A good example of why string theory sucks is dark matter. In science we hope that when we have a theory, and we make a discovery, that theory will have predicted it, meaning, the problem or hole in that current theory, will be filled with this new discovery, kind of like a missing piece of a puzzle and then we can see the picture for what it is, and be affirmed and happy that we were on the right path.
Dark matter is the most prevelant thing in the universe, string theory did not predict dark matter, in any sense (and its our theory of EVERYTHING), and now scientist are trying to wrap string theory around dark matter as another means of patchwork....like I said...i just dont get it.
yeah but we can't even detect dark matter. In a way it's just a theory
Well we "detect" it by seeing its effects. So whatever you want to call it. This is good. Ignore the advertisement for what the bleep do we know in the background. Stupid. And why the guys dressed up like a super douche I dunno.
I think its pretty straightforward how this plays into determinism.
My belief on the subject is that the universe (as far as we can observer it) is truly a static 4-Dimensional space. Time would be the 4th dimension in this case. As Biological organisms with brains, we perceive the 4th dimension as a continuum, rather than a static unmoving dimension. The ramifications of this of course means that the universe past, present, and future are already "set in stone". Granted, I am still but a student of physics, and these beliefs are subject to change. But, one must also keep in mind that nothing can ever be completely proven or disproven.
Well, some things can be completely proven in my opinion. 2 + 2 is always 4. Bachelors are always male. Tautologies are necessarily true. Valid deductive arguments (purely) are infallible: 1. If A, then B 2. A ---------------- 3. Therefore, B. Now, I have a feeling this isn't what you meant. But, I do think that some things involving time might fall under this category (such as time travel).
math and logic are both constructs which are only "true" because that is how they have been defined, thus they do not need to be "proven" per se.
Constructs of what? The statement "either A or not A" seems much less of a construct than a necessary truth. I once took a class on truth, and my professor (David Detmer) gave the following example to explain why math isn't about observation or social constructs: Let's say that we have two pens. One holds 10 cows and one holds 9 cows. We filter them all into one pen. When we count them after, we get 18. Nobody will conclude that in this particular case 10 + 9 = 18. We are going to look at other possibilities. Maybe we miscounted, or maybe one cow got loose. But we will NEVER conclude that 10 + 9 = 18.
Think the point he is getting at is. 2 + 2 only =4 because of the value we have arbitarily placed on 2 and 4.
in a way, yes. What I'm trying to say is that math and logic do not "exist", they are simply methods that we as humans have come up with to describe and better understand existance. "existance" itself may not be what we perceive it as. Thus math and logic are only truths as we have defined them to be in our realm of reality. If our conception of reality is wrong, then math and logic may also be wrong.
Yea, I strongly disagree with that. We are all entitled to our opinion, and I respect yours. I am certainly not one to try to belittle you or talk you down, but I guess I just believe what we hold as truth has to be the thing that makes the most sense. To me, something like the law of the excluded middle (A or not A) seems necessary outside of any existence. I cannot even conceive of it not being the case. Therefore, I have to believe that it is true despite my understanding of it. If you feel differently, I respect that.
You cannot have truth if determinism is "true". It also would be utterly pointless to argue.
EDIT: Just wanted to make this point as well, why is it almost every single time I've talked to someone who has said they were a determinist, they would use some sort of pseudo-physics? Consciousness doesn't happen at the sub-atomic level.
Well, and I forget who proposed it.. but someone has come up with an argumentum ad absurdum to disprove determinism. Reject a premise if you will, but I think that it at least has merit.
I hate presenting these things without the actual text (and really I need to look this up since it is the second time in like a month that it has come up), but the argument goes something like this:
1. Assume determinism is true
2. if determinism is true, then with absolute knowledge, you can predict what you will do.
3. Assume you have absolute knowledge
-----------------------
4. you predict what you will do
From here, I think the rest is clear. If you can predict what you will do, then you can't change it. However, it seems absurd to say that you can't change it. On the same note, you can't say that it was determined that you would change it unless you dismiss premise 3. So, if I recall, the argument is basically saying that either you dismiss premise 3 (or whatever it was in the actual argument) or you deny the original assumption. Denying premise 3 would entail that absolute knowledge cannot be known. Yet, it IS logically possible that it can... thus determinism isn't necessarily true).
I really do need to look that up, or email my old metaphysics professor... this seems to be coming up a lot more... I need to be ready, lol. Anyway, that isn't necessarily my view, just an argument to consider. I do think it has merit, but I go back and forth on it.
I'm never terribly convinced by shifting into ad absurdum mode, and while I respect Hegel's contributions to logic, his arguments for absolute knowledge have never really convinced me. I wouldn't personally consider premise 3 necessarily true, so although this argument does have a good point, I am of the impression that this premise is also an assumption.
String theory has been around for along time...decades...and it still has no evidence....but people still believe it...and they're the worlds smartest people, I just don't get it.
Because, if true, string theory would explain/resolve why quantum physics works differently on the macro and micro scales pretty much perfectly, and there really hasn't been much evidence against it, as far as I know.
In regards to determinism and free will, any responses to that question are nothing more than hypotheses at this point, although pragmatism (the philosophical stance) can give us a temporary answer. Since we perceive our own free will, regardless of its actual existence in the real world, the most reasonable thing is to act under the assumption that we do have free will, and re-adjust this assumption as more information presents itself. It's even somewhat of a silly question for that standpoint, as this information won't even impact how we perceive the causality of our own actions.
Well, and I forget who proposed it.. but someone has come up with an argumentum ad absurdum to disprove determinism. Reject a premise if you will, but I think that it at least has merit.
I hate presenting these things without the actual text (and really I need to look this up since it is the second time in like a month that it has come up), but the argument goes something like this:
1. Assume determinism is true
2. if determinism is true, then with absolute knowledge, you can predict what you will do.
3. Assume you have absolute knowledge
-----------------------
4. you predict what you will do
From here, I think the rest is clear. If you can predict what you will do, then you can't change it. However, it seems absurd to say that you can't change it. On the same note, you can't say that it was determined that you would change it unless you dismiss premise 3. So, if I recall, the argument is basically saying that either you dismiss premise 3 (or whatever it was in the actual argument) or you deny the original assumption. Denying premise 3 would entail that absolute knowledge cannot be known. Yet, it IS logically possible that it can... thus determinism isn't necessarily true).
I really do need to look that up, or email my old metaphysics professor... this seems to be coming up a lot more... I need to be ready, lol. Anyway, that isn't necessarily my view, just an argument to consider. I do think it has merit, but I go back and forth on it.
Yea if you can find it it sounds like it might be interesting. Cause from this it sounds wrong just based on the simple fact that we're not consciously or completely aware of all areas of our brain, so this argument would be philosophical it seems, but then shot down by science.
Right, because I think science might argue that humans could never have absolute knowledge. I think that the point of the argument is that determinism (if true) is universally true, while absolute knowledge isn't... therefore determinism cannot be proven absolutely true... Like I said, I go back and forth because it seems to have merit, but I cannot dismiss how deterministic the world obviously is.
oooooo its one of those arguments... Like the truth can't be relative cause that implies a truth sort of deal. I hate those kinda arguments ><
My belief on the subject is that the universe (as far as we can observer it) is truly a static 4-Dimensional space. Time would be the 4th dimension in this case. As Biological organisms with brains, we perceive the 4th dimension as a continuum, rather than a static unmoving dimension. The ramifications of this of course means that the universe past, present, and future are already "set in stone". Granted, I am still but a student of physics, and these beliefs are subject to change. But, one must also keep in mind that nothing can ever be completely proven or disproven.
Well, some things can be completely proven in my opinion. 2 + 2 is always 4. Bachelors are always male. Tautologies are necessarily true. Valid deductive arguments (purely) are infallible: 1. If A, then B 2. A ---------------- 3. Therefore, B. Now, I have a feeling this isn't what you meant. But, I do think that some things involving time might fall under this category (such as time travel).
math and logic are both constructs which are only "true" because that is how they have been defined, thus they do not need to be "proven" per se.
Constructs of what? The statement "either A or not A" seems much less of a construct than a necessary truth. I once took a class on truth, and my professor (David Detmer) gave the following example to explain why math isn't about observation or social constructs: Let's say that we have two pens. One holds 10 cows and one holds 9 cows. We filter them all into one pen. When we count them after, we get 18. Nobody will conclude that in this particular case 10 + 9 = 18. We are going to look at other possibilities. Maybe we miscounted, or maybe one cow got loose. But we will NEVER conclude that 10 + 9 = 18.
Think the point he is getting at is. 2 + 2 only =4 because of the value we have arbitarily placed on 2 and 4.
in a way, yes. What I'm trying to say is that math and logic do not "exist", they are simply methods that we as humans have come up with to describe and better understand existance. "existance" itself may not be what we perceive it as. Thus math and logic are only truths as we have defined them to be in our realm of reality. If our conception of reality is wrong, then math and logic may also be wrong.
Yea, I strongly disagree with that. We are all entitled to our opinion, and I respect yours. I am certainly not one to try to belittle you or talk you down, but I guess I just believe what we hold as truth has to be the thing that makes the most sense. To me, something like the law of the excluded middle (A or not A) seems necessary outside of any existence. I cannot even conceive of it not being the case. Therefore, I have to believe that it is true despite my understanding of it. If you feel differently, I respect that.
I think what Kirana is getting at is the notion of math as an aspect of physics, and how a logical construct which is created to approximate physical laws can conceptually fail at times.
The classic "Schroedinger's Cat" logic puzzle is an example of the reasoned failure of an "excluded middle" physical property affecting a real world outcome.
Well, and I forget who proposed it.. but someone has come up with an argumentum ad absurdum to disprove determinism. Reject a premise if you will, but I think that it at least has merit.
I hate presenting these things without the actual text (and really I need to look this up since it is the second time in like a month that it has come up), but the argument goes something like this:
1. Assume determinism is true
2. if determinism is true, then with absolute knowledge, you can predict what you will do.
3. Assume you have absolute knowledge
-----------------------
4. you predict what you will do
From here, I think the rest is clear. If you can predict what you will do, then you can't change it. However, it seems absurd to say that you can't change it. On the same note, you can't say that it was determined that you would change it unless you dismiss premise 3. So, if I recall, the argument is basically saying that either you dismiss premise 3 (or whatever it was in the actual argument) or you deny the original assumption. Denying premise 3 would entail that absolute knowledge cannot be known. Yet, it IS logically possible that it can... thus determinism isn't necessarily true).
I really do need to look that up, or email my old metaphysics professor... this seems to be coming up a lot more... I need to be ready, lol. Anyway, that isn't necessarily my view, just an argument to consider. I do think it has merit, but I go back and forth on it.
I'm never terribly convinced by shifting into ad absurdum mode, and while I respect Hegel's contributions to logic, his arguments for absolute knowledge have never really convinced me. I wouldn't personally consider premise 3 necessarily true, so although this argument does have a good point, I am of the impression that this premise is also an assumption.
As for string theory, I'd better shut up.
Well yea, premise 3 would be an assumption, so consider it an ad adsurdum within one... but I completely see your point.
Well, and I forget who proposed it.. but someone has come up with an argumentum ad absurdum to disprove determinism. Reject a premise if you will, but I think that it at least has merit.
I hate presenting these things without the actual text (and really I need to look this up since it is the second time in like a month that it has come up), but the argument goes something like this:
1. Assume determinism is true
2. if determinism is true, then with absolute knowledge, you can predict what you will do.
3. Assume you have absolute knowledge
-----------------------
4. you predict what you will do
From here, I think the rest is clear. If you can predict what you will do, then you can't change it. However, it seems absurd to say that you can't change it. On the same note, you can't say that it was determined that you would change it unless you dismiss premise 3. So, if I recall, the argument is basically saying that either you dismiss premise 3 (or whatever it was in the actual argument) or you deny the original assumption. Denying premise 3 would entail that absolute knowledge cannot be known. Yet, it IS logically possible that it can... thus determinism isn't necessarily true).
I really do need to look that up, or email my old metaphysics professor... this seems to be coming up a lot more... I need to be ready, lol. Anyway, that isn't necessarily my view, just an argument to consider. I do think it has merit, but I go back and forth on it.
I'm never terribly convinced by shifting into ad absurdum mode, and while I respect Hegel's contributions to logic, his arguments for absolute knowledge have never really convinced me. I wouldn't personally consider premise 3 necessarily true, so although this argument does have a good point, I am of the impression that this premise is also an assumption.
As for string theory, I'd better shut up.
Well yea, premise 3 would be an assumption, so consider it an ad adsurdum within one... but I completely see your point.
Not to say I don't think that is a really clever argument, though!
String theory has been around for along time...decades...and it still has no evidence....but people still believe it...and they're the worlds smartest people, I just don't get it.
Because, if true, string theory would explain/resolve why quantum physics works differently on the macro and micro scales pretty much perfectly, and there really hasn't been much evidence against it, as far as I know.
In regards to determinism and free will, any responses to that question are nothing more than hypotheses at this point, although pragmatism (the philosophical stance) can give us a temporary answer. Since we perceive our own free will, regardless of its actual existence in the real world, the most reasonable thing is to act under the assumption that we do have free will, and re-adjust this assumption as more information presents itself. It's even somewhat of a silly question for that standpoint, as this information won't even impact how we perceive the causality of our own actions.
Well, and I forget who proposed it.. but someone has come up with an argumentum ad absurdum to disprove determinism. Reject a premise if you will, but I think that it at least has merit.
I hate presenting these things without the actual text (and really I need to look this up since it is the second time in like a month that it has come up), but the argument goes something like this:
1. Assume determinism is true
2. if determinism is true, then with absolute knowledge, you can predict what you will do.
3. Assume you have absolute knowledge
-----------------------
4. you predict what you will do
From here, I think the rest is clear. If you can predict what you will do, then you can't change it. However, it seems absurd to say that you can't change it. On the same note, you can't say that it was determined that you would change it unless you dismiss premise 3. So, if I recall, the argument is basically saying that either you dismiss premise 3 (or whatever it was in the actual argument) or you deny the original assumption. Denying premise 3 would entail that absolute knowledge cannot be known. Yet, it IS logically possible that it can... thus determinism isn't necessarily true).
I really do need to look that up, or email my old metaphysics professor... this seems to be coming up a lot more... I need to be ready, lol. Anyway, that isn't necessarily my view, just an argument to consider. I do think it has merit, but I go back and forth on it.
Yea if you can find it it sounds like it might be interesting. Cause from this it sounds wrong just based on the simple fact that we're not consciously or completely aware of all areas of our brain, so this argument would be philosophical it seems, but then shot down by science.
Right, because I think science might argue that humans could never have absolute knowledge. I think that the point of the argument is that determinism (if true) is universally true, while absolute knowledge isn't... therefore determinism cannot be proven absolutely true... Like I said, I go back and forth because it seems to have merit, but I cannot dismiss how deterministic the world obviously is.
oooooo its one of those arguments... Like the truth can't be relative cause that implies a truth sort of deal. I hate those kinda arguments ><
Well, like it or not, maybe those arguments make a point. If something is self-referentially inconsistent, then shouldn't we dismiss it? I think that absolute relativism is. If we state that relativism is true, then we commit ourselves to the fact that the statement in itself is relative, and not necessarily true. That really is the main reason I believe in objective truth (well, one of them I guess). When it comes to ethics and such I do like to take a more relative approach, but with truth in general, there are facts.
String theory has been around for along time...decades...and it still has no evidence....but people still believe it...and they're the worlds smartest people, I just don't get it.
Because, if true, string theory would explain/resolve why quantum physics works differently on the macro and micro scales pretty much perfectly, and there really hasn't been much evidence against it, as far as I know.
In regards to determinism and free will, any responses to that question are nothing more than hypotheses at this point, although pragmatism (the philosophical stance) can give us a temporary answer. Since we perceive our own free will, regardless of its actual existence in the real world, the most reasonable thing is to act under the assumption that we do have free will, and re-adjust this assumption as more information presents itself. It's even somewhat of a silly question for that standpoint, as this information won't even impact how we perceive the causality of our own actions.
Well, and I forget who proposed it.. but someone has come up with an argumentum ad absurdum to disprove determinism. Reject a premise if you will, but I think that it at least has merit.
I hate presenting these things without the actual text (and really I need to look this up since it is the second time in like a month that it has come up), but the argument goes something like this:
1. Assume determinism is true
2. if determinism is true, then with absolute knowledge, you can predict what you will do.
3. Assume you have absolute knowledge
-----------------------
4. you predict what you will do
From here, I think the rest is clear. If you can predict what you will do, then you can't change it. However, it seems absurd to say that you can't change it. On the same note, you can't say that it was determined that you would change it unless you dismiss premise 3. So, if I recall, the argument is basically saying that either you dismiss premise 3 (or whatever it was in the actual argument) or you deny the original assumption. Denying premise 3 would entail that absolute knowledge cannot be known. Yet, it IS logically possible that it can... thus determinism isn't necessarily true).
I really do need to look that up, or email my old metaphysics professor... this seems to be coming up a lot more... I need to be ready, lol. Anyway, that isn't necessarily my view, just an argument to consider. I do think it has merit, but I go back and forth on it.
Yea if you can find it it sounds like it might be interesting. Cause from this it sounds wrong just based on the simple fact that we're not consciously or completely aware of all areas of our brain, so this argument would be philosophical it seems, but then shot down by science.
Right, because I think science might argue that humans could never have absolute knowledge. I think that the point of the argument is that determinism (if true) is universally true, while absolute knowledge isn't... therefore determinism cannot be proven absolutely true... Like I said, I go back and forth because it seems to have merit, but I cannot dismiss how deterministic the world obviously is.
oooooo its one of those arguments... Like the truth can't be relative cause that implies a truth sort of deal. I hate those kinda arguments ><
There's one thing that's missing to fix this.
Emerson said so in his essay Experience:
"The grossest ignorance does not disgust like this impudent knowingness. The physicians say they are not materialists; but they are. Spirit is matter reduced to an extreme thinness. But the definition of spiritual should be, that which is it's own evidence."
You cannot have truth if determinism is "true". It also would be utterly pointless to argue.
Well, lol, if determinism is true, then the whole point is that you were determined to argue... so not pointless in at least some respect.
Utterly pointless actually.
Well I tend to think that maybe the world is only highly deterministic. But, I guess given your view, it depends on what you mean by pointless. If determinism is true, then does any human action really have a point?
EDIT: Just wanted to make this point as well, why is it almost every single time I've talked to someone who has said they were a determinist, they would use some sort of pseudo-physics? Consciousness doesn't happen at the sub-atomic level.
I actually have heard plenty of free-will arguments that use quantum physics, but not many deterministic arguments. So what exactly do you mean by pseudo-physics?
Also, consciousness is a bit of a wild card. The seat of consciousness is completely unknown (although it is somehow made to happen by the brain), and it could be at the sub-atomic level, for all we know!
You cannot have truth if determinism is "true". It also would be utterly pointless to argue.
Well, lol, if determinism is true, then the whole point is that you were determined to argue... so not pointless in at least some respect.
Utterly pointless actually.
Well I tend to think that maybe the world is only highly deterministic. But, I guess given your view, it depends on what you mean by pointless. If determinism is true, then does any human action really have a point?
If you believe in determinism, no, no point. No right, no wrong. You cannot have preferred states in a purely deterministic world. I might as well be a rock to you. I would essentially have the exact same choices. Would you argue these points with a rock?
If you believe in determinism, why argue anything you believe to be true?
Methinks TNT is replaying Matrix: Reloaded a tad too much these days.
EDIT: Just wanted to make this point as well, why is it almost every single time I've talked to someone who has said they were a determinist, they would use some sort of pseudo-physics? Consciousness doesn't happen at the sub-atomic level.
I actually have heard plenty of free-will arguments that use quantum physics, but not many deterministic arguments. So what exactly do you mean by pseudo-physics?
Also, consciousness is a bit of a wild card. The seat of consciousness is completely unknown (although it is somehow made to happen by the brain), and it could be at the sub-atomic level, for all we know!
Actually consciousness is a huge factor in the determinism debate (at least the philosophical side). I think that is kinda the point of the argument I mentioned above. Assume that a person has absolute knowledge and determines that he will do X, his awareness of this gives him the ability to not do X... or does it? lol. I am not offering this as an answer... just adding how I think that it plays a role in the arguments.
You cannot have truth if determinism is "true". It also would be utterly pointless to argue.
Well, lol, if determinism is true, then the whole point is that you were determined to argue... so not pointless in at least some respect.
Utterly pointless actually.
Well I tend to think that maybe the world is only highly deterministic. But, I guess given your view, it depends on what you mean by pointless. If determinism is true, then does any human action really have a point?
If you believe in determinism, no, no point. No right, no wrong. You cannot have preferred states in a purely deterministic world. I might as well be a rock to you. I would essentially have the exact same choices. Would you argue these points with a rock?
If you believe in determinism, why argue anything you believe to be true?
Methinks TNT is replaying Matrix: Reloaded a tad too much these days.
The point is, I wouldn't have a choice to argue them to a rock. If I do, I was determined to do so.
My belief on the subject is that the universe (as far as we can observer it) is truly a static 4-Dimensional space. Time would be the 4th dimension in this case. As Biological organisms with brains, we perceive the 4th dimension as a continuum, rather than a static unmoving dimension. The ramifications of this of course means that the universe past, present, and future are already "set in stone". Granted, I am still but a student of physics, and these beliefs are subject to change. But, one must also keep in mind that nothing can ever be completely proven or disproven.
Well, some things can be completely proven in my opinion. 2 + 2 is always 4. Bachelors are always male. Tautologies are necessarily true. Valid deductive arguments (purely) are infallible: 1. If A, then B 2. A ---------------- 3. Therefore, B. Now, I have a feeling this isn't what you meant. But, I do think that some things involving time might fall under this category (such as time travel).
math and logic are both constructs which are only "true" because that is how they have been defined, thus they do not need to be "proven" per se.
Constructs of what? The statement "either A or not A" seems much less of a construct than a necessary truth. I once took a class on truth, and my professor (David Detmer) gave the following example to explain why math isn't about observation or social constructs: Let's say that we have two pens. One holds 10 cows and one holds 9 cows. We filter them all into one pen. When we count them after, we get 18. Nobody will conclude that in this particular case 10 + 9 = 18. We are going to look at other possibilities. Maybe we miscounted, or maybe one cow got loose. But we will NEVER conclude that 10 + 9 = 18.
Think the point he is getting at is. 2 + 2 only =4 because of the value we have arbitarily placed on 2 and 4.
in a way, yes. What I'm trying to say is that math and logic do not "exist", they are simply methods that we as humans have come up with to describe and better understand existance. "existance" itself may not be what we perceive it as. Thus math and logic are only truths as we have defined them to be in our realm of reality. If our conception of reality is wrong, then math and logic may also be wrong.
Yea, I strongly disagree with that. We are all entitled to our opinion, and I respect yours. I am certainly not one to try to belittle you or talk you down, but I guess I just believe what we hold as truth has to be the thing that makes the most sense. To me, something like the law of the excluded middle (A or not A) seems necessary outside of any existence. I cannot even conceive of it not being the case. Therefore, I have to believe that it is true despite my understanding of it. If you feel differently, I respect that.
I think what Kirana is getting at is the notion of math as an aspect of physics, and how a logical construct which is created to approximate physical laws can conceptually fail at times.
The classic "Schroedinger's Cat" logic puzzle is an example of the reasoned failure of an "excluded middle" physical property affecting a real world outcome.
I am pretty sure I recall that paradox, but I don't recall it disproving the law of the excluded middle. Refresh my memory if you can.
Also, consciousness is a bit of a wild card. The seat of consciousness is completely unknown (although it is somehow made to happen by the brain), and it could be at the sub-atomic level, for all we know!
Consciousness occurs at the cellular level, certainly doesn't explain consciousness in-itself, but not the point.
The point is, I wouldn't have a choice to argue them to a rock. If I do, I was determined to do so.
What would you think of someone arguing with a rock?
If I was a strict determinist? That he or she was determined to do so. But even the thought that I hold of that experience would be determined, so I suppose I am guessing.
Actually consciousness is a huge factor in the determinism debate (at least the philosophical side). I think that is kinda the point of the argument I mentioned above. Assume that a person has absolute knowledge and determines that he will do X, his awareness of this gives him the ability to not do X... or does it? lol. I am not offering this as an answer... just adding how I think that it plays a role in the arguments.
Oh! I wasn't saying consciousness wasn't important (because it is the whole point!), but that it's not well understood from a biological, or even philosophical, point. I was trying to get at the point that our lack of knowledge about consciousness makes the topic of determinism a tricky one, since we don't actually know how it is functioning and we can't presently breech the mind/body problem. Sorry if I wasn't clear!
Cerberus.Ethics said:
If you believe in determinism, no, no point. No right, no wrong. You cannot have preferred states in a purely deterministic world. I might as well be a rock to you. I would essentially have the exact same choices. Would you argue these points with a rock?
If you believe in determinism, why argue anything you believe to be true?
Methinks TNT is replaying Matrix: Reloaded a tad too much these days.
Well, we have the perception of free will! Pointless or not, we will act as though we have free will, even if the world does function under the mechanisms of determinism.
Also, consciousness is a bit of a wild card. The seat of consciousness is completely unknown (although it is somehow made to happen by the brain), and it could be at the sub-atomic level, for all we know!
Consciousness occurs at the cellular level, certainly doesn't explain consciousness in-itself, but not the point.
Is this your assumption based on your own reasoning or you have a test/experiment you can show us? Rhetorical
Also, consciousness is a bit of a wild card. The seat of consciousness is completely unknown (although it is somehow made to happen by the brain), and it could be at the sub-atomic level, for all we know!
Consciousness occurs at the cellular level, certainly doesn't explain consciousness in-itself, but not the point.
Is this your assumption based on your own reasoning or you have a test/experiment you can show us? Rhetorical
Also, consciousness is a bit of a wild card. The seat of consciousness is completely unknown (although it is somehow made to happen by the brain), and it could be at the sub-atomic level, for all we know!
Consciousness occurs at the cellular level, certainly doesn't explain consciousness in-itself, but not the point.
Is this your assumption based on your own reasoning or you have a test/experiment you can show us? Rhetorical
Neuroscience. Rhetorical.
Woah now. Neuroscience explains behavior, not consciousness. Those two are different, and should not be confused.
Nah, you weren't unclear. I was more trying to emphasize the idea of consciousness in terms of determinism. if anything, I was unclear, lol.
But, I do remember learning in one of my psychology courses that consciousness is an aspect of the brain. Now, I am sure that this is just a theory. Certainly there is much about consciousness that is not known. I think that any arguments using it (in terms of determinism) mostly appeal to its existence and not the details of that existence.
I also apologize for tossing out things without sources (I think I have done it twice). Though I do think without sources, things such as arguments can stand on their own (I just hate to take the heat for an argument that really isn't mine).
You cannot have truth if determinism is "true". It also would be utterly pointless to argue.
Well, lol, if determinism is true, then the whole point is that you were determined to argue... so not pointless in at least some respect.
Utterly pointless actually.
Well I tend to think that maybe the world is only highly deterministic. But, I guess given your view, it depends on what you mean by pointless. If determinism is true, then does any human action really have a point?
If you believe in determinism, no, no point. No right, no wrong. You cannot have preferred states in a purely deterministic world. I might as well be a rock to you. I would essentially have the exact same choices. Would you argue these points with a rock?
If you believe in determinism, why argue anything you believe to be true?
Methinks TNT is replaying Matrix: Reloaded a tad too much these days.
I've had a similar argument with someone, he was arguing his actions might as well be "random" since they weren't guided by an intelligent thing but rather natural laws, much like a rock falling down a hill takes random turns in respect to any sort of purpose.
But more realistically its a shape ones brain takes, if someone has say, gone to college, they would be like a rock that has taken a specific path and aged in a specific place (say this one near a volcano), the rock will show signs of this, and make sounds in relation to its physical structure because of this, much like you're mouth, will make certain sounds (english) cause you were born in a specific place (America for example) and itll make very specific sounds based on the college its gone to and....well i think you get it now.
Also, consciousness is a bit of a wild card. The seat of consciousness is completely unknown (although it is somehow made to happen by the brain), and it could be at the sub-atomic level, for all we know!
Consciousness occurs at the cellular level, certainly doesn't explain consciousness in-itself, but not the point.
Is this your assumption based on your own reasoning or you have a test/experiment you can show us? Rhetorical
Also, consciousness is a bit of a wild card. The seat of consciousness is completely unknown (although it is somehow made to happen by the brain), and it could be at the sub-atomic level, for all we know!
Consciousness occurs at the cellular level, certainly doesn't explain consciousness in-itself, but not the point.
Is this your assumption based on your own reasoning or you have a test/experiment you can show us? Rhetorical
If free will, how do you define it? If something is free in reference to a decision being made it is technically "random", something that is "random" cannot be a "will". (Hume's fork)
If determinism, why the feeling of free will? I understand its seen as an illusion (we can point out brain scans that show a decision being made before a person is even conscious of a choice.) but that still doesn't not explain the necessity of it (more to the point - why it would even evolve/be beneficial if it is technically, superficial).
Not directly a religious topic I realize; but necessary in reference to everyone (religion) and everything about it
