastic that the probability of creation itself. I, also, don't see anticipation theory is even a theory, from what I've seen it is an untested hypothesis. Edited by bluescat48, : misplaced "'" There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2697 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Syamsu writes: Now we all know that the last is true, that creationism is true, and why anybody would oppose that is some kind of philosophical game they are playing for God only knows what benefit.
You are a complete jackass, man. "Everybody knows I'm right; they're just in denial." Yep. Good show, mate. -Bluejay Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Your whole argument can be summed up thus: "I can choose to go left or right. Therefore anticipation theory is true. Therefore creationism is true". You have literally said no more than this in a thread of over 250 posts. On the other hand you have demonstrated a complete inability to comprehend any interpretation of quantum theory, a complete lack of knowledge regarding evolutionary theory, a willful ignorance of the scientific method and an irrational dependence on the "subjective supernatural realm" dressed up as "common sense" in the most bizzarre way possible. The practical result of this is that you have claimed, in all seriousness during the course of this debate, that toothbrushes and walnuts make decisions, that paperclips are capable of love, that planets and coffee cups make moral choices and that dead brainless mice are indistinguishable from those fully functioning living members of the mouse fraternity in terms of their capacity to make decisions. In short you have exemplified the creationist position by basking in ignorance, opposing a strawman version of the science that you oppose and clinging to bloody minded certainty despite the self evident stupidity and absurdity of your position. The only difference is that in this case the ridiculousness of your position is sooooo unbelievably plain as to be humiliating. I suspect that even the creationists who have witnessed your arguments think you are an embarrassment to the cause. Anyway. I have a date with a very loving, benevolent and morally upstanding toaster. So I will have to leave you to your insanity. WARNING: Abandon hope all ye who enter here. This thread is no place for rational human beings (or like minded chocolate bars) Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
likemindedchocolatebar Junior Member (Idle past 5672 days) Posts: 5 From: Hershey, Pennsylvania Joined: |
Aw man this debate was just starting to heat up
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
As before, the time principle, that is the real question from which the rest follows. Try and answer it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
We all use the historical view in daily life, so we all know its true.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024