Dissily Mordentroge

On 1/23/2020 at 4:47 AM, swansont said:

(emphasis added)

There are a number of claims here that you have not shown are true, and basing a discussion on false premises leads to a flawed conclusion.

Even though I agree with your analysis of the previous post I’m astonished at your approach to moderation. At times it feels as if one is sitting in on a tutorial where participants are constantly slapped on the wrist for errors in logic &/or unjustified claims. Such an regime of detailed criticism may be justified, however, I find the tone of many critical remarks so coldly judgmental as to discourage participation.  I’m in no position to be diagnosing anything like aspergers syndrome however so depart leaving you to your ‘objective’ moderation. 

At the risk if triggering a discussion that may not belong anywhere on SCIENCEFORUMS.NET I’m hoping to understand the anti-science direction taken by so many conservative political groups over the last several decades. At times I feel it’s as if The Enlightenment never happened. My post was triggered by an article today in The Melbourne Age newspaper describing an organised, well financed program to promulgate within primary and secondary schools in Australia the idea climate change/global warming is no more than an alarmist falsehood. The ostensible justification given is children shouldn’t be scared out of their minds by false prophecies. It will be interesting when this program unfolds this year to see if any focus is given to the nature of scientific method. 

Bacon is rolling in his grave. 

On 12/30/2019 at 3:13 PM, dstebbins said:

You literally did not answer my OP question, just now.

My OP question was "Why are people predisposed to do X on an instinctual level?" You responded by saying "People do X."

May I suggest a reading of Arthur Koestler’s ‘The Ghost in the Machine’ could be of value in this context? I’m wary of attempting to precis his thesis and misrepresenting his tentative conclusions. Put as simply as I can he suggests the human forebrain developed ( in evolutionary terms) overnight and is out of sync with  primitive tribal  and aggressive instincts stretching back far further than our emergence as anything like homo-sapiens.  To simplify his argument almost to the point of charictature: we are worse than apes equiped with nuclear weapons amongst numerous other means of achieving our own extinction, either through tribal aggression or blind group think. 

On 1/24/2020 at 3:39 AM, Airbrush said:

IF our universe, or more precisely big bang, was finite in size (IF it has a finite length, width, and depth), then the Earth would have a location relative to the center of the finite-sized universe.  Maybe not the center, but the Earth would have coordinates of x, y, & z axes, measured from the true center of the universe.   Right?

Somehow discussions of this nature remind me we’re all in some way only dancing around the deck of the Titanic just before - - - - - - - 

44 minutes ago, iNow said:

Not really, no. You can wound yourself in such a way that breathing will eventually stop, but you cannot voluntarily stop breathing. 

My point is valid regardless of what word games you try to play. 

And you’re not playing word games? You’ve given yourself a narrow definition of ‘ voluntarily stop breathing’ without bothering to elucidate it’s characteristic/ limits .

If consuming a toxic overdose with the intention of ceasing breathing is outside your definition such should have been delineated prior to availing yourself of the phrase.

But you can always hide behind the claim consuming a toxic overdose can never be an act of free will and continue to go around and around in circles.

I choose not to. 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Just because it results in difficult considerations in our punishment approach and justice system doesn’t mean free will itself is anything more than a postdictive illusion.[/quote]

And what has you imagining your statements are ever anything more than postdictive illusions?

You cite possible downstream consequences as a reason to reject the validity of the upstream conclusion. That’s illogical and they’re irrelevant. 

 

Because there would be no functional difference in our experience. Whether or not we have free will, the way we perceive the world around us is largely unchanged. 

Why bother breathing if you have no choice is a similarly absurd question. 

 

Don’t want you to try his little empirical trial on yourself but there are ways you can ‘voluntarily’ cease breathing.

29 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Not on this planet. AFAIK arguing determinism has never gotten anyone off the hook.

It appears a number of ‘philosophers’ who argue strict determinsm imagine we’re all ‘off the hook’.

On 2/14/2020 at 2:44 PM, zapatos said:

--- - - - - - - - - if you are even remotely aware of what the "universe" is.

Why does that reduce me to a fit of the giggles? 

Putting aside for now the fact ‘philosophical reading’ has yet to be defined here  - - 

Arthur Koestler’s ‘The Ghost in The Machine’ whose central thesis, as far as I know, has yet to be disproven.

On 12/16/2019 at 12:34 PM, NonScientist said:

Okay, so I’m new here. Hi everyone.

So I’m not sure why this is affecting me this severely, but I recently discovered the whole “free will vs. determinism” question, and I’ve realized quickly that I should’ve never been introduced to this idea, because I’m finding it almost impossible to deal with the notion of not having free will. It has sent my mind into this state of extreme shock, agony, and despair that almost seems insurmountable. It’s like my whole world and everything I believed has been flipped on its head. I’m serious in saying that this has sent me into a straight panic and shock. I feel like I’m having this nervous breakdown. It’s an overwhelming feeling.

 I’m trying to keep myself calm and just relax, but this has really messed me up. 

Does anyone here believe in free will? Or can offer any good defenses or arguments for free will? I feel like I need to be reassured that there is free will or else I won’t be able to deal with it. The idea that everything is predetermined, and I’m just robot with no agency or ability to do otherwise is more than my psyche can handle. I’m sort of in this crisis.

Anyone claiming there’s no such thing as free will is  is ‘forced’ to hold that view given the nature if such a claim. Therefore those of us who imagine we have some choice in our thoughts and actions have absolutely no need to accept totally determinist assertions given those making them didn’t either. Simple really. 

Then there are the moral implications of such claims. They can be used as a universal ‘get out of jail free’ card. No matter how horrifying an action none of us has choice in our actions.

Therefore if the criminal justice system and/or anything like a generally accepted moral code is to survive the ‘delusion’ of free will has to be accepted. 

As to your question "Does anyone here believe in free will?” those who claim there’s no such thing as free will need to reflect upon even bothering to post here. Why bother if you had no choice? 

Homo sapiens.

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

In this case, "taken" means the path that the object ... uhm ... takes... I mean "follows" ... or goes along.

We might calculate the path we expect an object to take, or we might measure the path an object takes (to check our calculation). But the object is not measuring it. 

Fair enough and simple enough. My question I suppose derived from often having the feeling when ‘taken’ is used as reference to a path the writer appears to be implying something like

‘chosen’. But let’s not go there or we’ll be wollowing in a discussion of the quantum and consciousness.

On 1/16/2020 at 11:30 PM, MaximT said:

Our best scientist claimed that a long time ago. Is this still true?

On 1/18/2020 at 6:46 PM, Mordred said:

 

Snip<  . . . . . . . .So it is the paths taken by objects with momentum that is either straight or curved. (Follows the principle of least action). The geodesics that the object or particle follows is what is described by spacetime curvature. The more curved a path an object must follow the longer the interval will be to arrive at the receiver.............>

I often find myself wondering if there’s an accepted definition for the term ‘taken’ in these contexts. Do we mean something as simple as ‘measured’ ?

 

I find it strange you acknowledge the tribalistic 'us vs them' mentality is the cause of many problems yet quickly engage in it yourself under the banner of 'they did it first'. Many religious people at least have the excuse of ignorance (though that becomes less compelling when it is wilful) but i expect better of someone as erudite as yourself.

 

Erudition doen't remove one from the tribe homo sapiens.

I'm up to my ears packing up house so will be scarse around these parts for a while.

 

If there is evidence then you should be able to provide some references. Identical is a strong word.

 

But i generally agree in removing religion from nationhood. This is part of the reason i use the word spiritual instead of religious. As soon as someone says they are religious the question which one naturally follows. If someone says they are spiritual it is much harder for others, and themselves, to associate a label with it.

 

 

 

As i understand it Catholicism is the only religion that asserts the clergy is a necessary intermediary to the divine. Part of the Reformation was about removing this necessity - yet the UK does not officially (or in practice, where are the 26 scientists given seats in the House of Lords?) have separation of church and state.

 

The will to power is a human trait and religion, nationalism and identity politics have always been prone to it. For instance, the socialist agenda was entirely subsumed by dictators in soviet Russia. Take away religion and politicians will just subvert some other identity of a target population. Religion is a tempting one though, given its power to cross borders. By targeting religion specifically we are treating the symptom not the cause while alienating some of our religious brethren.

I agree the will to power is a human trait but I'm not too worried about alienating our religious brethren considering they're none to worried about alienating my kind.

http://tinyurl.com/z2jt5p5

Because almost every great discovery in science (The telephone for example) has no practical purpose at first, and is frowned upon as a "plaything for the rich" until it is revolutionized and consumed by the hungry beast of technology and progress, and transformed into a brilliant machine.

Which has me wondering if I'll live long enough to see the Bell Telephone able to communicate over infinite distance at infinite speeds.

The Quantaphone?

 

Really posted for the laughs, people have married all kinds of odd things. More than enough reproduction occurring, not going to hurt anything for people to have some fun or just be their crazy human selves.

 

As for me, I believe I have found my soulmate

But you'd have to stand on a chair to mate with it !

 

Because it's not true.

 

Dissily if you don't want to read the thread, then please, at least, watch this from 1:22.

I'll view that this evening. Always enjoy a Cambridge or Oxford debate.

Maybe if I'd expressed myself more clearly by asserting "Why can't we admit that religion, violence and oppression are often the result of the dark side of our species evolution and admit religion can be both cause and effect?" I hope you're not going to claim there's nothing dark about our species religious urges? Anyhow, more after I've digested the erudite Cambridge approach.

A cursory viewing of the first speaker impresses apart from his confused approach to the origins of, and need for morality.

 

 

The only common denominator is kindness - to which both sides are privy, as it's an innate moral. The problem I see with this is what I see from most atheist arguments; god can't be real, so the bible can't be real, not a balanced argument...

The problem I see with 'God can't be real' is in order to convince others something doesn't exist one requires an agreed definition of that something.

(Aquinas, if he was with us, might assert the All Being must exist, that is 'God', otherwise nothing can exist)

As the religious keep telling us 'God' is beyond definition and atheists tell us 'God' is a meaningless concept upon what basis can the discussion continue?

 

The question you are failing to address is whether all these things would occur without Islam, or without religion at all.

 

A few Muslims murdered people because of a perceived insult to Muhammad. Without Islam that particular event would not have happened. But without Islam, or religion, would a group with some identity still exist that would be quick to take offence and kill. Human history suggests emphatically yes: our tribalistic behaviours are deeply ingrained.

 

I hypothesise that it is these evolved group behaviours that are the cause of such violence and oppression - not any particular group (if there could be said to be one cause for quite complex behaviours).

 

Now, it is perfectly reasonable to ask whether the beliefs of a group make them more prone to violence. As you point out, if someone says they are killing in the name of god you should believe them. But the Koran is no more violent than the Bible, yet there are currently different levels of violence in adherents. So what is the difference? Well, the socio-political landscape is entirely different. I would suggest it has something to do with that. Simply saying 'Muslims did it', is an appeal to tribalism. Do you want to get rid of religion, or do you want to get rid of the violence and oppression inherent in being human? If by satisfying the trying the latter we also do the former so be it, but the focus should be squarely on reducing hatred at the root (the hearts of people). Focusing on particular manifestations is like playing an awful pop-up game - we smack one on the head, just for another to pop up.

 

 

 

I would settle with that for a conclusion to this thread.

On the surface a cogent argument until you consider the evidence of evolutionary psychology which appears to tell us the urge to tribalism and to organised religion come from identical aspects of our species nature. Religion though adds a layer of 'God's on our side' as the central justification for more slaughter and cruelty than I care to think about. Granted secular ideologies can unleash similar forces but they mostly fade as entities far faster than organised religion which holds onto power with a demonstrated ruthlessness over many centuries. The highbred of religious authority with the power to govern, as in medieval christianity and today's Saudi Arabia and Iran tells us something of the dangers of unleashing that ruthlessness 'in the name of God".

Having now viewed all of the Cambridge debate previously recommended I find one aspect of religion not given enough attention, the urge to political power at the core of so many religious movements. Any priesthood that claims it's role to be a necessary intermediary between the divine ( substitute whatever term you want) and this realm grants itself unjustified power to rule our lives. Any acceptance by the general community to such cosmic elitism is to put our heads on the chopping block of whatever arbitrary whim said priesthood wishes to pursue from burning at the stake, stoning to death, amputation of limbs, all the way up to genocide.

"The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces; out of heaven shall be thunder upon them: the Lord shall judge the ends of the earth; and he shall give strength unto his king, and exalt the horn of his annointed." 1St Samuel.Ch:2.V:10.

Then I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. Infinity is a rational number and well defined. And we know some things about the universe.

Indeed we disagree. Infinity from my perspective can never be a number and cannot be defined other than negatively - that is for instance - a distance, quantity etc without end.

And yes, we do know some things about the Universe yet comparing what we know with any infinitude we necessariy know nothing.

For me that's as close to a definition of the infinite as we can get.

Off topic but I often wonder why we have any need to even think about such things.

Why not marry your mobile phone or your laptop?

Many have.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Do you want to get rid of religion, or do you want to get rid of the violence and oppression inherent in being human? If by satisfying the trying the latter we also do the former so be it, but the focus should be squarely on reducing hatred at the root (the hearts of people). _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

 

 

Why can't we admit that religion, violence and appression are all the result of the dark side of our species evolution and admit religion is both cause and effect?

Though ∞ is incomprehensibly vast to the human mind, Mechanically 1 out of ∞ is still 1 out of infinity. Why? To quote google definitions: "a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞)" but though it is unassignable in terms of quantity, it is still limited in the fact that infinity is infinity, it is a number too large to comprehend but still limited to itself. In this point lies that 1 out of ∞ is still 1 out of infinity, in the same way that the earth is something when in comparison to the universe and using your model it is nothing. Therefore negation due to insignificance in comparison to an infinite thing does not necessarily hold up, and it is a pessimistic thing. And if you wish to say that we know nothing then you mean to say that we have not tried. And that is an error. It is an error to assume that we know everything, but also an error to assume that we know nothing, because then you forget your past mistakes which are the most valuable kind of lessons. Never say that though 0.1X10^-299 is insignificant in comparison to 1, and is practically nothing, that it is nothing, because the universe operates on both scales of macro and micro, and to discount something as too small or too large is foolish, you simply must take things from a neutral perspective when it comes to true comparison, and let that 1 out of ∞ be a 1 out of ∞. However I would have to agree with you that we know very little in comparison to how much there is to study. But we still know some things.

A case can be made that number cannot be applied to the infinite. We may have a symbol that signifies the concept and theoretical mathematicians may believe themselves able to manipulate infinite numbers. I suggest any such claim is a delusion. ( itself of infinite proportions?)

 

 

If you're a kind person that looks for the good in the bible, then yes it's liberating; look at it literally, then it's manipulable.

 

Most scams are designed to attract the greedy, to look at the bible through those eyes and they light up with all that ambiguity.

How's that for a conclusion, dissily?

Subjective reactions to so called holy books can take you anywhere. You might be reduced to obsequious eternal gratitude overlaid with intense feelings of guilt contemplating Christ suffering on the cross for our sins. On the other hand, taking a more objective approach,you might come to the conclusion the God of the bible is a twisted sado-masochist having tortured his own son who, if you swallow the absurdities of trinitarian theology, is actually himself.

From my perspective seeing only good in the bible isn't liberating, it's delusional.

 

We will use robots as slaves for other purposes, I see no reason why they cannot be designed and deployed just as successfully as sexual slaves. Their sensual system will not be human, and it seems unlikely they will react with the same kind of moral indignation, because we can train them to accept anything, at least the ones that are not sentient.

Can I suggest this tells us something about our attitude to some members of our own species.

 

I've invested a lot of time and effort posting in this thread, why should I invest even more time and effort to bring you up to speed?

 

What's in it for me?

 

A simple yes or no would have sufficed.