God, Free Will & Contingency

Does God exist? Is Allah God? Creation vs. evolution.
Is Religion needed? Logic vs. faith. Morality and ethics.
User avatar
Fathom
Posts: 894
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:50 am

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by Fathom »

AbdulRahman wrote: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 in the 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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Any chance at all that you could demonstrate some kind of ability to actually stay focused on the argument instead of using numerous logical fallacies such as your ad hominem attacks?

Are you aware that you are not actually answering any of our questions, nor participating in the actual discussion?
AbdulRahman
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by AbdulRahman »

Fathom,

You can deny the following answer/explanation all you want but this is the right answer. You can have this checked with a professor of Mathematics. Just make sure that the processor you are going to consult his/her brain is not damaged by theological study. Fathom, Remember, years ago, you told me that you had my FFI post about Quantum Mechanics checked out with one of your co-worker (physicist) and that he told you I was right?

Now here is the answer to your stupid Math problems.

3 x $9.00 = $27 is one side (left) of the equation. This side is the supply side. $9.00 is paid by each hotel guest. On the consumption side (Right) is: $2.00 + $25.00 = $27.00 [$2.00 is kept by the bell boy and $25.00 is kept by the hotel.]
3 x $9.00 = $2.00 + $25.00
There is no problem.
I heard your above problem when I was 12 years old and solved it in a heart beat.

Remember 1 lion + 1 large lion (or a very, very large lion) = 2 lions.
1 hamburger + 1 double-hamburger (or triple hamburger) = 2 hamburger.
however, the weight (or mass) of 1 hamburger + weight (or mass) of 1 double hamburger = the weight (or mass) of 3 hamburger.

Look, Fathom, you can do this all day long but your theistic mind that have been partially damage by theological study can't match my scientifically trained mind. Therefore, stop this bull shiiit of "Math doesn't work" and try to deprogram your brain from your stupid ideas.

Read this very carefully.
I know for sure, IF I were running around on the street of Pakistan's NWFP as a hungry, homeless 5 years old orphan and if Taliban had given me shelter, clothing, food and Quran and Islamic jihadist training then I might (good probability) have been a terrorist. There would have been a very high probability that I would have believed their cause. Nor could I have solved your mathematical problems as easily as I just did.
Upbringing and training does have effect on human brain. I really feel sorry for your brain damage due to theological trainings.
That is why it said, pick your friends very carefuylly. When you keep a company of dumb people you will become one like them. Always surround yourself with smart people.
Right now you are learning a lot from me.

Can you say this bitter truth..
Statistically speaking, religious upbringing partially damages brain's reason circuitry.
Last edited by AbdulRahman on Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Fathom
Posts: 894
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:50 am

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by Fathom »

AbdulRahman wrote:Fathom,

You can deny the following answer/explanation all you want but this is the right answer. You can have this checked with a professor of Mathematics. Just make sure that the processor you are going to consult his/her brain is not damaged by theological study. Fathom, Remember, years ago, you told me that you had my FFI post about Quantum Mechanics checked out with one of your co-worker (physicist) and that he told you I was right?

Now here is the answer to your stupid Math problems.

3 x $9.00 = $27 is one side (left) of the equation. This side is the supply side. $9.00 is paid by each hotel guest. On the consumption side (Right) is: $2.00 + $25.00 = $27.00 [$2.00 is kept by the bell boy and $25.00 is kept by the hotel.]
3 x $9.00 = $2.00 + $25.00
There is no problem.
I heard your above problem when I was 12 years old and solved it in a heart beat.

Remember 1 lion + 1 large lion (or a very, very large lion) = 2 lions.
1 hamburger + 1 double-hamburger (or triple hamburger) = 2 hamburger.
however, the weight (or mass) of 1 hamburger + weight (or mass) of 1 double hamburger = the weight (or mass) of 3 hamburger.

Look, Fathom, you can do this all day long but your theistic mind that have been partially damage by theological study can't match my scientifically trained mind. Therefore, stop this bull shiiit of "Math doesn't work" and try to deprogram your brain from your stupid ideas.

Read this very carefully.
I know for sure, IF I were running around on the street of Pakistan's NWFP as a hungry, homeless 5 years old orphan and if Taliban had given me shelter, clothing, food and Quran and Islamic jihadist training then I might (good probability) have been a terrorist. There would have been a very high probability that I would have believed their cause. Nor could I have solved your mathematical problems as easily as I just did.
upbringing and training does have effect on human brain. I really feel sorry for your brain damage.

That is why it said, pick your friends very carefuylly.
Right now you are learning a lot from me.
The correct answer to the math problem, according to the mathematicians at Berkley University is this:

There is no answer.

Also, if you would have actually paid attention to the lion analogy, I never said there was 3 lions, but always said 3 X the lion.

There's a massive difference, but you did not grasp that concept at all.

Have a nice day.
AbdulRahman
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by AbdulRahman »

Fathom,
You think "Berkely University" will impress me?
Yes, there are some idiot professors are in the top notch university and in ivy league university but statistically speaking most of them are pretty bright except in the case of religion and politics.
So, having said that, on the basis of probability, It is highly unlikely that a Math professor will say that.
Please give me the name of the professor. I will contact him and ask him.
I will tell him that his name is being abused and being tarnished by Fathom at FFI

Just for curiosity, what do you think about my answer/explanation/solution?
Do you rely on your own understanding of Mathemetics or have faith on the professor of Berkely University?
I want to know if my answer made sense to you, not to test your Math skill but to test your intellectual honesty and moral integrity. I will judge how much you are into for the search of truth and rejecting the lies.

Fathom,
FYI, If you are under the impression that, it won't cost you anything if you, to save your face, to avoid humiliation, do not admit that you now understand and accept my answer as valid in a public forum the you are wrong.
It will cost you. you will damage small part of your brain.
Every time one knowingly doesn't admit his/her mistake his/her neural network gets rewired in a wrong/false way. No wonder, Muslims' denial of their own fault/mistake is damaging their brain.

Fathom,
The way I am becoming smarter and smarter is admitting my mistake at once as soon as I realize it.
I have yet to hear from you, oh, yah, now I see, what are you talking about (about your math problems). Oh yah, i was wrong. My brain did not work that fast the first time.
If you practice this, then in ten years you will be able to reverse some of the partial brain damage that has occurred due to theological brainwashing.


How does Michael Phelp wins 7 gold olympic gold medals?
Answer: Practicce, practice, practice.
If you want the truth then practice it. Reasoning - practice it.

I already expressed your point from you side. Here it is again.
"If one can see one mile down the road with one eye then how far he/she can see with two eyes."Notice, the precision and conciseness, to the point statement above. Think about it.
Interestingly, even above state can be explained. it is within the realm of reason, logic and science. We have nothing else.
Always, apply, reason, logic, and science and you will get smarter and smarter and just and reasonable person.
You mark my word. Think, please.
Give up theology, mystery, Voo Doo, new age pseudo science.

If you were reasonable then you would not have asked me those stupid lion questions.
You are not a reasonable person. Yu are not after the truth.
You just wanted to main your cognitive consonance that is why knowing you asked stupid math questions.

Just ask yourself which of the following do you want?
1. I want the truth
2. I want the truth as long as I do not have to go through my cognitive dissonance.
Last edited by AbdulRahman on Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.
AbdulRahman
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by AbdulRahman »

Fathom,
Fathom wrote:Also, if you would have actually paid attention to the lion analogy, I never said there was 3 lions, but always said 3 X the lion.
"3 x the lion" is also a false statement.
The correct statement would be.
Weight of a standard size lion + Weight of another lion that is twice the weight of the standard size lion = 3 x the weight of a standard size of lion.

I would have accepted that.
You can substitute "Volume" or "size" in place of "weight"

You are fan of deception. You were trying to play fraud with your statements about lions.
But we wcientist will not let fraud get away from our reason, logic and science.
You can run but you can't hid.
Or just accept that Reason, Logic, Rationaility and Science is superior to any other system mankind has ever invented.

Mark my words, neural network damaged by theological teaching can't outsmart a scientifically trained neural network.

Go hunt for better questions.
User avatar
Fathom
Posts: 894
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:50 am

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by Fathom »

AbdulRahman wrote:Just for curiosity, what do you think about my answer/explanation/solution?
Your answer is incorrect because you are attempting to address a false question. In other words, there is no answer to the question because the question itself is unwarranted. The following is how it should be seen, explained, and understood:

The initial payment of $30 is accounted for as the clerk takes $25, the bellhop takes $2, and the guests get a $3 refund.

It's that simple.

After the refund has been applied, we only have to account for a payment of $27. Again, the clerk keeps $25 and the bellhop gets $2. This also adds up.

There is no reason to add the $2 and $27 – the $2 is contained within the $27 already. Thus the addition is meaningless, and that's why the question is false. Instead the $2 should be subtracted from the $27 to get the revised bill of $25.

This becomes clearer when the initial and net payments are written as simple equations. The first equation shows what happened to the initial payment of $30:
$30 (initial payment) = $25 (to clerk) + $2 (to bellhop) +$3 (refund)
The second equation shows the net payment after the refund is applied (subtracted from both sides):
$27 (net payment) = $25 (to clerk) + $2 (to bellhop)

Both equations make sense, with equal totals on either side of the equal sign. The correct way to get the bellhop's $2 and the guests $27 on the same side of the equal sign ("The bellhop has $2, and the guests paid $27, how does that add up?") is to subtract, not add:

$27 (final payment) - $2 (to bellhop) = $25 (to clerk)
AbdulRahman
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by AbdulRahman »

Fathom wrote:
AbdulRahman wrote:Just for curiosity, what do you think about my answer/explanation/solution?
Your answer is incorrect because you are attempting to address a false question. In other words, there is no answer to the question because the question itself is unwarranted. The following is how it should be seen, explained, and understood:

The initial payment of $30 is accounted for as the clerk takes $25, the bellhop takes $2, and the guests get a $3 refund.

It's that simple.

After the refund has been applied, we only have to account for a payment of $27. Again, the clerk keeps $25 and the bellhop gets $2. This also adds up.

There is no reason to add the $2 and $27 – the $2 is contained within the $27 already. Thus the addition is meaningless, and that's why the question is false. Instead the $2 should be subtracted from the $27 to get the revised bill of $25.

This becomes clearer when the initial and net payments are written as simple equations. The first equation shows what happened to the initial payment of $30:
$30 (initial payment) = $25 (to clerk) + $2 (to bellhop) +$3 (refund)
The second equation shows the net payment after the refund is applied (subtracted from both sides):
$27 (net payment) = $25 (to clerk) + $2 (to bellhop)

Both equations make sense, with equal totals on either side of the equal sign. The correct way to get the bellhop's $2 and the guests $27 on the same side of the equal sign ("The bellhop has $2, and the guests paid $27, how does that add up?") is to subtract, not add:

$27 (final payment) - $2 (to bellhop) = $25 (to clerk)
I gave you your bottom line answer
3 * $9.00 = $2.00 + $25.00
Look above at your own bottom line, i highlighted in Red..
Fathom wrote: ...is to subtract, not add:
You do not know simple basic thing of Math. Whether you add or subtract depend upon which side of the equation you are doig this subtraction or addition.
In this example you can add $2.00 at the side of $25.00 or subtracct $2.00 at the side of $27.00.


You also lied, about saying Berkely professor told you there is no answer.
So how does this prove that Math doesn't work?
And how does this prove that free will exist?


How do you deny reason, logic, rationality and science always works better than any other sysmte.
Fathom,
you can run from math and science but you can't run.

You are a intellectually dishonest, trash person.
You are hurting noone else but your own brain.

And you did nto say anything about the following.
Weight of a standard size lion + Weight of another lion that is twice the weight of the standard size lion = 3 x the weight of a standard size of lion.
Last edited by AbdulRahman on Wed Jun 02, 2010 11:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by The Cat »

A Zeno Paradox: Achilles and the Tortoise. In this paradox Zeno (a pupil of Parmenides) is mathematically proving that motion doesn't exist. But common sense tells us that Achilles would run out a turtle in no time, so to speak. Here's the paradox:
In the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise, Achilles is in a footrace with the tortoise. Achilles allows the tortoise a head start of 100 metres. If we suppose that each racer starts running at some constant speed (one very fast and one very slow), then after some finite time, Achilles will have run 100 metres, bringing him to the tortoise's starting point. During this time, the tortoise has run a much shorter distance, say, 10 metres. It will then take Achilles some further time to run that distance, by which time the tortoise will have advanced farther; and then more time still to reach this third point, while the tortoise moves ahead. Thus, whenever Achilles reaches somewhere the tortoise has been, he still has farther to go. Therefore, because there are an infinite number of points Achilles must reach where the tortoise has already been, he can never overtake the tortoise.
So far this paradox, proving motionless, has never been resolved totally because the premise is a postulate imposture. Mathematically Achilles can't win but biologically, in truth, he will. Strict determinism says we have no Free Will but we use it vividly.

Just like common sense tells us that Free Will exists because we are making choices -over- determinism and not strictly from determinism, since it only encompasses informations and data, while we add consciousness, intuition and spontaneity which were never computed and can hardly ever be. So the results of strict determinism are biased: we are not born out of an electrochemical reaction but from paired flesh and blood. The accounts of a strict determined No Free will comes down to eat a chili recipe containing all the written ingredients instead of the chili itself.

The computed inquiry gave computed results but we consciously know better in our everyday decisions and experience. We feel for real.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.
User avatar
Fathom
Posts: 894
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:50 am

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by Fathom »

AbdulRahman wrote:
Fathom wrote:
AbdulRahman wrote:Just for curiosity, what do you think about my answer/explanation/solution?
Your answer is incorrect because you are attempting to address a false question. In other words, there is no answer to the question because the question itself is unwarranted. The following is how it should be seen, explained, and understood:

The initial payment of $30 is accounted for as the clerk takes $25, the bellhop takes $2, and the guests get a $3 refund.

It's that simple.

After the refund has been applied, we only have to account for a payment of $27. Again, the clerk keeps $25 and the bellhop gets $2. This also adds up.

There is no reason to add the $2 and $27 – the $2 is contained within the $27 already. Thus the addition is meaningless, and that's why the question is false. Instead the $2 should be subtracted from the $27 to get the revised bill of $25.

This becomes clearer when the initial and net payments are written as simple equations. The first equation shows what happened to the initial payment of $30:
$30 (initial payment) = $25 (to clerk) + $2 (to bellhop) +$3 (refund)
The second equation shows the net payment after the refund is applied (subtracted from both sides):
$27 (net payment) = $25 (to clerk) + $2 (to bellhop)

Both equations make sense, with equal totals on either side of the equal sign. The correct way to get the bellhop's $2 and the guests $27 on the same side of the equal sign ("The bellhop has $2, and the guests paid $27, how does that add up?") is to subtract, not add:

$27 (final payment) - $2 (to bellhop) = $25 (to clerk)
I gave you your bottom line answer
3 * $9.00 = $2.00 + $25.00
Look above at your own bottom line.
The actual answer is in bold type above. We are accounting for $30.00, not 27.00. Therefore ...

The initial payment of $30 is accounted for as the clerk takes $25, the bellhop takes $2, and the guests get a $3 refund.


You also lied, about saying Berkely professor told you there is no answer.
You believe I lied? Did I say that a Berkeley Professor told me the answer, or did I say "The correct answer to the math problem, according to the mathematicians at Berkley University...?"

Obviously, it isn't me who is trying to lie, since I never said a Berkeley Professor gave me the answer. You said that, not me.

Also, how about going to the Berkeley University Forum where they discuss this very riddle and find out for yourself?

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bi ... ;start=0#0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And by the way, the answer they give is the same as mine:
The correct accounting is:

$25 (hotel) + $2 (bellboy) + $3 (men) = $30.
So how does this prove that Math doesn't work?
Did I say this riddle illustrated that, or did I say it was a mathematical oddity? You certainly appear incapable of understanding the things you are reading, as evidenced by your posts which claim that I have said things that I have not said at all.

Fathom,
you can run from math and science but you can't run.
Either I can run or I can't run, according to your statement above.

Which is it?
AbdulRahman
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by AbdulRahman »

Fathom wrote:
Abdul wrote:So how does this prove that Math doesn't work?
Did I say this riddle illustrated that, or did I say it was a mathematical oddity?
There is no contradiction in this mathemetical problem.

Same answer can be written in many different ways. It is a matter of equation and what form you want the answer to be.
Fact remains, Math works.
In connection to my claim that on the basis of reason, logic, and science Free Will doesn't exist, you brought up the Math problem that you couldn't solve. Therefore, you were trying to show, look Math or logic always doesn't work.
I just showed you that Math works.
so, now, you are back to square one. You need to show me a better solution thatn what reason, logic, and scinece has to offer.
Fathom wrote:
Abdul wrote:Fathom,
you can run from math and science but you can't run.
Either I can run or I can't run, according to your statement above.
Which is it?
Sorry my mistake, my typo.
I should have typed: "...but you can't hide."
AbdulRahman
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by AbdulRahman »

The Cat wrote:A Zeno Paradox: Achilles and the Tortoise. In this paradox Zeno (a pupil of Parmenides) is mathematically proving that motion doesn't exist. But common sense tells us that Achilles would run out a turtle in no time, so to speak. Here's the paradox:
In the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise, Achilles is in a footrace with the tortoise. Achilles allows the tortoise a head start of 100 metres. If we suppose that each racer starts running at some constant speed (one very fast and one very slow), then after some finite time, Achilles will have run 100 metres, bringing him to the tortoise's starting point. During this time, the tortoise has run a much shorter distance, say, 10 metres. It will then take Achilles some further time to run that distance, by which time the tortoise will have advanced farther; and then more time still to reach this third point, while the tortoise moves ahead. Thus, whenever Achilles reaches somewhere the tortoise has been, he still has farther to go. Therefore, because there are an infinite number of points Achilles must reach where the tortoise has already been, he can never overtake the tortoise.
So far this paradox, proving motionless, has never been resolved totally because the premise is a postulate imposture. Mathematically Achilles can't win but biologically, in truth, he will. Strict determinism says we have no Free Will but we use it vividly.

Just like common sense tells us that Free Will exists because we are making choices -over- determinism and not strictly from determinism, since it only encompasses informations and data, while we add consciousness, intuition and spontaneity which were never computed and can hardly ever be. So the results of strict determinism are biased: we are not born out of an electrochemical reaction but from paired flesh and blood. The accounts of a strict determined No Free will comes down to eat a chili recipe containing all the written ingredients instead of the chili itself.

The computed inquiry gave computed results but we consciously know better in our everyday decisions and experience. We feel for real.
"No Free will" is not on the basis of Strict determinism only, but on the basis of :
1. Cause and effect
and
2) Randomness.
Last edited by AbdulRahman on Thu Jun 03, 2010 1:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Fathom
Posts: 894
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:50 am

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by Fathom »

AbdulRahman wrote:
Fathom wrote:
Abdul wrote:So how does this prove that Math doesn't work?
Did I say this riddle illustrated that, or did I say it was a mathematical oddity?
There is no contradiction in this mathemetical problem.

In connection to my claim that on the basis of reason, logic, and science Free Will doesn't exist, you brought up the Math problem that you couldn't solve. Therefore, you were trying to show, look Math or logic always doesn't work.
I just showed you that Math works.
so, now, you are back to square one. You need to show me a better solution thatn what reason, logic, and scinece has to offer.

[quote="Fathom"
Abdul wrote:Fathom,
you can run from math and science but you can't run.
Either I can run or I can't run, according to your statement above.
Which is it?
Sorry my mistake, my typo.
I should have typed: "...but you can't hide."
Firstly, in the interests of integrity, you should apologize for calling me a liar based upon your own misunderstanding of what I have said. I did not say a "Berkeley Professor" gave me the answer, but instead clearly said that the mathematicians from Berkeley (which can include students) provided the answer. I also provided the evidence to support that fact.

In addition to this, I never suggested that the math riddle would prove math as being false, but was nothing more than an oddity.

You need to chill a little Abdul. Relax. Unwind. Feel the groove and the vibe, and play that funky music!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe1ScoePqVA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
AbdulRahman
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by AbdulRahman »

Fathom wrote: I did not say a "Berkeley Professor" gave me the answer, but instead clearly said that the [background=]mathematicians from Berkeley [/background](which can include students) provided the answer.
Your favorite deception technicque, in Red.
Deliberate deflection.

You shouldn't have brought up the bogus Mathametical problem in the first place. That shows your nature. People who does that they will do in other are of their life too. It is about habit.
Your math problem is irrelavent to the question of Free Will.
Shame on you.

And you duck the following:
Abdul wrote:Weight of a standard size lion + Weight of another lion that is twice the weight of the standard size lion = 3 x the weight of a standard size of lion.
I would have accepted that.
You can substitute "Volume" or "size" in place of "weight"



Now let's get back to the Free Will issue.
yeezevee
Posts: 6547
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by yeezevee »

http://www.centenary.edu/attachments/ph ... cs1999.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


User avatar
Muhammad bin Lyin
Posts: 5859
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: A Mosque on Uranus

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by Muhammad bin Lyin »

AbdulRahman wrote: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
Who cares.... troll?? That's just your stupid opinion. Why would you think people are supposed to pay attention to it? You making a list suggests that you think people value your opinion. Are you sure of that?? :lol:
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night
User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by The Cat »

AbdulRahman wrote:
The Cat wrote:A Zeno Paradox: Achilles and the Tortoise. In this paradox Zeno (a pupil of Parmenides) is mathematically proving that motion doesn't exist. But common sense tells us that Achilles would run out a turtle in no time, so to speak. (...) So far this paradox, proving motionless, has never been resolved totally because the premise is a postulate imposture. Mathematically Achilles can't win but biologically, in truth, he will. Strict determinism says we have no Free Will but we use it vividly.

Just like common sense tells us that Free Will exists because we are making choices -over- determinism and not strictly from determinism, since it only encompasses informations and data, while we add consciousness, intuition and spontaneity which were never computed and can hardly ever be. So the results of strict determinism are biased: we are not born out of an electrochemical reaction but from paired flesh and blood. The accounts of a strict determined No Free will comes down to eat a chili recipe containing all the written ingredients instead of the chili itself.

The computed inquiry gave computed results but we consciously know better in our everyday decisions and experience. We feel for real.
"No Free will" is not on the basis of Strict determinism only, but on the basis of : 1. Cause and effect and 2) Randomness.
In my example I wanted to show that there was a huge flaw in our computed theory over Free Will, that the equation wanting it to be subdued to influences was a wrong premise, a wrong postulate, like in the Zeno Paradox. I got it better now... UNDERSTANDING IS EVERYTHING !

I've always stated here that Free Will is the only possible link between Determinism/Randomness and that's why we act more decisively than animals: merely because Free Will provides us with more options than they to act cognitively. That is to say: we can understand cause/effect to submit them to our will and needs. That's how we came to tamed domestic animals much stronger than us, raising them as cattle for food instead of having to depend on hunting. Domesticating the fire, agriculture, inventing the wheel, going to the moon and back, are other proves that, through Free Will, we can also domesticate both the laws of nature and randomness (chance).

So Free Will is a misleading label. In fact we are talking about self-awareness and understanding. So we are domesticating nuclear fission on our way to domesticate the laws of nature like we've done in breeding and flying. This could projectively be also the case of QM which we may domesticate to travel faster than the speed of light or to fabricate a superhuman OUT of the DNA we are domesticating too. The laws of nature aren't so much controlling us than we are domesticating them and this goes for randomness as well. Because WE UNDERSTAND PROPERTIES and turn them unto puppet of our free will.

Domesticated food
Image
Domesticated energy
Image
Domesticated laws of nature
Image
Domesticated nuclear energy
Image

Knowledge and thoughts may be pre-programmed but understanding can't and that's where Free Will is activated, from self-awareness.

It's no such much ''I think therefore I am'' BUT: ''I understand therefore I decide'' that is the right Free Will basis
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.
User avatar
Fathom
Posts: 894
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:50 am

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by Fathom »

AbdulRahman wrote:
Fathom wrote: I did not say a "Berkeley Professor" gave me the answer, but instead clearly said that the [background=]mathematicians from Berkeley [/background](which can include students) provided the answer.
Your favorite deception technicque, in Red.
Deliberate deflection.
There was no deception and no deflection. Explain how I was being deceptive and/or deflective. Demonstrate your rationalization to justify your accusation.

Explain your rationalization in detail.
AbdulRahman wrote:You shouldn't have brought up the bogus Mathametical problem in the first place. That shows your nature. People who does that they will do in other are of their life too. It is about habit. Your math problem is irrelavent to the question of Free Will.
Actually, the math problem is directly relevant to the question of Free Will. Do you believe you can figure out how it is relevant? Here's a hint, grass-hopper:

Wax on, wax off!

AbdulRahman wrote:And you duck the following:
Abdul wrote:Weight of a standard size lion + Weight of another lion that is twice the weight of the standard size lion = 3 x the weight of a standard size of lion.
I would have accepted that.
You can substitute "Volume" or "size" in place of "weight".
It is still 3 X the lion, despite the fact that there are only 2 lions. Remember now, the analogy is set from the point of view of an ancient cave-man hunter, who knows absolutely nothing about practical mathematics. All he knows is that he can see 3 X the lion coming at him, which is MORE than 2 normal lions. He would not run from 2 normal lions, but he will run from 3 X the lion.

You see, Abdul, that caveman hunter wouldn't have a clue about your math, for all that matters to him is that he sees 3 X the lion running at him.

The right answer FOR HIM is 1 normal lion + 1 large lion = 3 X the lion. It's a matter of what he perceives, and not mathematics. Your perception is limited, because you commit the fallacy of presentism, which means that you are wrongly attributing modern ideas to an ancient historical past.

Therefore, since the mathematical equation of 1 + 1 = 2 did not exist to the caveman hunter, or any one else at that point in history, how then could it be true if it did not exist? The answer is that during the time of that caveman, 1 + 1 = 2 was not a fact at all, nor was it true. To claim that it was true must be proven using evidence found within the historical context of the time of the caveman hunter, and not using presentism.

But you claim that 1 + 1 = 2 to be the truth now. However, if is true now, but not true to the caveman's time in history, does it mean that truth is subject to time? If so, then all it means is that truth changes with time, and tomorrow's truth may not be the same as todays.

So tell me, Abdul ... what is truth? Do you really know?
AbdulRahman
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by AbdulRahman »

YeeZeVee,

I have seen almost all the video of Daniel Dinette including the one you cited.
Yes, I have read the Libet article as well.
His argument of flawed. During the first 3 minutes of the video Daniel assumed that billions of years ago we did not have free and now we have a lot of free will.
Then tried to explain unsuccessfully that how we have free will. He never explained how free will is possible.

I also have read Libet explanation of Free Will.
Foundational premises of Libet article says, journey of the signal that we call "decision" that begins from the limbic system or even from the lower level than that moves up to the subconscious mind and to the conscious mind could have been vetoed by the conscious mind. But he fails to mentioned the signal for veto or not veto would also have been started from the lower than conscious mind. This making it impossible to have free will in true sense.

Oh, BTW, I thought you don't care.
How come you are back to this thread again?
AbdulRahman
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by AbdulRahman »

To the people of Faith

YeeZeVee posted this link that I read a long time ago.
http://www.centenary.edu/attachments/ph ... cs1999.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Libet missed the point that even the veto power of conscious mind had to be originated from the cause and effect phenomena, either from the lover layer's of consciousness.

Last 3 paragraphs from Libet research paper on Free Will.
Libet's following paragraphs clearly shows it is coming from a weak mind who is looking for a way out to maintain his cognitive consonance of faith on Free Will.
This is PC in science, it apeasement of feeling at the expense of the truth. Yes, even scientist are the victim of cognitive consonance/dissonance.
In an issue so fundamentally important to our view of who we are, a claim for illusory
nature should be based on fairly direct evidence. Such evidence is not available;
nor do determinists propose even a potential experimental design to test the theory.
Actually, I myself proposed an experimental design that could test whether conscious
will could influence nerve cell activities in the brain, doing so via a putative ‘conscious
mental field’ that could act without any neuronal connections as the mediators
(Libet, 1994). This difficult though feasible experiment has, unfortunately, still to be
carried out. If it should turn out to confirm the prediction of that field theory, there
would be a radical transformation in our views of mind–brain interaction.

My conclusion about free will, one genuinely free in the non-determined sense, is
then that its existence is at least as good, if not a better, scientific option than is its
denial by determinist theory. Given the speculative nature of both determinist and
non-determinist theories, why not adopt the view that we do have free will (until some
real contradictory evidence may appear, if it ever does). Such a view would at least
allow us to proceed in a way that accepts and accommodates our own deep feeling
that we do have free will.We would not need to view ourselves as machines that act in
56 B. LIBET

a manner completely controlled by the known physical laws. Such a permissive option
has also been advocated by the neurobiologist Roger Sperry (see Doty, 1998).2
I close, then, with a quotation from the great novelist Isaac Bashevis Singer that
relates to the foregoing views. Singer stated his strong belief in our having free will.
In an interview (Singer, 1968) he volunteered that ‘The greatest gift which humanity
has received is free choice. It is true that we are limited in our use of free choice. But
the little free choice we have is such a great gift and is potentially worth so much that
for this itself life is worthwhile living’.
AbdulRahman
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by AbdulRahman »

Fathom,

There was no deception and no deflection. Explain how I was being deceptive and/or deflective. Demonstrate your rationalization to justify your accusation.
Because you brought up an irrelavent math problem. Even that was wrong.

1. There are thousands of questions in the world that reason, logic, and science do not have an answer for or explanation for. We all know that. But what I claim that reason, logic and science have the answer and explanation for far more number of things than any other system you can bring up. In addition it is best to avoid to believe any kind of superstition.

2. I do agree that cave men did not have all the sophisticated math and science that we have at our disposal today.
But cave man (10,000 year ago or so) surely had a very clear understanding of 1 + 1 = 2. They knew it is 2, not more not less. They also had the understanding that even if a goat is very big still it is one goat.

Proof: A cave man asks his neighbor to hold his very skinny goat until the next day. An hour or so later cave man brings in one more goat to his neighbor to hold. This goat is big. Twice as big as the first one.
Next day he wanted his goats back.
What do you think the cave man will do when the neighbor returns only one goat?
He would jump all over his neighbor. This clearly shows cave man did have understanding of 1 + 1 = 2. They just couldn’t express that in a formal mathematical language. They also knew a goat is a goat regardless of its size.
Again, they did not know a lot of things that we know today. Example: man believed Sun revolves around the Earth and not vice versa.
You picked very poor examples of 1+ 1 = 2 and large and small lion.
Next time just ask me to help you to defend your stance. I will do it. I am serious.

Now, Your argument about what knowledge to use to determine truth from lies.
Let’s find out.
I am debating in the 21st century, with Fathom, The Cat, MBL, YeeZeVee and others. None of them lives in the cave time. We all have access to all the modern math and sciences. Only thing we can talk about is what we know using all the current knowledge we have today.
If you want to use the knowledge that have not been discovered or invented yet then anything goes.

However, if is true now, but not true to the caveman's time in history, does it mean that truth is subject to time? If so, then all it means is that truth changes with time, and tomorrow's truth may not be the same as today’s.
Claiming to use future’s knowledge I can claim I am your Papa. I am your mama. I am god. I am the one who created the universe. I will send you to hell to burn forever, Fathom.
You don’t understand this because you do not have the knowledge of the future.
500 years from now you will discover new knowledge that will clearly show you and convince you that I am your papa.

Fathom: That’s ridicules. I won’t even live for 500 years.
Abdul: Yes. You will.
Fathom: All scientific and medical science clearly shows I won’t live for 500 years.
Abdul: You are saying that using only today’s Medical science. But in the future you will acquire new knowledge on that basis you will live 500 years.

Moral: the only thing we can bet on are the things that are reasonable, logical , scientific using today’s knowledge.

However, if you just want to specculate, do brain storming just for fun then it is OK.
Yah, we can talk about the possibility of the existance of ghost, soul, Allah etc. just for fun and explore.
Post Reply