Page 15 of 48

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 2:52 pm
by Fathom
AbdulRahman wrote:
Fathom wrote:1. You simply failed to logically understand my analogy. Either that, or you are avoiding it because you cannot argue with it. My hunter sees 3 X the lion when mathematically there are only 2. Both are supposedly true. So once again, answer the question:


A lion is defined as 4 legs, 2 eyes, etc. therefore, there are only 2 lions. Size and weight is not the part of a lion definition.

If one has to compute how much strength one need to fight one small and one big lion then one can do that too.
Don’t be stupid. Show me where is the flaw in my logic on Fee Will without diverting the discussion.


The quote of you in bold type above illustrates no less than 3 logical fallacies known as red herrings. Red herrings are known as a flaw in reasoning and logical discourse. Further information is below:

A "red herring" is an answer, given in reply to a questioner, that goes beyond an innocent logical irrelevance. A "red herring" is a deliberate attempt to divert a process of enquiry by changing the subject.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

The reason your response has been identified as red herrings is because:

a) There was no discussion relevant to how much strength one need to fight one small and one big lion.

b) The insult of don't be stupid is known as an argumentum ad hominem attack, an effort to attack me personally in an effort to divert attention away from the subject.

c) Your reply of Show me where is the flaw in my logic on Fee Will is another red herring, as it attempts to divert the subject matter away from the question I asked.


I asked the question of "How can both be true," and you have not answered it. Instead, you have failed to maintain a line of logical thought and reasoning, and have crashed and burned.

The question remains unanswered.



AbdulRahman wrote:
FAthom wrote:2. Can you conclusively prove that there ever was an initial condition/origin of existence?

I assume you mean existence of big-bang.


Wrong. Since you are such a believer in cause and effect, then obviously before the proposed "Big Bang" effect occured there had to pre-exist a cause.

What was it?

AbdulRahman wrote:Nothing is 100% guaranteed in science.


Since "nothing is guaranteed in science" as you claim, then how can you claim that any single thing is true in science? If "nothing is guarenteed," then no single thing can logically and mathematically be concluded as being true.

Your comment contradicts the very thing you claim to believe in, and leaves you in logical reasoning error.

Would you like to re-phrase your comment?

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 6:17 pm
by The Cat
AbdulRahman wrote: What you call “spontaneous” idea/thought popping up in your brain is not instantaneous at all.
It takes very small but finite amount of time. Whether the idea/thought is triggered/invoked from the lowest layer of limbic system, or from the part of the body (spinal cord) that is participate to generate reflexive reactions, or from the subconscious mind or from fully conscious mind, or all of them combined, regardless, these are the result of direct or indirect processing and electrochemical action. This definitely takes very small amount of time but does take time. For example, subconscious mind is about 800 times faster than conscious mind.

These actions/reactions aren't deciding anything. There's no Free Will involved in the world of options or contingency. It stems from an -original- action once the options (static) are left over in the course of acting. Free Will is instantaneous. It can only exist in the present, not in the past-future equation as you do. It's almost synonymous with conscience if considered in its globality. It has been found in bacterias and Fruit flies as well. See also:

Reasonable Free Will (many links), by David Hodgson.
Main entrance: http://users.tpg.com.au/raeda/
A Plain Person Free Will (same author)
http://users.tpg.com.au/raeda/website/plain.htm

AbdulRahman wrote: a) Feeling of love at the sight of a loved one is not instaneous.
b) Feeling of compassion at the sight of a victim is not instantaneous.
c) Impulse, urge, desire, thought to materialized and then action to jump into a lake to save a drowning child takes small amount of time from the moment the person's mind register the even. Impulsive jump in to the lake, obviously don't have to come from the conscious mind but could come from the subconscious or may be even lower layer of mind/body electro-chemical action/reaction.

None of these are instantaneous. Save your face. Don’t challenge that. Don’t let others know the extent of your brain damaged by the faith on supernatural things.

Fathom added the Red herring and Ignorantio elenchi to my observation that your arguments are solely based on Non Sequitur, Ad Hominem and Strawman, we now shall add False Dilemma, Naturalistic fallacy, Argument from repetition, Fallacy of the single cause, Argument from authority, Wrong direction, Cherry Picking and Slippery Slope. Next?

That's because your monolithic view (your brand of monotheism) doesn't allow you to see anything beyond your own sacred book, your own catechism, your Koran of so-called scientific certitude. Everything must fit your dogma or becomes heretic, anathema. Again see how theistic your view truly is:

Martin Luther (The Bondage of the Will):
For if we believe it to be true, that God foreknows and foreordains all things; that He can be neither deceived nor hindered in His Prescience and Predestination; and that nothing can take place but according to His Will, (which reason herself is compelled to confess;) then, even according to the testimony of reason herself, there can he no ‘Free will’ - in man, in angel, or in any creature!

Do you realize that you aren't discussing anything, just repeating your own catechism? Your own sacred creed and that, as such, you're only trolling and spamming? So far you only came up with the same references which were debunked over and over again, yet you keep on re-posting them. There's a ghost in your own brain and you're only projecting it again and again.

Free Will might pretty well be the missing link between determinism and randomness as the expression of original emergences such as the Big Bang and life itself, through every single stage of differentiation within evolution. As such it is ever-going as the one creative, reorganizing force of the whole universe, constantly reshaping the balance between determinism and randomness. You can't stand freedom, it shakes your mental cage far too much...

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:13 pm
by The Cat
AbdulRahman wrote:
The Cat wrote:In Greek the word we translate by love has three different meanings: Eros, Philae and Agape. You are putting them in the same basket but an educated person like you should know the differences. Please point them out...

Here is why I claim your brain has malfunction with theistic ideas. Just to distract a debate you brought up Eros, Philae and Agape. I did not have to discreminate between Eros, Philae and Agape because my argument is “INDEPENDENT of category of love.

Because your argument does not admit nuances, throwing all definitions of love in the same black or white basket, it becomes categorical and dogmatic as in any bigoted mind. The physical attraction we call love (Eros), or falling in love, is totally different from the notion of loving one another (Agape) because, through empathy, we perceive the other as an extension of ourself.

If I speak without love, I am no more than a gong booming or a cymbal clashing (1Cor.13.1)

Now that's what you sound like, a gong. You propound some sort of creed based on your own standard of right and wrong. Those you label as 'baby-atheist' being not so different from what the devout Wannabe say of the cultural Muslims. Just another bigoted, selfish, authoritarian re-mixture.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:02 pm
by Fathom
Fathom wrote:
AbdulRahman wrote:
Fathom wrote:1. You simply failed to logically understand my analogy. Either that, or you are avoiding it because you cannot argue with it. My hunter sees 3 X the lion when mathematically there are only 2. Both are supposedly true. So once again, answer the question:


A lion is defined as 4 legs, 2 eyes, etc. therefore, there are only 2 lions. Size and weight is not the part of a lion definition.

If one has to compute how much strength one need to fight one small and one big lion then one can do that too.
Don’t be stupid. Show me where is the flaw in my logic on Fee Will without diverting the discussion.


Here is a clue for you.

If the standard size of a lion concerns its weight, and the weight of a standard lion is 300 pounds, then if a lion with a weight of 600 pounds was encountered, then that 1 single over-sized lion is 2 X the standard. When you add 1 X the standard to 2 X the standard, you have 3 X the standard, despite mathematically there are only 2 lions.

Hence, 1 + 1 = 3 X the standard.

True or False?

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:42 pm
by AbdulRahman
Fathom,
In your question/description it is already said that there are 2 lions (1 lion and then anothere lion came). Therefore, there are two lions not 3 lions. Period.

Your alternative answer 1 lion + 1 lion = 3 lions is false.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:56 pm
by AbdulRahman
The Cat wrote:Because your argument does not admit nuances, throwing all definitions of love in the same black or white basket, it becomes categorical and dogmatic as in any bigoted mind. The physical attraction we call love (Eros), or falling in love, is totally different from the notion of loving one another (Agape) because, through empathy, we perceive the other as an extension of ourself.



The Cat,

Of course they are different. I did not say there are not different. I said my statement is independent of this difference. You can come with dozens of fine differences between different kind of love but the fact still remain.

Eros, Eros1, Eros 2, Agape, AgapeX, Y, Anger, anguish, pain, surprise, compassion .....ALL FEELING,, ALL THOUGHTS are the result of electrochemical action in your body and brain., You can hammer my statement as much as you want but you won't be able to crack it.

Memorizing some greek and lation terms doesn't mean a shiit. Unless you can understand and process thoughts and logic. You flunked badly on that.

Are you denying that .....ALL FEELING,, ALL THOUGHTS are the result of electrochemical action in your body and brain. ? [unless of course you believe in ghost in the body or in the brain.

Be ashamed of yourself for beaing so stubbern. Shame, shame on you. You have no busness with the truth.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 12:03 am
by Fathom
AbdulRahman wrote:Fathom,
In your question/description it is already said that there are 2 lions. Therefore, there are two lions not 3 lions. Period.

Your alternative answer 1 lion + 1 lion = 3 lions is false.


You obviously didn't understand how 1 + 1 can = 3. In fact, 1 + 1 can equal an infinite number. Only in mathematics does 1 + 1 = 2, but not everything is linear. Some things are abstract, and do not add up to what you think they do.

Again, if the standard size of normal lions is 300 pounds, and you see a lion that is 600 pounds, then that over-sized lion is 2 X the lion standard. In math, he is but 1 lion, but in reality, he is 2 X the lion.

There's just simply more lion than the standard. No different than having two different size glasses of water. One glass will have more water. Should we think that both glasses of water are the same? Of course not. Mathematically, there are 2 glasses of water, but in reality, there is more water than 2 glasses if the smaller glass is considered the standard.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 12:56 am
by AbdulRahman
MBL,

MBL wrote:You can decide to react in the most likely way that meets your perceived self interest and that would be the expected, deterministic reaction. But, someone can decide to not serve their self interest, and that would break the last link on the deterministic chain right at it's most important part, the human reaction. Although the latter seems odd, I don't think it's impossible. When people stop perceiving themselves and their needs as the centre of the universe and instead perceive themselves as a satellite, then it could be possible.


You still left door for the confusion open.
Would you write in the ambiguous language as above if I had asked you about the existence of ghost instead of Free Will?

i am not an atheist

Then what are you? Deist? Zombie? or Believe in witchcraft?

Philosophy is the usage of reason. Philosophy created math and science.

Then apply reason, logic and science. Don't bring up Santa Clause. Don't imply ghost in the brain.
you still failed to state that "There is no Free Will whatsoever. Period."

And now you are telling me that a reflex in your knee has to do with the subconscious mind?

No.
Knee jerk reaction is of even lower level than subconscious mind.
Being able to ride bicycle without conscious effort is using subconscious mind.
Brain signalling heart to beat is lower than that of knee jerk reaction.

How do you know that? Let's see your source.

Source: Neuropsychology 101. Take a course on that.

The computing is a reflex of the stimulus, right?

Computing in the broadest sense as electron repel other electron, or Gravity pull objects together. Or transistor switch makes logic gates. Many logic gates makes CPU. All object and particles are interacting using strict laws of nature. That's what I meant by computing - in the given context.

MBL wrote:I haven't even given up God

Ah, ha, so you do have theistic mind after all.
Ah, ha, so you are one of those moron who doesn't go to church anymore. You found new age mumbo jumbo religion.

MBL wrote:
Abdul wrote:No. No Budha, no Mohammad, No Jesus, No one in the entire universe, no body, had ever had or have any free will of any sort, ever. Can you say that?

No because I do not pretend to be certain about things that are not certain, like you do. I'm not that much of a fool


I am talking about only as certain as gravity pulls objects.
Can you be that much certain?
We both alread have agreed that nothing is 100% guaranteed.

I never said free will necessarily exists and have merely said the conditions that must exist for free will to be able to exist. In order for free will to be able to exist, XYZ cionditions would have to be met.

That's why I called you baby, half-baked, immature, couldn't overcome your own cognitive dissonance yet. Haven given up on God yet.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:05 am
by The Cat
AbdulRahman wrote:ALL FEELING,, ALL THOUGHTS are the result of electrochemical action in your body and brain.

Then why are they so different from one another and sometimes so unpredictable in character? Why do pain acts as a stimuli, when it doesn't exist as an electrochemical action/reaction? Where do experiences like premonition and premeditation take place?

In fact many other factors and influences interact simultaneously at so many different levels that your reductionist argument is self-defeating and only shows, once again, how dull is your black and white world of automatons. You're looking from the wrong end of the binocular...

Choices and feelings are part of the creative intuition that assemble uniqueness, through originality in between determinism and randomness. So we are responsible of our own peculiar decisions. Everything being copyrighted in singularity.

The killer: I was predestined to commit murder.
The judge: So were you predestined to be hang.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:27 am
by AbdulRahman
The Cat wrote:
AbdulRahman wrote:ALL FEELING,, ALL THOUGHTS are the result of electrochemical action in your body and brain.

Then why are they so different from one another and sometimes so unpredictable in character? Why do pain acts as a stimuli, when it doesn't exist as an electrochemical action/reaction? Where do experiences like premonition and premeditation take place?

Thanks god, finally you are asking the right questions.
Answer: Because there are many different chemical reactions, not just one.
You must have read about near death experience as well. Have you not? Please some research on that. Read some more.
The Cat wrote:In fact many other factors and influences interact simultaneously at so many different levels that your reductionist argument is self-defeating and only shows, once again, how dull is your black and white world of automatons. You're looking from the wrong end of the binocular...

Of course, of course, there are many , many, many, many, many, factors are influencing the electrochemical activity in our body and brain. We don't even know the exact formula of all the cause and effect. But we are damn sure, "there are cause and effect and there are randomness."

"Dull"?
Who said truth has to be exciting? Truth could be dull as well. Truth could be bitter. Truth could be disappointing. Truth could be abhoric and so ....
Black and white?
Yup. Once you drill down. Put things under the microscope it boils down to Yes, or No. 1 or 0, Black and white, High or low, cold or hot..Only when your resolution is not fine enough you see the gray.
People whose mind is can process even the finest nuance will see only 1 or 0.

The Cat wrote:Choices and feelings are part of the creative intuition that assemble uniqueness, through originality in between determinism and randomness. So we are responsible of our own peculiar decisions. Everything being copyrighted in singularity.

"Creative intuition" is nothing but the logical processing occurred in the subconscious level and only the final result was passed to the conscious brain.
As, Math co-process or the Graphic cards, specialized part of the computer does all the heavy lifting much faster than CPU can do then just pass the final answer to the CPU to ALU. You can think of ALU as the conscious mind. Intuition is not aware of all the heavylifting that went behind the scene to get the answer.
The Cat wrote:The killer: I was predestined to commit murder.
The judge: So were you predestined to be hang.

Now you are getting somewhere.
Once you thoroughly understand and accept the bitter, bitter, painful truth of No Free Will then comes the fun part. More interesting questions of "Crime and Punishment".
In the absence of Free Will how to handle the question of Morality, punishment and reward, retribution, revenge, restitution, fairness and justice for a better society.
"Better" in a sense that is desirable enjoyable.

But alas, you and I are stuck in the step one..Free Will/No Free Will.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:42 am
by The Cat
The first quote wasn't mine. You're confusing (as always).
AbdulRahman wrote:
The Cat wrote:In fact many other factors and influences interact simultaneously at so many different levels that your reductionist argument is self-defeating and only shows, once again, how dull is your black and white world of automatons. You're looking from the wrong end of the binocular...

Of course, of course, there are many , many, many, many, many, factors are influencing the electrochemical activity in our body and brain. We don't even know the exact formula of all the cause and effect. But we are damn sure, "there are cause and effect and there are randomness."

The Cat wrote:Choices and feelings are part of the creative intuition that assemble uniqueness, through originality in between determinism and randomness. So we are responsible of our own peculiar decisions. Everything being copyrighted in singularity.

"Creative intuition" is nothing but the logical processing occurred in the subconscious level and only the final result was passed to the conscious brain.
As, Math co-process or the Graphic cards, specialized part of the computer does all the heavy lifting much faster than CPU can do then just pass the final answer to the CPU to ALU. You can think of ALU as the conscious mind.

The Cat wrote:The killer: I was predestined to commit murder.
The judge: So were you predestined to be hang.

In the absence of Free Will how to handle the question of Morality, punishment and reward, retribution, revenge, restitution, fairness and justice for a better society. "Better" in a sense that is desirable enjoyable. But alas, you and I are stuck in the step one..Free Will/No Free Will.

Electrochemical actions/reactions do not experience a toothache. We do.
They do not have conscience from which emerge our acts. We do...

They do not consciously experience things like we do. They aren't alive. We are, we decide and pay the price; they don't.

Free Will not only exists but could be the one original hyphen between determinism and randomness, through adaptivity.
Another thing that electrochemical actions/reactions can't perform since they do not experience... nor perceive.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:46 am
by AbdulRahman
The Cat and Others,

The most important question in life is:
"Do you want the truth or something that is comforting".

This question seems very simple and easy but it is not. It is the mother of all foundation.
Regardless of what is your answer, I hope someday you will understand the far reaching implication of this question/answer.
[Is to be happy your ultimate goal?]

If you answer the "Truth" only then answer the next question.
Which of the following values that we consider virtues, do you think is the most important one. Imprtant in a sense that it has far reaching implications. You can pick only one.
1. Do not kill
2. Do not lie
3. Do justice/be fair
4. Do not break promise
5. Be compassionate

Third important question.
We probably agree that justice and compassion both are virtues but which side would you take when they collides?
[2nd and 3rd questions are related]

Fourth:
Is the question of Free Will

Fifth:
Question of God

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 2:04 am
by AbdulRahman
The Cat,

The Cat wrote:Electrochemical actions/reactions do not experience a toothache. We do.
They do not have conscience from which emerge our acts. We do...

They do not consciously experience things like we do. They aren't alive. We are, we decide and pay the price; they don't.

Free Will not only exists but could be the one original hyphen between determinism and randomness, through adaptively.
Another thing that electrochemical actions/reactions can't perform since they do not experience...


Electrochemical actions/reactions do not experience a toothache. We do.

Agree.
An electron, an atom, a molecule, or a single chemical reaction between one or two pairs of molecules, most probably do not feel.

The cat wrote:They do not consciously experience things like we do. They aren't alive. We are, we decide and pay the price; they don't.


Alive or not is arbitrary meaningless distinction. But self-awareness is not arbitrary or meaningless.
Everything pays the price even the electron. If an electron happened to float around and come closer to another electron then it will be pushed back. As a result it might even hit a nucleus hard, very hard. That is the price electron pays. But I do agree that electron do not feel the pain.

Reason, logic, science doesn't have the answer to all questions. We do not know many things. But what we can guarantee that nothing other than reason, logic and science can explain more things and better way. Although, reason, logic and science may or may not be the ideal way to know the truth but this is the BEST way to know the truth.

The method we use is:
"Qualified, 3rd Party, Double Blind, Successive Approximation, Statistical methodology"

Just because we can't explain something doesn't mean we should jump into a conclusion.
Free Will not only exists but could be the one original hyphen between determinism and randomness.

The word "could" in your above sentence clearly shows that your desire for the existence of Free Will is pretty strong. But still it is a desire, a wish, a hope, a pray. Like children, who wish Santa Clause will bring them their favourite Christmas gift. And sometime they get it.

You can keep dreaming.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 2:16 am
by AbdulRahman
Fathom wrote:
AbdulRahman wrote:Fathom,
In your question/description it is already said that there are 2 lions. Therefore, there are two lions not 3 lions. Period.

Your alternative answer 1 lion + 1 lion = 3 lions is false.


You obviously didn't understand how 1 + 1 can = 3. In fact, 1 + 1 can equal an infinite number. Only in mathematics does 1 + 1 = 2, but not everything is linear. Some things are abstract, and do not add up to what you think they do.

Again, if the standard size of normal lions is 300 pounds, and you see a lion that is 600 pounds, then that over-sized lion is 2 X the lion standard. In math, he is but 1 lion, but in reality, he is 2 X the lion.

There's just simply more lion than the standard. No different than having two different size glasses of water. One glass will have more water. Should we think that both glasses of water are the same? Of course not. Mathematically, there are 2 glasses of water, but in reality, there is more water than 2 glasses if the smaller glass is considered the standard.


You obviously didn't understand how 1 + 1 can = 3. In fact, 1 + 1 can equal an infinite number.


Yes, I can be your papa and may be mama too, at the same time.
Yes, I "can" be the god the almighty.
Applying your logic 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Proof: Jesus + god + holy sprit = one entity; 3 = 1
Grow up , Fathom!

Use reason, logic, mathematics, rationality and science then show me how 1 lion + 1 lion = 3 lions?
Ah ha, I get it. If there is a male and a female lion and they fuuuck each other then a baby lion is born. Now you got 3 lions.
Don't be an idiot.
Don't argue just for the sake of arguing. Learn something. grow.
You flip flop between religions, you left Christianity, then left Islam. What are you believing now? Looking at your argument it looks like your new religion is "Insanity of 1 lion + 1 lion = 3 lions"

What are you smoking these days. Give me some.

I will never advise anyone to take theology before learning about reason, logic and science. it damages brain.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 2:23 am
by The Cat
AbdulRahman wrote:
The Cat wrote: They do not consciously experience things like we do. They aren't alive. We are, we decide and pay the price; they don't.

Alive or not is arbitrary meaningless distinction. But self-awareness is not arbitrary or meaningless.

Non Sequitur. Do you realize your contradiction here?

How can self-awareness be in non living thing like electrochemical reactions while that's all there is according to you?

The Cat wrote:Free Will not only exists but could be the one original hyphen between determinism and randomness.

The word "could" in your above sentence clearly shows that your desire for the existence of Free Will is pretty strong. But still it is a desire, a wish, a hope, a pray. Like children, who wish Santa Clause will bring them their favourite Christmas gift. And sometime they get it. You can keep dreaming.

Free Will in bacterias
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/s ... isenbergm/
Free Will in Fruit flies
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/vie ... uit_flies/

Now, how can we answer an automaton, merely trolling and spamming?
:trolls:
:troll:

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 2:28 am
by AbdulRahman
The Cat wrote:
AbdulRahman wrote:
The Cat wrote: They do not consciously experience things like we do. They aren't alive. We are, we decide and pay the price; they don't.

Alive or not is arbitrary meaningless distinction. But self-awareness is not arbitrary or meaningless.

Non Sequitur. Do you realize your contradiction here?

How can self-awareness be in non living thing like electrochemical reactions while that's all there is according to you?

The Cat wrote:Free Will not only exists but could be the one original hyphen between determinism and randomness.

The word "could" in your above sentence clearly shows that your desire for the existence of Free Will is pretty strong. But still it is a desire, a wish, a hope, a pray. Like children, who wish Santa Clause will bring them their favourite Christmas gift. And sometime they get it. You can keep dreaming.

Free Will in bacterias
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/s ... isenbergm/
Free Will in Fruit flies
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/vie ... uit_flies/

Now, how can we answer an automaton, merely trolling and spamming?
:trolls:
:troll:


The Cat wrote:How can self-awareness be in non living thing like electrochemical reactions while that's all there is according to you?


Because electrochemical reactions is not the only way to achieve self-awareness.
A sophisticated computer system or robots of the future can achieve self-awarenesss. When an entity can process enormious amount of data and has sensory i/o then it can achieve awareness. As a matter of fact it could be even more self-aware than we are withought the baggage of cognitive dissonance that blocking our mind.


I have seen a lot of those mumbo jumbo pseudo science of Free Will in bacteria, funny stuff.

The Cat,

Just admit it, your theistic mind still love the crib, santa, mama's nipple, and wants the shelter of some kind of supernaturality.


The idea that animals act only in response to external stimuli has long been abandoned, and it is well established that they initiate behaviour on the basis of their internal states, as we do


Even machine reacts to not only the external stimuli but also takes into account the internal factors, like memory, past programming and operating system. man, machine fly, all has this property in common.

How long did you go to church?
It must have done severe brain damage.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 2:45 am
by AbdulRahman
The Cat,
Read your two links again.
[quote='The Cat"]Free Will in bacterias
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/s ... isenbergm/
Free Will in Fruit flies
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/vie ... uit_flies/[/quote]

Abdul wrote:Even machine reacts to not only the external stimuli but also takes into account the internal factors, like memory, past programming and operating system. man, machine fly, all has this property in common.



How come you did not answer this?
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=6613&p=112118#p112107

If emergence theory and vitalism is not superstation of theistic mind then what is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 2:30 pm
by Muhammad bin Lyin
AbdulRahman wrote:MBL,

MBL wrote:You can decide to react in the most likely way that meets your perceived self interest and that would be the expected, deterministic reaction. But, someone can decide to not serve their self interest, and that would break the last link on the deterministic chain right at it's most important part, the human reaction. Although the latter seems odd, I don't think it's impossible. When people stop perceiving themselves and their needs as the centre of the universe and instead perceive themselves as a satellite, then it could be possible.


You still left door for the confusion open.
Would you write in the ambiguous language as above if I had asked you about the existence of ghost instead of Free Will?


It's only ambiguous to you because you appear to be not very well educated and have a narrow, mechanical, black and white mind. Free will is a question about Cause. Ghosts are not. The two are not related questions.

AbdulRahman wrote:
i am not an atheist

Then what are you? Deist? Zombie? or Believe in witchcraft?


I am a human being. I no longer attach labels to myself. Do I have to have a label in order to suit your narrow, mechanical perception?


AbdulRahman wrote:
Philosophy is the usage of reason. Philosophy created math and science.

Then apply reason, logic and science. Don't bring up Santa Clause. Don't imply ghost in the brain.


I didn't. YOU keep bringing that up because you THINK this is what I mean. But the truth be known, is that you have no idea what I'm talking about. It all flies over your heard. so perhaps your Quranic past has stifled your past education and you need to make up for that. Go read some Descarte of Kent. Or maybe some Emerson. Interesting stiff. ((winkee winkee)). It helps one develop a stronger and sharper sense of reasoning. Scientific knowledge, in of itself, will do very little for you unless you know how to apply it. All you have is some information, and even some of that has been shown to be a misunderstanding on your part.

AbdulRahman wrote:you still failed to state that "There is no Free Will whatsoever. Period."


And I probably never will as I see no period to it whatsoever. You merely keep repeating "period" because you can't refute my added considerations directly, because you never thought of those before, so you got caught off guard and now you merely resort to continually repeating the same, non fully substantiated claim over and over again. That's frustration and stubbornness. That's also a troll. You really think it's impossible that you might not have thought of a few additional considerations to the question and were certain that you had it all down. And now, you merely jump up and down and repeat the same thing in response. Either you are exceedingly stupid and can't grasp what I say, or you don't WANT to grasp what I say. I'm not sure which it is.

AbdulRahman wrote:
And now you are telling me that a reflex in your knee has to do with the subconscious mind?

No.
Knee jerk reaction is of even lower level than subconscious mind.


But both are mechanical responses, right?? Otherwise, there would be a "ghost in the machine", as you like to say, right? Right? If our conscious responses are mechanical and Deterministic, then our subconscious responses are as well, right? right? So who cares what level, they are all mechanical, knee jerk reactions, right? The process of computing is a mechanical, knee jerk reaction. So you make your ideas work by cheating, and cheating on yourself. i suppose that next you will say that there are scientific degrees of determinism :lol: ??

AbdulRahman wrote:Being able to ride bicycle without conscious effort is using subconscious mind.
Brain signaling heart to beat is lower than that of knee jerk reaction.


By lower, what do you mean? More or less mechanical?? More or less Deterministic?? That's what we are discussing, isn't it?

AbdulRahman wrote:
How do you know that? Let's see your source.

Source: Neuropsychology 101. Take a course on that.


Link it or throw it out. Simple.

AbdulRahman wrote:
The computing is a reflex of the stimulus, right?

Computing in the broadest sense as electron repel other electron, or Gravity pull objects together. Or transistor switch makes logic gates. Many logic gates makes CPU. All object and particles are interacting using strict laws of nature. That's what I meant by computing - in the given context.


Those are all reflexive actions rather than any decision being involved, right?

AbdulRahman wrote:
MBL wrote:I haven't even given up God

Ah, ha, so you do have theistic mind after all.
Ah, ha, so you are one of those moron who doesn't go to church anymore. You found new age mumbo jumbo religion.


No, I don't like that either. My feeling is, "be your own prophet"

Abdul wrote:No. No Budha, no Mohammad, No Jesus, No one in the entire universe, no body, had ever had or have any free will of any sort, ever. Can you say that?


Sure, when you prove it. But you don't. And when there is something you haven't considered that gets brought up, you get angry and stamp up and down and say no, no, no. But that doesn't mean anything. You have to properly prove or substantiate your objection, and so far, you haven't. You've only shown that you have applied limited reasoning to the problem

AbdulRahman wrote:I am talking about only as certain as gravity pulls objects.
Can you be that much certain?
We both alread have agreed that nothing is 100% guaranteed.


Then lose the annoying word "period", because there is no such thing as a final "period" as even just admitted by you.

AbdulRahman wrote:
I never said free will necessarily exists and have merely said the conditions that must exist for free will to be able to exist. In order for free will to be able to exist, XYZ cionditions would have to be met.

That's why I called you baby, half-baked, immature, couldn't overcome your own cognitive dissonance yet. Haven given up on God yet.
[/quote]

That's not an answer. That's a stupid rant. As I said before, seems like you can take the Muslim out of Islam, but you can't take the Islam out of the Muslim. :lol: Remnants of twisted, and overly simplified reasoning and ignorant stubbornness remain. I guess that will take a long time. Try some Plato or Aristotle. Commonly, people in the Middle East don't get things like this in their schools because it is a philosophy that does not come from the Quran. So when it comes to really hard core reasoning and logic postulates and the like, people of the middle east seem to have a much harder time with stuff like this than people of the west. And what's to blame for that?? Once again, it's Islam. It holds their education system back.

Learning science isn't going to teach you how to reason properly.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 4:16 pm
by Fathom
AbdulRahman wrote:
Fathom wrote:
AbdulRahman wrote:Fathom,
In your question/description it is already said that there are 2 lions. Therefore, there are two lions not 3 lions. Period.

Your alternative answer 1 lion + 1 lion = 3 lions is false.


You obviously didn't understand how 1 + 1 can = 3. In fact, 1 + 1 can equal an infinite number. Only in mathematics does 1 + 1 = 2, but not everything is linear. Some things are abstract, and do not add up to what you think they do.

Again, if the standard size of normal lions is 300 pounds, and you see a lion that is 600 pounds, then that over-sized lion is 2 X the lion standard. In math, he is but 1 lion, but in reality, he is 2 X the lion.

There's just simply more lion than the standard. No different than having two different size glasses of water. One glass will have more water. Should we think that both glasses of water are the same? Of course not. Mathematically, there are 2 glasses of water, but in reality, there is more water than 2 glasses if the smaller glass is considered the standard.


You obviously didn't understand how 1 + 1 can = 3. In fact, 1 + 1 can equal an infinite number.


Yes, I can be your papa and may be mama too, at the same time.
Yes, I "can" be the god the almighty.
Applying your logic 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Proof: Jesus + god + holy sprit = one entity; 3 = 1
Grow up , Fathom!

Use reason, logic, mathematics, rationality and science then show me how 1 lion + 1 lion = 3 lions?
Ah ha, I get it. If there is a male and a female lion and they fuuuck each other then a baby lion is born. Now you got 3 lions.
Don't be an idiot.
Don't argue just for the sake of arguing. Learn something. grow.
You flip flop between religions, you left Christianity, then left Islam. What are you believing now? Looking at your argument it looks like your new religion is "Insanity of 1 lion + 1 lion = 3 lions"

What are you smoking these days. Give me some.

I will never advise anyone to take theology before learning about reason, logic and science. it damages brain.


You really need to learn how to reason properly. Here, let me give you another example.

You buy one hamburger from the burger shop. Then, you buy a double-burger from the same shop. Now, don't you think that the double-burger is twice the burger as a normal hamburger?

Sure, it appears like one hamburger, but in reality it is twice the hamburger. True or False?

Also, since you have so much faith in math, let me give you a mathematical oddity to contend with.

One day, there were 3 friends travelling together with back-packs, hiking across the land. It was getting late in the day, so they decided to stop at a road-side inn to get a room for the night. They asked the innkeeper how much it would cost for the 3 of them to share a single room for the night. The innkeeper said it would cost $30.00, making it $10.00 for each of them. Therefore, each of the 3 friends paid the innkeeper $10.00.

However, when the friends got into their room they seen that the maid had not made the beds or cleaned the room. They decided to phone the front desk and complain to the innkeeper. The innkeeper apologized and told the 3 friends he would figure out a discount for them. After he hung up the phone, the innkeeper figured he would give the 3 friends $5.00 back, so he called the bellboy and gave him 5 one dollar bills and told him to take the money and divide it up evenly between the 3 friends.

However, the bellboy was a thief, and knowing that the 3 friends did not know how much money they were getting back, he decided to steal $2.00, and then give the 3 friends back each $1.00.

So now, each of the friends had originally paid $10.00 for the room, but since each of them got back $1.00, it means that each of them paid $9.00 for the room, for a total of $27.00. But, when we add that $27.00 to the $2.00 the bellboy stole, it only adds up to $29.00.

Tell me Abdul ... where is the missing dollar?

Have fun with your linear thinking.

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 6:27 pm
by AbdulRahman
Most theistic mind to least theistic (irrational) mind in that order.
1. Fathom
2. The Cat
3. YeeZeVee
4. MBL
5. Charles
6. BBL [BBL and Chalres could be, more or less, in the same level]
7. Abdul
8. Pr126

Fathom is ignorent of very basic science and mathematics. Study of theology before studying reason, math and science damages human brain.
Proof: Link to his argument that Math doesn't work.
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=6613&p=112118#p112172
and my response to his math problem.
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=6613&start=300#p112187