Pointless? Hardly. But I shouldn't be a true student of science if I didn't understand that it actually proves nothing. Luckily, like our senses, a theory can be useful without being perfect.
Are you convinced?
- Thread starter Itseemstome
- Start date
lg,
Please indicate you understand and accept these basics of increasing complexity from forces to atoms to molecules.
It shows how you need to move to the next level above push/pull forces.
We’d get there eventually if you were able to understand the basics of inorganic chemistry first, before we were proceed to organic chemistry and neurology.
Please indicate you understand and accept these basics of increasing complexity from forces to atoms to molecules.
Go read Dawkins book on the blind watchmaker, he explains this in extensive detail. Or I can can lead you through your training once you accept the basics above.
Free will doesn’t actually need to exist if one perceives that it does.
The desire to survive.
No I haven’t said anything like that.
In effect it doesn’t matter.
Pleasure is possible with or without free will.
I get what you mean, but doesn't your viewpoint necesitate that there are no perfect theories?..................
Come to think of it, while your theory seems a bit pessimistic about us ever understanding the universe, it DOES make a lot of sense.......
Tne problem there is that becuase we are not in aposition to know absolutely everything then we wouldn't know if a theory is perfect, i.e. is absolute truth. But the term "theory" implies "to the best of our ability to know but realizing that we could be wrong or inaccurate".
My choosing of a 10char length password can be random enough for you to determine it beforehand impossible.
Cause of a beta decay is instability of the radio active nuclei. I would be happy to learn if any cause could be found for the randomness of intervals of beta emissions.
Its all about how wide the goal posts are to get randomness 'predictable'.
If your goal posts are not wide enough you won't bet your life on determinism with the aid of probability, say, within "t" seconds if the number of beta emmissions from a tiny block of caesium-137 are odd then you will be shot. Would you bet your life on that with 'yes' or 'no'?!
A speck of randomness is still random enough to span millions of equally probable outcomes as time progresses with such a bunch of randomnesses and true determinism is already out.
emotion is consciousness. to see if something has consciousness, touch it and see if it reacts somehow.
because everything reacts, everything has consciousness, so everything has emotions.
there is only one emotion (energy): love (magnetic energy). but we divide it into many parts. fear is love for oneself. if i touch a cat it likes it, but if i cut it with a knife it hates (fears) it, because it loves itself (the emotion love, god).
we are what we want. the cat wants love so it doesn't like hate. we can't like something that is too different from ourself, or something that is too similar.
i think studying logic makes you think illogically.
---
Itseemstome said:
people don't change their beliefs because of things that people say to them, they start talking to people about their beliefs because their beliefs are starting to change.
people discuss because they want to challenge their beliefs and become greater, but at the same time, they fear that they are wrong, because if we are wrong, we don't exist anymore, we evolve and become something else.
Last edited:
Cris
In other words if you have evidence of abiogenesis just cough it up - theories and speculations just won't do the trick
- just quote the research reports of persons who have successfully carried it out
1) The hypothetical atmosphere was either reducing or neutral
2) Simple molecules like amino acids, purines, sugars etc were formed in this atmosphere via ultraviolet radiation, electrical discharges. thermal activity etc etc
3) In the course of time these molecules gave rise to protoproteins, protonucleic acids, etc which in turn gave us the living cell
“
Due to a complete lack of evidence of push/pull forces creating a phenomena outside of push/pull forces its not clear on what grounds we should see the gap bridged by the speculations of "scientists" whom you hold as dear and worshippable.
In other words if you have evidence of abiogenesis just cough it up - theories and speculations just won't do the trick
No need for such an innundation of pseudo scientific theories (and there have been at least 6 dominant ones sincethe demise of Miller's experiment)
- just quote the research reports of persons who have successfully carried it out
Do you hold that chemical evolution rests upon three assumptions?
1) The hypothetical atmosphere was either reducing or neutral
2) Simple molecules like amino acids, purines, sugars etc were formed in this atmosphere via ultraviolet radiation, electrical discharges. thermal activity etc etc
3) In the course of time these molecules gave rise to protoproteins, protonucleic acids, etc which in turn gave us the living cell
Since you claim to perceive that free will doesn't exist why do you get worked up if you read a news article about a person blowing themselves up in a bus?
But you have just determined that such a notion of survival/free will is illusory - I am curious about your processes of acquiring knowledge that enabled you to come to a conclusion about the fundamental nature of reality (that free will is illusory) yet still enables you to labour in the medium of illusion (ie you participate in debate forums and a million other value based activities for the sake of your survival, ie free will)
So survival is not dependant on making choices? Once again it is difficult to conceive of the perfectional platform of knowing that free will doesn't exist. It doesn't paint a picture of a sane person - on the contray the chances of such a person's survival would be greatly reduced
Sounds like the perfect description of a fool : it doesn't matter if one firmly believes in things that one is firmly convince do not exist????? The act of trying to stage convincingly that free will does not exist is sabotaged by the very endeavour to establish such a principle in debate - if you truly thought that free will did not exist, debate and comprehension through logic and reason would be perceived as a completely useless endeavour
“
Your picture of social reality is getting more absurd - if pleasure is the highest principle how would it be possible to determine what is "good" for one's pleasure and what is "bad" for one's pleasure without free will?
Last edited:
I think this is what caused you to concede
“
Please indicate you understand and accept these basics of increasing complexity from forces to atoms to molecules.
”
Do you hold that chemical evolution rests upon three assumptions?
1) The hypothetical atmosphere was either reducing or neutral
2) Simple molecules like amino acids, purines, sugars etc were formed in this atmosphere via ultraviolet radiation, electrical discharges. thermal activity etc etc
3) In the course of time these molecules gave rise to protoproteins, protonucleic acids, etc which in turn gave us the living cell
Its obvious that the ideas you are trying to promulgate are purely speculative, which wouldn't be such a bad thing if you didn't insist on inflating them
1)A reducing atmosphere? Wouldn't that mean there's oxygen in it? Oxygen was toxic to early life. In fact, life would have a hard time evolving in an oxygen rich environment.
2)Simple molecules do form in nature through abiotic processes.
3)What's so hard to understand?
Rather than huffing and puffing about abiogenesis all you had to do is post evidence (journals, results confirmed from experiments etc - not the political ideology of some biologist frazzled with institutionalized theocracy) that meets or addresses the requirements of all three criteria - your inability to do so speaks for itself
It seems you are not convinced
light: I love coming on this forum, you crack me up, your so funny.
when I discuss with my family and friends, what you've said that day the whole place explodes with laughter.
dont ever change(chance a would be a fine thing), and dont get locked up in an asylum, we would loose, the best comedian on this planet.
and now please say something completely inane, so I can cheer up the office, thanks.
when I discuss with my family and friends, what you've said that day the whole place explodes with laughter.
dont ever change(chance a would be a fine thing), and dont get locked up in an asylum, we would loose, the best comedian on this planet.
and now please say something completely inane, so I can cheer up the office, thanks.
You are confusing probability with randomness.
Determinism states that everything you do has a cause, and those causes themselves have causes etc.
Unless you know the initial condition on the cause you will not know the effect.
It is impossible for me to know the starting conditions of your entire physical and mental make-up - as I would need to know EVERYTHING in order to be able to determine the effect.
As such, of course I would be unable to guess the 10char length password - but that is because it has sod all to do with what we are talking about.
Determinism isn't something that says "Person A can state 100% what person B does". It says that if you know the starting conditions 100% you can state what the effect will be with 100% accuracy. Obviously this is not possible from a practical point of view - but philosophically it is a valid position for discussion.
Aye - so would everyone else - but lack of knowledge does not equate to true randomness - only a perception of randomness by the one without 100% perfect knowledge of the starting conditions.everneo said:
If we do not know the starting conditions with 100% accuracy (which we can not do) we can not say if something is random or not.
Irrelevant - as you are mixing probability and randomness - and assuming that a person has perfect knowledge of starting conditions - which just is not - and can not be - the case.everneo said:
Its okay as long as you don't hurt yourself I guess
I am sure if you search these forums carefully you will find other persons to ad hom and add delight to your workplace and social situation
Last edited:
Why weren't you asking for these peer reviewed journals when we were discussing evolution? I'm sure there are several thousand papers that could keep you busy. But you seem to rather focus your attention on certain things there is not yet any scientific consensus about.. is this your 'God of the Gap' again? Do you think because there is no detailed consensus on abiogenesis yet that it means God poofed it? Or is it more likely these chemicals combined naturally?
Actually, that was already done, you simply ignored it or didn't understand it, as it probably didn't fit in with your god fantasies.
Certain quantum events do not have a cause. Knowing initial condtions won't help determining the effect.
Complete Knowledge of EVERTHING including my physical and mental makeup is of no use to you if i choose 1st character from a random page of a random book in a random shelf in a random library. I can apply different random processes for every other characters. Clear?
Your assumption is a wishful thinking. Reality is different.
It is not lack of knowledge, if you think so it is because of your belief that everything should have a cause. At quantum level many 'weird' things happen like break up of causality, violaion of conservation of energy (temporarily).
Its you in your denial of randomness mixed up probabilty and determinism.