WWLabRat

I like to think of God as a type of platform; it is what everything is in the image of to co-exist. An Operating System like Windows; everything therein must obey the laws of what it can operate. It's all windows. Therefore, we are all Gods, but there is, or was a greater God before us; the system itself. You can imagine this God as a type of life-force, but you wouldn't call it God, you would call it life or living. You should respect life more so than you should define life, it has many important associations that make it great and therefore it has great user-potential.

If everything is in the image of God, then why do we not all look the exact same? Think the same way? Do the exact same things? And if we are all gods, as you say, why am I not able to create an universe in six days and take the seventh one off?

If this is the type of god that's out there, then by murdering we are able to kill god. Does that really make sense? An all powerful being creates others like it but with the ability to be put down like Old Yeller? The god you describe doesn't seem very logical. Don't get me wrong, each is entitled to their own perceptions of the possibility of a deity and the personification of said deity, but for a being that would be able to create something as immense and deep as the universe and make it so that we already would know how to kill it... I don't know where I'm going with this other than to say it doesn't make any sense.

I think it is best left to the individual to define his / her belief system.

 

Each person has his / her own experience profile in life and views God differently.

 

If I say "God exists is false" , then if the statement is true, God does not exist and if God exists the statement is false. (circular reference).

 

It is difficult to make an assertion without proper knowledge.

 

It is better to live and learn and arrive at our own conclusions.

 

Which is worse an atheist or a fanatic?

 

That is a matter of debate.

 

 

 

- I agree

-If more people would think this way the world may be better off.

-Um.. Isn't this the whole debate? People can't decide whether or not a deity exists due to a lack of physical data...

-As with anything worth knowing.

-This is true.

-The polar extremes of either can be just as damaging, so I think it's a bit subjective.

RE Your Brains by Jonathan Coulton

Space has no time. only the physical objects within the space seem to age. space does not age, it just changes. It has always been there, and always will be. Thats the thing humans will never be able to comprehend, there is no creator, because you cant create something that has no beginning or end, just like it has no boundaries, it will be endless.

Sorry, I missed this post when I replied earlier...

Without time, change couldn't happen. Nothing happens instantaneously. It has to occur in a progression of frames, though those frames may start to be smaller and smaller cuts of time.

How can something exist if it is non-existent? Just the fact that it is there would mean that it exists and ceases non-existence.

 

Look guy, I mention philosophy in the very post that you quote, philosophy is not a science.

 

In my last post I also point out that the critiques are on the very wiki page that iNow linked.

 

 

I wouldn't put instinctive reactions at the head of list of free will attributes, if you feel that that is a make-or-break criteria then perhaps you should look into the study. I certainly don't correlate flicking my wrist with any meaningful free will type decision, if you do then good for you.

"Look guy"?! This may be an internet forum, but you can still show some respect, even if you may not like me as a person.

Also, philosophy begat science. It's safe to say that science is there to provide logical and orderly steps that ideas, thought up under the umbrella of philosophy, should follow to validate. You said that the wiki article mentions many different points that could be attacked with the Libet experiments yet you have consistently failed to mention if any, none, or all of those are critiques are ones which you share. That I know of, no one on this forum is psychic and able to know what your stance is without you making it know. Simply stating that it's provided in the link doesn't add to the conversation, only adds to the post count and the time wasted to check the thread for updates.

I never said that it was a make or break, but reactions still are done on the conscious level.

Technical point: m refers to mass, and mass is not weight. You can't weigh pressure, either, not does it have a mass. Objects have mass, with a few rare exceptions like photons.

 

Broader point: Einstein said E=mc² under the condition that the particle is at rest. To apply the equation to a moving body ignores this and requires a redefinition of mass. If one extends Einstein's equation to moving bodies, one finds that E² = m²c⁴ +p²c²

 

Energy x acceleration=Force is wrong. The units don't match up.

 

 

While pressure itself doesn't have weight, it is matter (which does have both mass and weight) compressed into a container (such as an O2 tank). After removing the weight of the container, I can understand how it can be believed that that the pressure has weight, albeit indirectly. The weight of it would be the total combined weight of the molecular Oxygen.

Another technical point though would be "wind energy". Isn't the wind the movement of molecules of air? And seeing that air has a measurable weight and mass, the equation in the original post of "Energy x acceleration=Force" would still need to be F=ma.

But within a deterministic world, 100% of the time, given a choice, you will always make the exact same one. It states that the only way the world could possibly be is that things happen the exact same way that they did; the world would not exist as any other possible reality. Now, from someone in the future looking to the past, this looks apparent. In order for them to look back from their present and see things when compared to their existence, there was only one way that it could progress. The Choices that were made weren't choices as they could see, they had to happen that specific way for the world to progress in the way that it did for him to be able to look back on it the same way.

Conversely, from the present, or the past, looking forward, there are an infinite number of possibilities of what the world could be like in the time of that future observer. Each splice of time gives a chance for a change in what is being done. Of the hundreds of things you say and do each moment, something could change that could alter what happens down the line. Time, in this view, isn't so much a line as it is a series of vectors with the degree of the angle indicating to what degree that choice, that moment, impacts the next series. If I had time right now, I would find or make an image to show what I mean.

So, in essence, a deterministic world is only possible when looking to the past. The only thing that can be certain, provided a one way flow of time, is that the past happened the way it did and from our current frame, there's no other possible choice that someone could have made to make the world appear the way it does now.

 

Was there an argument to poison?

 

I have mentioned general problems with neuroscience, I really didn't think it necessary to go further since they are on the wiki page that you linked and I presumed that you'd read it. Secondly I don't find any studies convincing enough to even warrant debunking in the first place, even the broadest definition of free-will is not going to include instinctive reactions.

Clearly you believe that there was an argument, else you wouldn't have stated anything in opposition.

The problem that you mentioned with neuroscience is "that most of the time it's not really science, or at least not pure science." In what way is neuroscience not a pure science? Science is the process by which we seek factual and practical knowledge. You mention a specific study, but refuse to point out what it is that you find wrong with it? To me, it seems like you haven't bothered to do any research on the matter. Every study, no matter how inconsequential it may seem is worth debunking. If Libet's study doesn't "even warrant debunking in the first place", then why mention it in your previous post?

How does free will not include instinctive reactions? If a person's natural instinct is to survive and keep from harm, what causes people to smoke, shoot guns, drink alcohol, drive cars, all of which are dangerous things to do, but everyday there's people doing each of these, sometimes all of them in one day. Granted I'm guilty of doing each of these, never all at the same time, but done nevertheless. It a conscious decision on my part to do any of these. Could I quit smoking tobacco? Yeah, and have before, but I find it calming. Could I quit drinking alcohol? Again, I could, but I do it to prevent me from being nervous when talking to females I'm interested in. I could quit driving, but that would require that I move closer to work so that I'm not hiking 40 miles to and from work everyday. And finally, I could easily stop using firearms, but it helps me to remember my time in the military and the simplicity of it when compared to my civilian life (another discussion for some other time).

Everyone has free will to make choices for themselves. There's not a shred of evidence that exists to show otherwise: when people don't do things that they're supposed to, when someone breaks the law, when you go to vote... They are all choices that are made by you, not for you. Even slaves, though told what they had to do each day still had the choice of whether or not to overthrow the master or to continue to do their bidding, lest the slave receive punishment.

In regards to Phi's post, phrasing is a necessity among boards like this. Although we may not know the extent of your background within certain fields, we are all here to learn and to share our knowledge. Asking questions is essential to furthering our own knowledge and to get others to further theirs.

In regards to your OP, Matt, you said that "If what i have been reading has any truth...". Could you please provide us with the materials you have been reading? If they are published books, the Title and Author should be sufficient; if a web page, a link would be helpful; or if it is from a conversation you and a friend were having over a pint, then say so. Also, don't think that Phi's post was meant to be insulting, I'm sure it wasn't. It can just be a bit redundant to state "It's just a theory" when posting in speculations. After all, that's what the reason why we have a Speculations section.

Also, what was it about the way they built the pyramids? Do you mean the physical structure? The shape? The materials used? What about the way it was built indicates, to yourself and other theorists on the matter, that this was used to harness the power of electricity?

In regards to the lack of soot, is it possible that the paintings were done during the construction? Or a series of mirrors that were then removed prior to sealing it? Or, a stretch may it be, is it possible that they were done in complete darkness?

Furthermore, the ancient Egyptians, as far as I know, didn't have the tools or technology to harness steam, which would have been needed in order to power a generator like Tesla's (wiki link). If they did, surely a civilization advanced enough to use electricity would also seek to put their knowledge to papyrus so that others could know what they know.

Iris by The Goo Goo Dolls

The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air by Jazzy Jeff & the Fresh Prince

The problem with neuroscience is that most of the time it's not really science, or at least not pure science. There is always going to be a subjective/philosophical element and our preconceived ideas are going to influence the outcomes. The Benjamin Libet experiments for one have a number of points that can be attacked and I don't see someone coming up with a conclusive answer to something as ill defined as free will, ever .

With genuine kindness, I encourage you to make a correction in your current thinking, then.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

 

 

Now, let's look again briefly at Villain's comment where, instead of addressing anything specific about any of the studies or work done, he broadly biases toward the negative the entire field of neuroscience (using adjectives to influence how people might perceive it).

 

The problem with neuroscience is that most of the time it's not really science, or at least not pure science.

 

So, I share again... If he has a specific criticism to make of a specific study, then he should make it, but poisoning the well is a logical fallacy and not an acceptable form of argument.

 

Like Pears said, I'm not so sure that this could be classified as "poisoning the well". Sure, at first glance the snip that you quoted would indicate the poison, but he did go on to state a study. Rather than state that it's poisoning the well, it would be better to just state that Villain needs to cite specific points within the study that support the stance.

EDIT:

In addition to this, based on the RationalWiki link you provided, it seems that the Poisoning the Well fallacy would be more appropriate in a debate where a person's character is being called into question.

I was down on Bourbon St in New Orleans for Mardi Gras back in 2007... There's a lot of things that are missing from this picture that would complete the "party animal" persona. For example, it's missing hard liquors, torn/holey clothes, spilled drink stains, etc.

Yeah, the research is showing that we make up our minds before we are consciously aware, no argument there. But this could simply be that our subconscious mind is already anticipating the need to make a decision before the choices become apparent. Not sure that this would really point to a lack of free will, just advanced processing of a part of the mind that we don't yet *fully* understand.

I don't think it should be very hard to define free will. If an animals' most basic instinct is survival, then free will is what allows us to consciously choose the option that is counter-intuitive to our very survival.

 

You know you're a geek when you've assembled your geek code....

 

--- BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK ---

GO d- s+:+ a++ C++ L+++ P+++ L++ E- W++ N+ o K w O M V PS+++ PE+ Y+ PGP+ t+ 5 X++ R+ tv b+ DI++ D+ G+ e+ h-- r++ z++

--- END GEEK CODE BLOCK ---

 

*Reads post and instantly bookmarks for later use*

The Elements by Tom Lehrer

 

You know you are a geek when you see the characters on the Big Bang Theory having that debate and want to point out why one of them is wrong.

You know you're a geek when you start singing the Elements song with Sheldon.

Party animal: anyone whose face lights up at the mention of tequila...

I'm not sure I would describe myself as a party animal...

Free Will is an illusion. It does not exist. We are given liberty of ourselves, and ourselves are a finite organism with limited configurations; I can only use my arms the way that they were meant to be used; just because I have the choice between using any of my body parts does not mean I have free will, I have dominion of a finite system. We can only ever use ourselves were confined to; we may be able to take ourselves to particular activities but we can only interact with them in a number of ways. I guess free will is the illusion of having so much difference, and being able to choose between doing many different things, but only what yourselves are confined to. Freedom in limited space. I suppose it comes down to what you mean when you say "will".

I have to argue against this. Free will isn't an illusion, just ill defined. You say that we have freedom in a confined space, but I say that you are only confined to a space that you let yourself stay in. It's very much possible to change your circumstances and work your way out of that space. Even someone who paints themselves into a corner isn't confined. All they need to do is wait for what has already been painted to dry. Once that's done they can paint the remainder of the floor. Staying confined is just as much a choice as getting out of it. The only limitations we have are the ones we impose upon ourselves. That's not to say that when you break the rules and customs of a society that there won't be consequences, but you can really do anything you desire.

I'm not arguing the credibility of the bible here or anything like that, but you've taken those quotes out of context... If you read a few verses before the one you quoted from Kings, it shows that what's being said is actually from a spirit saying that he will "possess" a prophet and make him lie so that people will doubt the word of god. It's not god saying that he will make his prophets lie. And the verse from Ezekiel is actually saying that he will punish prophets of his who lie. And further that the punishment given will be relative in severity when compared to the degree which the prophet has erred.

As I've stated before, granted in other threads debating verses in the bible, the translation used is of importance. Some translations are more accurate than others. It's no wonder that many people misrepresent portions of the bible. I'm not trying to push for or against it, just stating that if someone is going to quote, then they need to take multiple sources.

Also, the bible wasn't written by God or the prophets. It was written down after being passed down by generations by word of mouth.

You know you're a geek when you have a serious debate on the implausibility of the super powers of comic book heroes.

AtomicMaster is right. The definition for Computer Science is objective, not subjective. And on top of that, the definition becomes more narrow the more specialized the field within Computer Science.

Enthalpy, please explain how exactly Computer Science is a paradox... It seems to me that science, being a logical series of steps arranged in such a way to gather data, is expressed clearly within computers. As for "military music", I fail to see how either of those terms are exclusive. Military music exists in many forms, originally the beat of a drum to help large armies keep in step when marching in rank and file, bugle calls that would signal orders from the CO, and celebratory music used for military ceremonies.

 

The short answer is that, because a positive number of a negative amount equals a negative amount, such as (positive) three –10's equals –30, then a negative number of negative amounts must equal the opposite — a positive number — such as negative three –10's equals +30.

 

Another way of looking at it goes like this —

 

8 × 8 = 64

 

which is

 

(10 – 2) × (10 – 2)

 

which is

 

10 × 10 + 10 × –2 + –2 × 10 + –2 × –2

 

which is

 

100 + –20 + –20 + 4

 

which is

 

100 – 20 – 20 + 4

 

which is

 

64

 

(and not 100 – 20 – 20 – 4 which is 56)

 

 

 

You can do the same for 2 × 2 as being (10 – 8) × (10 – 8) and get the answer of 4.

 

 

 

I hope that one or both of these explanations helps.

This seems a bit more complicated than other explanations. This is especially because most people don't really use the distributive property of multiplication without it being algebraic.

What helped me to remember this was that when multiplying two numbers with the same direction on a number line you treat the problem when dealing with absolute values.

EX:

(-3)*(-3) = |-3| * |-3| = |3| * |3| = 3*3

Still Alive by GLaDOS & Jonathan Coulton