|
On July 02 2013 05:26 grassHAT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 04:52 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 04:49 grassHAT wrote:
If the mind is purely chemical/electrical, then our thoughts and emotions would be the product of random atom motion in our brains. This would undermine our own ideas, because our ideas would be subject to non-rational behavior (random atom motion). It would even undermine the idea that the mind is purely physical, because the idea of the mind being purely physical would only be a product of a physical mind.
The mind being purely physical/electrical is a proposition usually held by atheists and any naturalist worldview. This worldview also undermines science because science is based on the rationality of the human mind and our capacity to objectively understand and rationalize reality.
If anyone would like more help with philosophy or theology I can help. Thanks. That's not really true. Even though the mind is purely chemical/electrical, it's not a product of random atom motion, it's a product of stimuli. We see something, which sends electrical impulses to certain parts of the brain, which in turn active certain areas, form new neuron connections, accesses memories etc. There honestly doesn't have to be a single random component. It's actually quite similar to how a CPU works, only far more complex. If you are receiving stimuli that in turn is used to create an idea or concept does that stimuli justify your proposed idea? You are arguing a moot point. Either proposition still lends to the same ending - rationality cannot be justified from a purely chemical/electrical mind.
That's just your opinion though. It turns out a large number of neuroscientists who are a touch more qualified to discuss this topic than you are believe that human behavior, emotions, and "rationality" may very well be well understood upon significantly improved understanding of the chemical/electrical/structural/plastic aspects of the brain
|
|
|
On July 01 2013 10:22 travis wrote:
Im attempting to use rhetoric to try to poke a hole in the way people think about this stuff. People are disturbingly materialistic. Agreed. (mainly on the 2nd sentence)
Aside from that, being pragmatic in fundamental discussions seems spineless at best.
|
On July 02 2013 04:49 grassHAT wrote:
If the mind is purely chemical/electrical, then our thoughts and emotions would be the product of random atom motion in our brains. This would undermine our own ideas, because our ideas would be subject to non-rational behavior (random atom motion). It would even undermine the idea that the mind is purely physical, because the idea of the mind being purely physical would only be a product of a physical mind.
The mind being purely physical/electrical is a proposition usually held by atheists and any naturalist worldview. This worldview also undermines science because science is based on the rationality of the human mind and our capacity to objectively understand and rationalize reality.
If anyone would like more help with philosophy or theology I can help. Thanks.
So according to you creating solid metal plate is impossible because of random atom motions ? Did you ever hear of atomic bonds ? Atoms in your brain are not moving randomly, that is your uneducated imagination.
|
sighz another materialism vs idealism thread............... could it not be both?
|
Just wanted to say this thread has been a real joy. As I'm trained in literature and not in any form of hard science, I've enjoyed playing the voyeur on this one.
A fascinating topic. The capacity for astonishment, wonder and awe at the elegance and beauty of existence is not diminished in any way by a lack of soul. That's still something I struggle with, having a predisposition toward the mystical; however, I feel that individual yearning can be satisfied by an appreciation of the complexity and elegance of what we truly are and what lies all around us (even if, as seems increasingly assured, there is nothing beyond the brute physical).
|
On July 02 2013 07:20 crazyweasel wrote:
sighz another materialism vs idealism thread............... could it not be both?
Considering the debate is more materialism vs dualism, so this is not a compromise 
|
If we can prove its existence then it is by definition a physical phenomenon. If we can't prove it exists, might as well stop talking about it. I see no way out of this catch 22. If you believe there is something more than the "physical" side of life you will never be able to prove your side, nor can anyone disprove you... pointless argument.
|
On July 02 2013 14:21 Zahir wrote:
If we can prove its existence then it is by definition a physical phenomenon. If we can't prove it exists, might as well stop talking about it. I see no way out of this catch 22. If you believe there is something more than the "physical" side of life you will never be able to prove your side, nor can anyone disprove you... pointless argument.
Possible to proof is as relative as a term can get, specially when you put the passage of time into the equation.
I think we must keep our minds open, but we gotta recognize that at this moment science sees the mind from a monistic standpoint and its right in doing so, you do science on something you can reliably measure and observe.
|
On July 02 2013 02:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:32 Cynry wrote:On July 02 2013 02:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 02:13 mcc wrote:On July 02 2013 01:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 01:15 mcc wrote:On July 02 2013 01:10 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 22:16 mcc wrote:On July 01 2013 20:29 Tuczniak wrote:I wish there were some kind of soul independent on brain, but I don't think there is one  Just electric impulses and chemistry... It makes me sad. Why? And I direct it to all people who said this. Because there is no hope in materialism. People want to hope. That is false. Many materialists have hope(s). Unless you mean specifically hope for life after death. But that is not prevented by materialism, although most people think it is. No I mean that hope itself is just another biological urge, completely uncontrollable in any real sense. Your "hopes" are as meaningful as the dog's urge to procreate or the pigeon's urge to eat. You can say that you have hopes but "you" (in the sense that it is used) don't exist. You are just a bundle of inevitable sensations that at some point will cease to exist and have had no more effect upon the world than any other physical occurrence, probably much less than most. Your insignificance is entirely complete down to the fact that there is no you at all. It's a trick of the light, only there is no trick because a trick requires an illusion, an illusion requires a viewer, and we have no true viewer. We have machines that react to stimuli. Self-improvement is not a choice, nor is it anything more than a nonsensical string of words. Is it better for the machine to do A than it is to do B? Who says? The machine itself? It was biologically designed to say so. There is no objectively better, and no objectively worse. The murderer has committed no outrageous act by slaying the fellow machine, he has just performed a biologically inevitable action that resulted in other biologically inevitable actions. Nothing can be done to change the inevitable, and the machines simply experience the inevitable occurring, if it could even be called experience as the machines themselves do not exist except as a series of outputs. The love you hold is not love and you do not hold it. It is a biological inevitability wrapped within a biological inevitability. Entirely without meaning or purpose. Personally, I find the utter rejection of these truths to be the ultimate evidence against the philosophical position that implies them. The fact that the materialist searches (in vain, according to his/her own beliefs) for "hope" is proof enough for me that at the deepest level, they do not wish for it to be true. The contradiction between what they claim is the logical view of reality and the emotional response to that view is quite telling. Ultimately, the materialist borrows hope from the spiritualist because the materialist has a spiritual being that yearns for recognition. Saying that it all means nothing is of course nonsense, as it means something to me. I might be materialistic and deterministic "machine", but that does not negate my autonomy. By definition, it does... I also have free will unless I am being forced, that is because I am autonomous. You just said you have free-will because you have free-will. I do not search for "hope". I have my hopes. I hope that I will not die before I am old. That is not some mystical hope, that is just biological emotion. Precisely. Biological emotion that you have absolutely no control over and are entirely incapable of changing. Most people would not call the instinctual urge to run away from a hopeless situation "hope". The hope you have is not something that is meaningful in any true sense of the word. Basically what you are saying is that emotions are more valid form of knowledge than reason ? That all those instincts that lead us to do stupid shit should be listened to, because they are the sign of spiritual being. I'm saying that the fact that your position is not only biologically untenable, but also carries with it the necessity of "deluding yourself" to be happy is a good indication that the position itself is invalid. Now please explain how religion is not just another delusion ? Also, one may not control the nature of emotions (anger is anger etc), but a lot can be achieved about what trigger said emotions. Religion could be delusion... sure. So what? There is no evidence to say that it is and some evidence to say that it isn't (though let's not get into that discussion). The whole point of determinism is that nothing whatsoever can be "achieved" about triggers or anything at all. What will occur will occur regardless of any non-existent "action" being taken by "actors" that aren't there. Efforts to avoid/embrace a specific turn of events are themselves predetermined, as is their eventual (and inevitable) efficacy.
Your rather desperate attempt to link a physicalist view of the mind to fatalism might suggest that there might be a deep insecurity regarding your own view of the world, which only a sleight of hand can override. Concluding from "there is no cosmic meaning/significance/purpose" that "there is no meaning/significance/purpose" simply doesn't follow.
You further seem quite confused about the relationship between determinism, intentionality and consciousness. In fact some form of (weak) determinism is essential for any act of decision making irrespective of whether all there is to the brain is physical or not. For what would be the alternative? How would indeterminism help anything for example?
|
On July 01 2013 18:53 Spekulatius wrote:
there is no soul.
Wait, don't you mean there is no spoon?
Also, given my profile name and this thread's subject matter, I cannot resist referencing this:
+ Show Spoiler +
Ultimately, though, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts is probably the best way of looking at this matter. Simplest explanation and all.
|
On July 02 2013 02:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:32 Cynry wrote:On July 02 2013 02:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 02:13 mcc wrote:On July 02 2013 01:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 01:15 mcc wrote:On July 02 2013 01:10 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 22:16 mcc wrote:On July 01 2013 20:29 Tuczniak wrote:I wish there were some kind of soul independent on brain, but I don't think there is one Just electric impulses and chemistry... It makes me sad. Why? And I direct it to all people who said this. Because there is no hope in materialism. People want to hope. That is false. Many materialists have hope(s). Unless you mean specifically hope for life after death. But that is not prevented by materialism, although most people think it is. No I mean that hope itself is just another biological urge, completely uncontrollable in any real sense. Your "hopes" are as meaningful as the dog's urge to procreate or the pigeon's urge to eat. You can say that you have hopes but "you" (in the sense that it is used) don't exist. You are just a bundle of inevitable sensations that at some point will cease to exist and have had no more effect upon the world than any other physical occurrence, probably much less than most. Your insignificance is entirely complete down to the fact that there is no you at all. It's a trick of the light, only there is no trick because a trick requires an illusion, an illusion requires a viewer, and we have no true viewer. We have machines that react to stimuli. Self-improvement is not a choice, nor is it anything more than a nonsensical string of words. Is it better for the machine to do A than it is to do B? Who says? The machine itself? It was biologically designed to say so. There is no objectively better, and no objectively worse. The murderer has committed no outrageous act by slaying the fellow machine, he has just performed a biologically inevitable action that resulted in other biologically inevitable actions. Nothing can be done to change the inevitable, and the machines simply experience the inevitable occurring, if it could even be called experience as the machines themselves do not exist except as a series of outputs. The love you hold is not love and you do not hold it. It is a biological inevitability wrapped within a biological inevitability. Entirely without meaning or purpose. Personally, I find the utter rejection of these truths to be the ultimate evidence against the philosophical position that implies them. The fact that the materialist searches (in vain, according to his/her own beliefs) for "hope" is proof enough for me that at the deepest level, they do not wish for it to be true. The contradiction between what they claim is the logical view of reality and the emotional response to that view is quite telling. Ultimately, the materialist borrows hope from the spiritualist because the materialist has a spiritual being that yearns for recognition. Saying that it all means nothing is of course nonsense, as it means something to me. I might be materialistic and deterministic "machine", but that does not negate my autonomy. By definition, it does... I also have free will unless I am being forced, that is because I am autonomous. You just said you have free-will because you have free-will. I do not search for "hope". I have my hopes. I hope that I will not die before I am old. That is not some mystical hope, that is just biological emotion. Precisely. Biological emotion that you have absolutely no control over and are entirely incapable of changing. Most people would not call the instinctual urge to run away from a hopeless situation "hope". The hope you have is not something that is meaningful in any true sense of the word. Basically what you are saying is that emotions are more valid form of knowledge than reason ? That all those instincts that lead us to do stupid shit should be listened to, because they are the sign of spiritual being. I'm saying that the fact that your position is not only biologically untenable, but also carries with it the necessity of "deluding yourself" to be happy is a good indication that the position itself is invalid. Now please explain how religion is not just another delusion ? Also, one may not control the nature of emotions (anger is anger etc), but a lot can be achieved about what trigger said emotions. Religion could be delusion... sure. So what? There is no evidence to say that it is and some evidence to say that it isn't (though let's not get into that discussion). The whole point of determinism is that nothing whatsoever can be "achieved" about triggers or anything at all. What will occur will occur regardless of any non-existent "action" being taken by "actors" that aren't there. Efforts to avoid/embrace a specific turn of events are themselves predetermined, as is their eventual (and inevitable) efficacy.
The face a coin will land on is determined at the moment you flip it, I think anyone can agree on that. Does it make it useless to flip a coin when you want to decide something ? Does it make it less random ? no. It doesn't change anything at all.
This can be applied with your entire life or the universe, but it still doesn't change anything. "Determinism" is a kind of information that have no concrete effect.
|
On July 01 2013 22:05 MaGariShun wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 20:19 papaz wrote:As far as we know yes everything is just matter. However experiencing of the "I" is not. And here is why. If "you" (conciousness or whatever is the best term for this) is only matter than by any thought experiemt you should be able to be created. However any such thought experiemt will lead you to the duplicate problem. If there was an all powerful machine that could assemble a perfect copy of you in a current state it would still be a copy of you. Your "self" would not suddenly see the world from two different perspectives. So any attempt of "teleporting" whether your matter is teleported or you are recreated is still just copies of you. So despite "you" only consisting of matter there is no way of re creating you. It would be "someone else". Hence the "I" can not only be explained by matter. That being said I'm not suggesting anything supernatural or soul or anything alike. I'm simply stating that a materialistic view isn't enough to explain the "I" but there has to be some "interaction", "continuity of the mind" to explain how one feels the "I". This of course leads to the obvious and sad conclusion that ones your are dead you are really gone, as in even if there was an almighty that assembled your atoms back, the person waking up wouldn't be you I don't understand your problem. Why would you see the world from two perspectives? By copying you create a new "I", both "I"s will have their own perspectives, although the way they perceive "I" will be the same in the instant of the creation, not counting the obviously different physical location. If you don't tell the copy that it is a copy, it will not know and as such be no different from you. If nobody told you and there was no way of telling by observation (e.g. the part of the machine in which you stood in is the 'input') you wouldn't know if you are the copy or not. Of course they are not completely identical and thus share the same mind because one is a copy. A copy is by necessity not identical because two things cannot be the same thing (see law of identity). I think your problem stems from confusing logical identity (a thing is only identical to itself) with the colloquial use of identity (a copy is identical to the original) "I" is just the concept of self perception, not some mystical thing. It is like any other thought just a function of the underlying bio-electrical state and if you copy that state, you copy the "I".
No that's just it.
You DON'T copy the "I" from a SUBJECTIVE point of view which is what I was trying to get at.
Objectively no one will tell the difference between me and a perfect replicate. Not even the clone itself. But when I die/deassebled "I" am gone.
the other one lives on but that's not me and in a case where this obviouly boils down to "will I survive my death" the answer is clearly "no" which is the point I was trying to make.
There is "no comfort" for the subjective in knowing that someone else from an objective point of view is indistinguishable from the subjective self.
Although I have no problem with the concept of not existing since that isn't some kind of "state" that I will be aware of. But the discussion on what conciousness and the feeling of I is and that there is something in our bodies that can't be copied (the self identity) is fascinating because it shows that within material there can be something that clearly can't not be explained by matter only.
|
I wish I could say that this is a question that maybe science can one day answer, but I can't comprehend how one would apply the scientific method to this problem - the main hurdle being how does one validate that another person has a conscience?
At some point in the future, we may be able to build a computer that can fully mimick and be indistinguishable from the human mind, so much so that we would be convinced that it has a conscience. But the real question is: does a "soul" occupy that machine just like how my "soul" occupies me or yours occupies you?
In a way, we're sort of bound in our body.. the only shoes we can really fit in are our own, and that makes this a problem that I'm not sure can - or should - ever be solved.
|
Edit: Accidental double post. My Razer likes to burst click even though I mean to click once. :/
|
On July 02 2013 16:33 DertoQq wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 02:32 Cynry wrote:On July 02 2013 02:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 02:13 mcc wrote:On July 02 2013 01:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 01:15 mcc wrote:On July 02 2013 01:10 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 22:16 mcc wrote:On July 01 2013 20:29 Tuczniak wrote:I wish there were some kind of soul independent on brain, but I don't think there is one Just electric impulses and chemistry... It makes me sad. Why? And I direct it to all people who said this. Because there is no hope in materialism. People want to hope. That is false. Many materialists have hope(s). Unless you mean specifically hope for life after death. But that is not prevented by materialism, although most people think it is. No I mean that hope itself is just another biological urge, completely uncontrollable in any real sense. Your "hopes" are as meaningful as the dog's urge to procreate or the pigeon's urge to eat. You can say that you have hopes but "you" (in the sense that it is used) don't exist. You are just a bundle of inevitable sensations that at some point will cease to exist and have had no more effect upon the world than any other physical occurrence, probably much less than most. Your insignificance is entirely complete down to the fact that there is no you at all. It's a trick of the light, only there is no trick because a trick requires an illusion, an illusion requires a viewer, and we have no true viewer. We have machines that react to stimuli. Self-improvement is not a choice, nor is it anything more than a nonsensical string of words. Is it better for the machine to do A than it is to do B? Who says? The machine itself? It was biologically designed to say so. There is no objectively better, and no objectively worse. The murderer has committed no outrageous act by slaying the fellow machine, he has just performed a biologically inevitable action that resulted in other biologically inevitable actions. Nothing can be done to change the inevitable, and the machines simply experience the inevitable occurring, if it could even be called experience as the machines themselves do not exist except as a series of outputs. The love you hold is not love and you do not hold it. It is a biological inevitability wrapped within a biological inevitability. Entirely without meaning or purpose. Personally, I find the utter rejection of these truths to be the ultimate evidence against the philosophical position that implies them. The fact that the materialist searches (in vain, according to his/her own beliefs) for "hope" is proof enough for me that at the deepest level, they do not wish for it to be true. The contradiction between what they claim is the logical view of reality and the emotional response to that view is quite telling. Ultimately, the materialist borrows hope from the spiritualist because the materialist has a spiritual being that yearns for recognition. Saying that it all means nothing is of course nonsense, as it means something to me. I might be materialistic and deterministic "machine", but that does not negate my autonomy. By definition, it does... I also have free will unless I am being forced, that is because I am autonomous. You just said you have free-will because you have free-will. I do not search for "hope". I have my hopes. I hope that I will not die before I am old. That is not some mystical hope, that is just biological emotion. Precisely. Biological emotion that you have absolutely no control over and are entirely incapable of changing. Most people would not call the instinctual urge to run away from a hopeless situation "hope". The hope you have is not something that is meaningful in any true sense of the word. Basically what you are saying is that emotions are more valid form of knowledge than reason ? That all those instincts that lead us to do stupid shit should be listened to, because they are the sign of spiritual being. I'm saying that the fact that your position is not only biologically untenable, but also carries with it the necessity of "deluding yourself" to be happy is a good indication that the position itself is invalid. Now please explain how religion is not just another delusion ? Also, one may not control the nature of emotions (anger is anger etc), but a lot can be achieved about what trigger said emotions. Religion could be delusion... sure. So what? There is no evidence to say that it is and some evidence to say that it isn't (though let's not get into that discussion). The whole point of determinism is that nothing whatsoever can be "achieved" about triggers or anything at all. What will occur will occur regardless of any non-existent "action" being taken by "actors" that aren't there. Efforts to avoid/embrace a specific turn of events are themselves predetermined, as is their eventual (and inevitable) efficacy. The face a coin will land on is determined at the moment you flip it, I think anyone can agree on that. Does it make it useless to flip a coin when you want to decide something ? Does it make it less random ? no. It doesn't change anything at all. This can be applied with your entire life or the universe, but it still doesn't change anything. "Determinism" is a kind of information that have no concrete effect.
Of course it makes it less random, it isn't random at all. Just because you are incapable to predict if the coin will land heads or tails doesn't mean it's random. If it's determined how the coin will land when you flip it (because of the initial state of the coin, the hand, the force used, the current atmosphere etc), it's not random, there's a pattern to it. You can pretend that it is random, and use the illusion of randomness to make decisions for you, but it's still not random.
It doesn't have to have a concrete effect, it's a philosophical concept. Either everything was decided more or less at the moment of big bang, or it wasn't. Either it's predetermined what I will do tommorrow at 3PM, or it isn't. We can't prove it and it's going to happen regardless, so it doesn't have any concrete effect. Then again, most philosophical questions do not.
|
As a neuroscience student I must say that what is fascinating about the brain is how it gives rise to a mind.
Yes the mind is all chemicals and electricity. Located more specifically in the cortex (little bit more specific at least) and we know the brain is the where the mind is because we can play with it. Look at split brain patient, each half has a 'mind' of its own, with its personal wants and repulsions.
You can try to look for more vast answers, as have many before, but ultimately, when you look at a surgeon tug and probe in the brain and the person reacting accordingly, and when you see the brain pulsate and all the network of blood flow, you understand with absolute conviction that there is no ghost in the box.
|
On July 02 2013 16:50 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 16:33 DertoQq wrote:On July 02 2013 02:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 02:32 Cynry wrote:On July 02 2013 02:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 02:13 mcc wrote:On July 02 2013 01:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 01:15 mcc wrote:On July 02 2013 01:10 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 22:16 mcc wrote:
[quote]
Why?
And I direct it to all people who said this. Because there is no hope in materialism. People want to hope. That is false. Many materialists have hope(s). Unless you mean specifically hope for life after death. But that is not prevented by materialism, although most people think it is. No I mean that hope itself is just another biological urge, completely uncontrollable in any real sense. Your "hopes" are as meaningful as the dog's urge to procreate or the pigeon's urge to eat. You can say that you have hopes but "you" (in the sense that it is used) don't exist. You are just a bundle of inevitable sensations that at some point will cease to exist and have had no more effect upon the world than any other physical occurrence, probably much less than most. Your insignificance is entirely complete down to the fact that there is no you at all. It's a trick of the light, only there is no trick because a trick requires an illusion, an illusion requires a viewer, and we have no true viewer. We have machines that react to stimuli. Self-improvement is not a choice, nor is it anything more than a nonsensical string of words. Is it better for the machine to do A than it is to do B? Who says? The machine itself? It was biologically designed to say so. There is no objectively better, and no objectively worse. The murderer has committed no outrageous act by slaying the fellow machine, he has just performed a biologically inevitable action that resulted in other biologically inevitable actions. Nothing can be done to change the inevitable, and the machines simply experience the inevitable occurring, if it could even be called experience as the machines themselves do not exist except as a series of outputs. The love you hold is not love and you do not hold it. It is a biological inevitability wrapped within a biological inevitability. Entirely without meaning or purpose. Personally, I find the utter rejection of these truths to be the ultimate evidence against the philosophical position that implies them. The fact that the materialist searches (in vain, according to his/her own beliefs) for "hope" is proof enough for me that at the deepest level, they do not wish for it to be true. The contradiction between what they claim is the logical view of reality and the emotional response to that view is quite telling. Ultimately, the materialist borrows hope from the spiritualist because the materialist has a spiritual being that yearns for recognition. Saying that it all means nothing is of course nonsense, as it means something to me. I might be materialistic and deterministic "machine", but that does not negate my autonomy. By definition, it does... I also have free will unless I am being forced, that is because I am autonomous. You just said you have free-will because you have free-will. I do not search for "hope". I have my hopes. I hope that I will not die before I am old. That is not some mystical hope, that is just biological emotion. Precisely. Biological emotion that you have absolutely no control over and are entirely incapable of changing. Most people would not call the instinctual urge to run away from a hopeless situation "hope". The hope you have is not something that is meaningful in any true sense of the word. Basically what you are saying is that emotions are more valid form of knowledge than reason ? That all those instincts that lead us to do stupid shit should be listened to, because they are the sign of spiritual being. I'm saying that the fact that your position is not only biologically untenable, but also carries with it the necessity of "deluding yourself" to be happy is a good indication that the position itself is invalid. Now please explain how religion is not just another delusion ? Also, one may not control the nature of emotions (anger is anger etc), but a lot can be achieved about what trigger said emotions. Religion could be delusion... sure. So what? There is no evidence to say that it is and some evidence to say that it isn't (though let's not get into that discussion). The whole point of determinism is that nothing whatsoever can be "achieved" about triggers or anything at all. What will occur will occur regardless of any non-existent "action" being taken by "actors" that aren't there. Efforts to avoid/embrace a specific turn of events are themselves predetermined, as is their eventual (and inevitable) efficacy. The face a coin will land on is determined at the moment you flip it, I think anyone can agree on that. Does it make it useless to flip a coin when you want to decide something ? Does it make it less random ? no. It doesn't change anything at all. This can be applied with your entire life or the universe, but it still doesn't change anything. "Determinism" is a kind of information that have no concrete effect. Of course it makes it less random, it isn't random at all. Just because you are incapable to predict if the coin will land heads or tails doesn't mean it's random. If it's determined how the coin will land when you flip it (because of the initial state of the coin, the hand, the force used, the current atmosphere etc), it's not random, there's a pattern to it. You can pretend that it is random, and use the illusion of randomness to make decisions for you, but it's still not random. It doesn't have to have a concrete effect, it's a philosophical concept. Either everything was decided more or less at the moment of big bang, or it wasn't. Either it's predetermined what I will do tommorrow at 3PM, or it isn't. We can't prove it and it's going to happen regardless, so it doesn't have any concrete effect. Then again, most philosophical questions do not.
Random is a weird concept that doesn't mean much. I was using it in the sense of pseudo-randomness.
Anyway, I was responding to people saying stuff like "Determinism make your life meaningless etc..". I was simply noting that it doesn't matter if you think flipping a coin is determined or not, it is still useful to flip a coin and it shouldn't affect your life whatsoever (ie: you're not losing any "meaning" of your life).
|
This thread is so full of college freshmen thinking they OWN science, it makes me nauseous.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 02 2013 17:12 iNbluE wrote:
This thread is so full of college freshmen thinking they OWN science, it makes me nauseous.
Physics has a tendency to be a general all-around buzzkill, so it's more interesting to ignore it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
