WWLabRat

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.

*Reads post and instantly bookmarks for later use*

The Elements by Tom Lehrer

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

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

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.

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

Eric Whitacre - Lux Aurumque

Was there something before the Big Bang? My friend, you have just asked the million dollar question for which no one has the answer. Any theory that we currently have is speculation at best. Other than that, we don't have much more than the thoughts religion would provide. Technically there couldn't be a point between nothing-ness and creation. Creation either is or is not. There's not exactly room for middle ground.

Epic Rap Battles of History - Sarah Palin vs Lady GaGa

I don't think I see how I am a minimalist when it comes to the mind... Granted I do use only those bits of information that are actually relevant instead of your "maximalist" approach of using all data regardless of whether or not it is essential to our definition. And I'm saying that no matter how vast our knowledge may be, there's always room for error, whether from a computer or a brain. Nothing is 100% probable. At that point it would no longer be probable and would then be absolute. But, since there's always a chance of something occurring that wasn't predicted, then you can't have 100% predictability. I also fail to see how narrowing down possibilities in a guessing game is a fallacy. All I have done is broken down what the mind naturally does without you realizing it. When some one says guess a number, even before they give a range, you are already arranging the numbers you know into categories (even/odd, divisible by..., fractions, imaginary numbers, etc). When the range is set, you can narrow those categories down. Now, instead of an infinite string of numbers, it now becomes part of a finite group (in this case 1-10). Most people will guess a number between 3 and 7 because it's the median and they are more likely to select the number or at least get close to it. But don't forget that between each number (between 3 and 4 or 5 and 6, etc) there is an infinite number of decimals that could follow. To be able to predict in infinites is an improbability. I think you need to check your definitions a bit... Intelligence is a measure of someone's ability to comprehend, to understand, not a measure of what they know. You do understand that the mind is not a physical manifestation and from there can not be measured. This inherently makes it subjective, not objective. Since it's subjective, then the strict application of rules is pointless. We may have 10 billion neurons, but each neuron individually is useless. It is only by networking with other neurons that they become useful at all. And our cells don't need charts and graphs to make sense of data. Charts and graphs are there to organize data into an easily understandable medium. Plus, individual cells aren't conscious, else we would be aware of every single cell in our bodies and would be in constant pain any time a cell dies off. Just imagine constant pain as your layers of skin slough off on a daily basis... And there's plenty of need for our brains to visualize data. Think about how people write out lists when trying to weigh pros and cons of different decisions. Not sure what the Theory of Everything is doing in your argument... He has already answered your question. Just because he didn't answer the way you want doesn't mean that he hasn't answered at all.

Your deterministic look at things is completely ignorant of the way the world is around you. Everything has a level of chance to it. Even the most repeated tests, no matter how standard still have a deviation. If there were no such deviation, there would be no need for one to graph things on a scatter plot. Hell, it wouldn't even be able to form a line if you were to graph data. If your deterministic view of the world were true, all data would be represented as a single point on a coordinate plane. For something to be completely and perfectly predictable, there could be no chance that it would do anything other than what was already predicted. Say, for example, that you are running a series of pH tests on a 7.00 buffer. That buffer has a known pH of 7. You could test that buffer on different models of meters and still come up with a pH of 7. However there's still always, no matter how high quality that buffer may be, at least a 0.00000000001% chance that it will deviate. No matter how infinitesimally small a chance is, it's still a chance and still leaves room for error that could not be present in a deterministic world. Going back to the 1 through 10 scenario I mentioned, no computer, or person for that matter, could predict whether or not I would lie and from there what the number may be. It could narrow down a bit based on whether or not it is even, odd, or what it's divisible by, but until I actually say what it is, there's always a margin of error. How are brains not able to measure data? And even still, if they weren't, how would this translate to not being distinguishable from action? Even someone who is unconscious can still perform action. Usually these are referred to as reflexes. Sometimes they are correct in causing one to move away from harm (such as a tennis ball being thrown directly at the person and said person dodging) or incorrect in causing the person to move directly in the path of danger (person moves towards ball). And by the Law of Infinite Probability, there is a chance, albeit astronomically slim, but a chance all the same, that a second racket could "appear" to be able to hit both balls simultaneously. However for this to be possible, all the matter that would make up said secondary racket would have to come together at the same time and same place in the correct structure in order for us to see it, feel it, and for the ball to be repelled by it. It would be incredible for the matter to "appear" there, it would be something that much more amazing for it to be able to hold its form long enough to cause an observable effect.

To say that there is no "free will" is also to say that I don't have any choices that I make, ever. It is a completely deterministic way to look at things. That I can tell it would take a greater stretch to see the world as deterministic than it would be to say that we each determine what our place in life is. Also, where do you get that there is a consensus on the world being predetermined? Without getting too much into religion, to say that everything is the way it is because there was no other way that it could happen is almost impossible. Think about every single thing that is done on a daily basis. Think of every choice that is made. Do I get out of bed or stay in it? Do I brush my teeth after I shower or before? Bacon and eggs or toast to go? Take the interstate or back roads? Every single thing that allows for a choice to be made between a minimum of two things is proof that free will exists. If even one choice is made different, a deterministic world could not exist. As far as something from nothing, anything with emergent properties denies this. going down to one of the most basic things that shows obvious evidence of this: the cell. On it's own, the cell is nothing more than the organized structure of various chemicals bonded together in a recognizable pattern. However of this structure we get the most basic unit of what is known as life. The same thing could be said of the mind/soul. That and consciousness are emergent properties that as far as we can tell so far is only existent among animals. Also, I'm not sure I agree with you that nature is inherently efficient. There are plenty of things that would indicate otherwise. If that were the case, it's doubtful that there would be any life larger than single celled organisms. In multi-cellular organisms more energy is needed to be able to keep "feeding" the individual cells. Cells also have to become specialized and only express certain parts of their genetic code. An easy example would be the human body. We have cells in our eyes that take in light reflected off surfaces so that we see where we're going so that we can catch our prey. We have lungs to be able to take in air and process the Oxygen so that it can be transported by our blood cells to the muscle cells. The energy that has already been stored in our bodies is consumed so that we can run after the prey. Once the prey has been caught, we must eat it. This involves the entirety of the digestion system. Eventually, once that's broken down, it has to be excreted as waste from our bowels or through sweat glands. I think it's safe to say that being a single cell would make that a lot easier. Chemicals could be processed directly instead of being broken down by acids in our stomachs. And about your next to last line there on the soul... In order for that to be true you would then have to be stating that those with mental deficiencies have no mind/soul. And how is nothing in nature random/chaotic? Sure things may have chances that they will go one way or the other, but that doesn't mean that there isn't some chaos. Even breaking it down to the simple "I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10" there's still some randomness to it as you don't know it's outcome. It could, in all actuality come down to more than 10 possible solutions. I could either have thought of a number outside the range I stated or I could outright lie about whether or not you guessed the correct number. It wouldn't be known to you, or anyone for that matter, until I actually said it. Think of Schroedinger's Cat. Whether it's dead or alive is unknowable, and therefore random, until it is actually observed.

If the teachers are teaching bias and blame moves to the parents for not complaining to the school system it would lead to a cyclical argument of who the blame goes to from there. From the parents it would then shift to the student because they could research the topics on their own. Having no one of higher knowledge to really guide them in their learning it would then shift back to the schools. Really, it's an all around failure to address the topic, imagined or not, as a whole. And even then, it's not just science that experiences this same apathy for a complete education. Topics like History and English are just as susceptible to this ignorance as science is. In history, students are only being taught a focus of how events effected the United States (at least in America that's how it is, I can't speak for the Europe). In English, after middle school, students really only focus on the books and short stories that are written, not on the language itself. After I realized this in high school, I started attending summer school of my own will because the teacher actually taught the English language, not the books written in it. Unfortunately, the blame game must continue because it's not just the teachers/parents/students/school system; it's also the curriculum the teachers are made to teach, the books they are told to teach from, and the individuals who write those books. But this blame could go on and on, but being a minor post in a forum doesn't give me the voice or authority to address these issues. And we have gotten off topic... Sorry...

The problem is not that everyone isn't receiving basic science education, EdEarl. The problem is that what they are being taught is incomplete at best, incorrect at worst. An easy and ever prevalent indication of this is in middle school education when you are first learning the physics of motion. All of this is being taught with a complete disregard to opposing forces, without including gravitational forces, etc. I know that it's still elementary education, but that's also the problem. They are being taught incomplete information from the start which only furthers the students' ignorance as time goes on. As this ignorance continues, on into the university level, they are suddenly surprised when formulas and other information they thought to be true now no longer works. If you need another example of this, in elementary biology classes they are taught that ear lobes are genetically inherited when that isn't the case. Or that identical twins are completely identical, when in reality they are not. Rather than push for a more gender equal science education, I'd strive for the education that they are being taught to be a bit more complete. It is up to the individuals, male and female alike, in science to then decide for themselves whether they want to further their knowledge and potentially increase the knowledge of others or to let someone else handle it. I don't see how there is any gender inequality in the field of science. Most people only relate scientists to research when in fact there are so many other fields that use science than just that. There are those, for instance, that are in my line of work (wastewater treatment) who run the laboratories and the treatment plants. My manager is female. I may run the lab during the week, but she still runs the laboratory Monday mornings to check the samples collected over the weekend. Granted it is part engineering, but it's mostly a scientific field. There's also doctors, nurses, psychologists/psychiatrists, forensic officers, research and development for companies, etc. So, again I see the problem as being who's deciding what the problem is. Without a complete look at what types of scientific work there is, you're bound to miss what type of people are doing it.