God, Free Will & Contingency

Does God exist? Is Allah God? Creation vs. evolution.
Is Religion needed? Logic vs. faith. Morality and ethics.
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: Sun revolves around the Earth was not an invention of any religion either. It was a natural state as you described it. People just saw the Sun rising from the East and setting at the West over their head, everyday, so they believed it. To really find out the truth one had to go outside the obvious feelings or what their eyes were literally seeing above. Only then we discovered Earth revolves around the sun. Can you imagine what kind of cognitive dissonance those day's people had to fight? Same is happening to your mind now. Your intuitive feeling is Free Will exist. You have to go beyond your feeling, intuition. Be objective. It is not easy, I know.

I have no doubt that you are telling me what you feel. However, I am asking you to go beyond your feeling. Apply objective reasoning, logic, and science. The conclusion of No Free Will will be 180 degrees opposite to your deepest belief. I know that.
Perhaps you need to have a better understanding my position on all this. Allow me to state my position numerically.

1. It does not matter to me whether Free Will or Determinism is the truth. One is as good as the other.
2. I can be convinced that one is more truthful than the other.
3. Currently, the evidence appears to favor the argument for Free Will.
4. Your argument requires an "initial condition," and in that I agree. However, you believe the "initial condition" to be the Big Bang. But I view the Big Bang as the effect, and not the cause as you do. Your position would work if an initial condition that caused the Big Bang could be identified, and a good argument that that initial condition was in fact the origin of all existence.

You see, you believe there was a beginning, much like the religionists do. Even the bible begins with the words, "In the beginning ..." But I have never been shown any evidence that existence ever had a beginning in the first place. Because of that, I have no reason to accept an initial condition.

You could win my support if you can demonstrate with evidence, reason, and rationality, that existence did in fact have a beginning. Currently, my position is existence simply always just was, and never began, and was never created. It just changes shapes and forms infinitely.

It is my position that it is mathematically impossible for existence to have ever had a beginning.
Fathom wrote:Currently, the evidence appears to favor the argument for Free Will.
False.
1. That is what we are debating. I am saying currently, and for the last many decades not only the evidance but also the logic is overshelmingly for No Free Will. I know you are on the opposite side.
Fathom wrote: Your argument requires an "initial condition," and in that I agree.
False
2. Logical conclusion that there is no free will is indpendent of the initial condition - the Big-bang that brought up. I know you are on the opposite side.

Can we agree on our these 2 disagreements?
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:The one acting force behind a microscope is our faculty of understanding OVER what's happening, through observation and experiment. The microscope itself being a tool for that which we invented, i.e. made happen. Thus observation, experiment and understanding (not merely thoughts and knowledge) are the emerging factor of Freewill. So Freewill can only exists in the present (solicited consciousness, i.e. willful observation upon what is) and not in the past/future equation of determinism: An act itself determining randomness....

Animals do have some programmed knowledge but little understanding and no abstract thoughts like we do. Knowledge and thoughts may be (or so-so) programmed but -understanding- can't ever be and that's where Free Will emerges: from awareness (solicited conscience, in which 'science' is prefixed by con/com: "together with, in combination") or the faculty to distinguish, which is then related to the etymology of intelligence: the faculty to read between the lines (inter-legere). It's not the ''I think therefore I am'' BUT the... ''I understand therefore I act upon'' that is the right Free Will basis.

Observation, self-awareness, experimentation and understanding being also what's happening in meditation: the science of oneself.....
in the past days you were trying to bring up things that you thought are not captured by reason, logic, and science. I will ask you again. Are you willing to abide by reason, logic, and science. What creates your free will if it is not the result of electrochemical action in your body and internal/external stimuli?
First time I hear that observation, awareness, experiments and understanding aren't part of reason, logic and science!

All these phenomenons emerge from the conscience or the faculty to distinguish (so to use Freewill) and are only distantly related to electrochemical reactions since they do NOT decide, understand, feel and experience like we do. In the end we see things not as they are but as who we are. So it is said in QM that the moon doesn't exist when I have no conscience of it. No Free Will means that we aren't deciding of our own. It's the other way around!

When I jump into the water to save someone it's because I understand what's happening. In this the thought process, may it be or not, is superseded by the eminence of a danger. There is this flash: someone is drowning! And jumping acts to modified the otherwise predictable cause/effect. It changes what was pre-determined out of empathy. Free Will exist whenever, and in proportion, that a will is free to will i.e. to choose between options and act upon both determinism and randomness. So are we taming the laws of nature by understanding them and creating self-caused happenings:

Domesticated food
Image
Domesticated energy
Image
Domesticated laws of nature
Image
Domesticated nuclear energy
Image
DNA structure
Image
A chromosome
Image
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.
User avatar
The Cat
Posts: 2055
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by The Cat »

How No Free Will is just a semantic blur inducing that electrochemical reactions are knowledgeable while they're not...
The plain fact is that electrochemical reactions are the passive and ignorant entity, not the active and conscious one.

http://www.optimal.org/peter/freewill.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (excerpts from a long article).
Who or what does the choosing? Choice is an action, so there has to be an "actor". Our mind - the totality of our mental processes - does the choosing. In particular, it is that aspect of our mind that is aware of the "self" that recognizes and monitors freewill choices. The traditional view that "I choose" is misleading in that it tends to set up our cognition and understanding for implicitly accepting a dichotomy between the mind and the body. It infers that there exists an "I", an entity that is divorced from consciousness, the mind, the brain - a problem that Dennett describes as the Cartesian Theater. However, there is no independent "I" as such; the "I" that we experience is our self-image, our self-concept, our self-awareness. This point is absolutely crucial to understanding compatibilism: The "I" that experiences and exercises freewill is an integral aspect of mind.

Freewill comprises conscious choices only. By definition, freewill pertains to choices that we can monitor and influence, and therefore must exclude subconscious and unconscious choices. This does not mean that such unaware choices are ultimately beyond our control - beyond freewill - but only that they must be controlled indirectly. We can control them through explicit change of values and beliefs, and through conscious modification of habits. The distinction between conscious and subconscious thought is of course a complex one; all conscious thought has subliminal inputs and components, and furthermore, awareness is also a matter of degree.

How does freewill differ from "normal" choice, the kind that machines and animals make? The advance of human choice over that of (current) machines and animals lies in our ability to think abstractly, and in our awareness of ourselves and our own thinking. This creates the control - and freedom of choice - that freewill represents. We understand. Machines and animals have knowledge, but they have little or no understanding. The difference between knowledge and understanding is crucial. I use the term "knowledge" here in a very broad sense: facts of reality - truths - that may be available to a robot or animal; such as an assembly robot's knowledge of where to place the finished product, or an animal's knowledge of where to find food. While we easily accept that animals know things (even ants know how to find their way home), knowledge in machines still seems somewhat foreign to us. I think that there is little difference in consciousness between simple animals and the more complex robots of today. However, neither have conceptual self-awareness - neither can understand.

Once we relate our mind's abilities to that of non-volitional entities, we find that the freedom in freewill is not the elimination of influencing factors as such, but the expansion of our choices by our unique ability to deal with abstract concepts; by our self-awareness, our imagination, our ability to seek out knowledge and project the future; and, most importantly, by our awareness and monitoring of our own thinking. This is the source of our freedom; this is what makes us self-determined. This is the crux of the true understanding of freewill: Not free from influences, but free to make intelligent choices.

According to a widely held belief, free choice must be uncaused - meaning in effect "chosen for no reason" - nothing could be further from the truth. Surely, volitional choices are made for reasons, compelling reasons. Our deliberate choices are based on evidence and values, and on anticipating their consequences - nothing suggest non-logical, uncaused thinking. It is absurd to assume that freewill choices are not based on antecedent causes, that they are made for no reason; or that they are based on random factors or factors beyond conscious thought. How could such choices represent personal responsibility? It is the fact that we consciously weigh the pros and cons of each freewill choice that provides for accountability. Our choices are implicit or explicit conceptual calculations.

There are millions of unknown and uncontrollable factors in our decisions. Random events, other people's choices, and our own cognitive errors and limitations all impinge on optimal goal selection and attainment. It is our freewill - our intelligence - that provides the freedom, the ability, to counter and correct these influences. From this it follows that freewill is a feature of high-level conceptual intelligence, and not something separate, not some prerequisite to intelligence. Any entity, any animal or machine that possesses the ability to think abstractly, and that has self-awareness (and awareness of its own ability to think and decide), will have freewill.

More generally, complexity theory shows that some seemingly simple dynamical systems are, even over relatively short time spans, uncomputable - and thus indeterminable. Such systems require exponential amounts of computing power for every new variable involved - soon the number of computing elements required far exceed the number of atoms in the known universe. The ultimate limit to knowledge is the impossibility of omniscience. All entities in the universe are directly or indirectly connected with each other, and potentially influence each other. No system in the universe can know the state of every particle in the universe, far less project all of their future interactions. Yet much of the determinism-freewill debate assumes just such omniscience - it assumes a "theoretical" possibility of something that is impossible.
Electrochemical reactions aren't omniscient or omnipotent, nor have will power. The laws of nature aren't prescriptive but descriptive...

So the future is us to shape, while the laws of nature and electrochemical reactions are basically... indifferent, ignorant: i.e. not alive.
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.
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:MBL,
MBL wrote: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 ??
The only difference between Consciousness level, subconscious level, limbic system and even loser level reflex reactions are the amount of processing it has to go through. The more the number of IF then Else, Case statements, or more variables it has to consider the higher is the level.
Reflex action computes very little.
Conscious level does the most computing.
It doesn't matter, it does it's programming because of a reflex reaction based on your model. So it is indeed reflexive rather than conscious, You call everybody a machine, and then try to back away from that and put it into degrees of being a machine? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
AbdulRahman wrote: You are the one who wrote:
MBL wrote:I haven’t even given up on God.
Then you are telling me you don’t have a theistic mind?
Be brave, admit it.
How does that answer what we were speaking about above? Seems to me, that you have no answer for the corner you painted yourself into. According to your model, you are nothing but a reflex, whether that be a computing reflex or any other kind of reflex. Be brave, admit it. I don't know why a machine such as yourself would be resistant to this realization and try to make silly, meaningless qualifications or exceptions.
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 conclusion of No Free Will is not on the basis of determinism but on the basis HUP (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) AND chain of cause and effect. Determinism implies, if you roll the universe again then exactly same thing will happen. Because of HUP I do not hold that view.
Why would the Universe rolls differently each new time? Because the chain of cause and effect is but improvisation, like a casino?
How can the chain of cause and effect have any meaning as determination if it's a tempo/spacial roulette? Is your truth a gambling?

Looks like you're seriously blasting off your third belief: the laws of nature as the will's infrastructure. Just another bet of yours?
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:Currently, the evidence appears to favor the argument for Free Will.
False.
1. That is what we are debating. I am saying currently, and for the last many decades not only the evidance but also the logic is overshelmingly for No Free Will. I know you are on the opposite side.
We disagree. I have seen both sides of the argument, and there are two items that are absolutely required for your argument to have strength:

1. Conclusively identifying the original condition.
2. Explain how a conscious veto can alter the trajectory of a subconscious command.

Your pool ball analogy only works because the original condition (cause) was identified; the striking of the first ball with the pool cue. But it fails to complete the analogy because we cannot pinpoint the original condition for the origin of existence in comparison. What was the first strike that caused the Big Bang, and what caused it? This is the problem you cannot solve. Mathematically, existence must have always been there, even before the Big Bang, otherwise there could never be a cause-effect-cause-effect etc.

It is mathematically impossible for there to have ever been an origin to existence, or an initial condition.
AbdulRahman wrote:
Fathom wrote: Your argument requires an "initial condition," and in that I agree.
False
2. Logical conclusion that there is no free will is indpendent of the initial condition - the Big-bang that brought up. I know you are on the opposite side.
Your argument with the pool ball analogy absolutely indicates an initial condition. Here is a quote of you stating it:
Regardless of if we can or can't predict the final stationary state of the 15 balls, rational and reasonable person understand that the fate of the 15 balls are already determined when you initially hit the white ball.
Therefore, your argument does indeed depend on an initial condition. You must conclusively identify that initial condition.
AbdulRahman
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by AbdulRahman »

Fathom and other,

(Please read this post and think. I think it is important)

Although, you (Fathom) explicitly did not say to agree to disagree in the following 2 statements but your posts indirectly gave the message that you and I agree to disagree on the following. - at least for the time being - until we reconcile our differences.

1. Initial Condition issue.Fathom thinks to prove No Free Will one must demonstrate that Big-Bang did occur.
Abdul thinks No Free Will conclusion is independent of the initial condition, Big-Bang that Fathom brought up.

2. Evidence and logic
Fathom thinks according to our current science, reason and logic not only there is sufficient (a) evidence for the existence of the Free Will but also it is (b) logical and consistent.
Abdul thinks just the opposite in both counts (a) and (b).

Logic argument - regardless of the experimental empirical results.
A scientist attempt to explain implications and role of (a) initial condition (b) cause and effect (c) randomness to a theologian.

Fathom and other,

It is true that to be able to compute the any future state of the universe at t2 one has to have (a) initial condition (b) all the rules (laws of nature).
What you did not understand is that the initial condition doesn't have to be the literally beginning of the universe but any previous snap shot in time. Any slice in time, at any point, even a day old snapshot of the universe is sufficient or even the current state of the universe is sufficient for this matter. What your theologian mind did not understand is (a) initial condition doesn't mean the Big-Bang. Initial condition mean, a state, any state, at any given time identified by State of the universe at t1. Therefore, the argument is independent of the origin of the Universe.

[Digression but impportant:
Mark my words, statistically speaking, a neural network (brain) programmed by theology at its core (Operating System) will not be able to beat a neural network that is trained (programmed) by reason, logic, science. We put our own head under the microscope- so to speak. ]
Do you agree or do you not agree, that our brain gets damaged (establishes bad connections) and gets smarter (establishes valid neural connections) depending upon how it is programmed at early age?]
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=6613&start=60#p110393" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Fathom wrote:Your pool ball analogy only works because the original condition (cause) was identified; the striking of the first ball with the pool cue
My analogy of the 15-ball game on the pool table did not have to start from the 15 balls together (before the big-bang). My analogy holds true if you take a snap shot even after the white ball already have hit the 15 balls, and all the ball started to roll. I understand, a brain whose operating system (OS) had, unfortunately, started with theology before, reasoning, logic, and science took hold is incapable of doing so on his own. Someone else has to hold baby hand show him step by step as I am doing now.
A piece of advice: Please always sort out irrelevant item in an analogy from relevant. This does require intense thinking for the beginners. But once your brain is wired up according to reason, logic, and science then it becomes very fast, automatic. We can then call in intuition, or hunch.

secondly,
Requirement of having knowledge of initial condition and all the rules is necessary only for the prediction. {Not to mention you also need the computing equipment fast enough to be able to compute it before the t2]

To conclude that there is No Free Will one doesn't even actually need to know the Ut1 nor does he really have to all the laws of nature (rules of the game) but just understand that there is one, without knowing the detail of Ut1 or Rules.

Implication of Randomness
Randomness doesn't have any impact on the Ut1 but it does have impact on Ut2 because Rules are no longer definite. HUP (Heisenberg uncertainty principle) make multiple outcome possible.
Indeed, quantum mechanics gives us (who understand and believe in Naturalism) a pause. Then we think who decides or control this HUP? Is it we, the human being? Answer is, we don't. Therefore, even with the introduction of HUP Free Will doesn't exist.

Now addressing your (Fathom's) 2nd question.
Evidence part and Conscious Veto argument.
Recent Libet's experiments clearly shows that even before we consciously make the decision choice the suggested decision signals already have been generated by our body's lower layers processors (be it reflex reaction - very little computing OR deliberation - a lot of processing). Conscious mind doesn't even know why

YeeZeVee posted Libet's research report on Free Will
http://www.centenary.edu/attachments/ph ... cs1999.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Libet's theistic mind exposed in his last 3 paragraphs of his research paper. viewtopic.php?f=32&t=6613&start=300#p112236" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.
Libet's argument that conscious mind can still veto the decision, choice that comes from the lower layers. But he failed to see what determine this veto? The veto or not veto mechanism of the conscious mind depend how one neural network is already configured and how strong or weak the signals coming from the lower layers (as low as mouse trap mechanical process).

Explanation to your (Fathom's) question of conscious veto.
A person, Ali, who is born and raised in the NWFP of Pakistan and have spent all of his life, from the very early age in the extreme Madrassa of Taliban his/her neural network of conscious mind and subconscious mind are already hard wired in a certain way that is very different than yours or mind. Do you agree with that?

At the sight of a Mohammad cartoon, Ali's subconscious mind send a signal of rage to the higher level conscious mind. At the moment when the signal of rage were generated in his subconscious mind his conscious mind did not even know about this signal. Few milliseconds latter, by the time the signal arrives at the conscious level he is then aware of the rage. At this stage, yes, the conscious mind could have vetoed it. As many of us do in different but somewhat similar situations.

But one must asked, on what basis yours and my conscious mind will determine to veto or not to veto the signal that just have arrive to the conscious mind? After all, in The Cat's example the so called spontaneous urge to jump into the lake to save a boy's life that generated at subconscious level then arrived to the conscious mind did not get vetoed but followed through. This follow through or not to follow through depend upon how one was raised, the nurture.

So, Ali's conscious mind will not veto the rage and will kill the cartoonist if he was in front of him. Of course, A Hindu won't do that for Mohammad's cartoon. nor would a Christian will kill for that cartoon. They might kill for some other reason.

Secondly, the decision of veto or not to veto in the subconscious mind not only depend upon its static neural network but also the next batch of signals that are coming from the lower levels of the brain. signals are constant stream of zillions of information that are going to the central nervous system. Many dies off. some get to the conscious level.

It is not easy to convince a scitsophernic person of his illusion. That is the case with you, The Cat, MBL, and all the people of Faith. Scientific objectivity is the key to the truth.

Fathom and other,
It took me hours to type up this. But it flashess in my subconscious mind in miliseconds.
How?
How come you couldn't see these before?
It is all how you are reaised, nurture plus nature, envirnment, zillioins of variables in the universe effects our mind. There is No Free Will.

When it is a matter of playing golf Tiger wood's mind and body is coherently synchronized with the laws of nature. For Michael Phelps it's swimming. For Fanatic Muslims it is the sight of the Mohammad cartoons, synesthetic (Synesthesia) person has his/her own advantage and disadvantage. Some people can compute 50 digits numbers, I can't. I specialize in processing reason, logic, and science.
It is all matter of gene and nurture - environment - stupid.
We are just helpless pawn at the hand of mighty power of nature.

Interestingly, in the absence of Free Will there are many interesting issues comes up that need to be addressed. like, morality, right and wrong, crime and punishment, deterrent- restitution-rehabilitation versus revenge -punishment, personal responsibility, reward-incentive.

But alas, we are stuck in the step 1, Free Will or No Free Will.


Fathom,
Why do you ask for conclusive proof of Bg-bang.
Nothing is 100% guaranteed.
Althoguh, Bibg-bang has no bearing on the Free Will but Big-Bang is more probable than any other explanation of the origin of Universe today.
Tomorrow, it might change.
Last edited by AbdulRahman on Fri Jun 04, 2010 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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:Fathom and other,

(Please read this post and think. I think it is important)

Although, you (Fathom) explicitly did not say to agree to disagree in the following 2 statements but your posts indirectly gave the message that you and I agree to disagree on the following. - at least for the time being - until we reconcile our differences.

1. Initial Condition issue.Fathom thinks to prove No Free Will one must demonstrate that Big-Bang did occur.
Abdul thinks No Free Will conclusion is independent of the initial condition, Big-Bang that Fathom brought up.
Then why did you use an example, pool balls, that requires an initial state o starting point and hence the big bang? Don't you get it? Can't you understand what he is saying?
AbdulRahman wrote: 2. Evidence and logic
Fathom thinks according to our current science, reason and logic not only there is sufficient (a) evidence for the existence of the Free Will but also it is (b) logical and consistent.
Abdul thinks just the opposite in both counts (a) and (b).

Logic argument - regardless of the experimental empirical results.
A scientist attempt to explain implications and role of (a) initial condition (b) cause and effect (c) randomness to a theologian.
I didn't know Fathom is a theologian. Are you sure that's not just another one of your Muslim cross eyed mistakes?
AbdulRahman wrote: Fathom and other,

It is true that to be able to compute the any future state of the universe at t2 one has to have (a) initial condition (b) all the rules (laws of nature).
What you did not understand is that the initial condition doesn't have to be the literally beginning of the universe but any previous snap shot in time. Any slice in time, at any point, even a day old snapshot of the universe is sufficient or even the current state of the universe is sufficient for this matter.
Has anybody ever taught you the concept or riddle of "infinite regression" of origin or cause??
AbdulRahman wrote: What your theologian mind did not understand is (a) initial condition doesn't mean the Big-Bang. Initial condition mean, a state, any state, at any given time identified by State of the universe at t1.
And why was the universe the way it was at t1?? What prior conditions caused that?? Why didn't you ask this very simple question?? Why are you so thick? So of COURSE the big bang is completely relevant. You still have the reasoning abilities of a Muslim.

:crazy:
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night
User avatar
Fathom
Posts: 894
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:50 am

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by Fathom »

AbdulRahman wrote: 1. Initial Condition issue.Fathom thinks to prove No Free Will one must demonstrate that Big-Bang did occur.
That is not my argument. My position is not for you to prove no free will, but rather for you to advocate determinism by using a better argument than the proponents for free will have. I make my decisions based upon the arguments and evidence provided for either position, and not based upon what can be disproven.

In other words, you don't need to disprove Free Will, but only provide a better argument for Determinism.
AbdulRahman
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by AbdulRahman »

Muhammad bin Lyin wrote:
AbdulRahman wrote:MBL,
MBL wrote: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 ??
The only difference between Consciousness level, subconscious level, limbic system and even loser level reflex reactions are the amount of processing it has to go through. The more the number of IF then Else, Case statements, or more variables it has to consider the higher is the level.
Reflex action computes very little.
Conscious level does the most computing.
It doesn't matter, it does its programming because of a reflex reaction based on your model. So it is indeed reflexive rather than conscious, You call everybody a machine, and then try to back away from that and put it into degrees of being a machine? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
AbdulRahman wrote: You are the one who wrote:
MBL wrote:I haven’t even given up on God.
Then you are telling me you don’t have a theistic mind?
Be brave, admit it.
How does that answer what we were speaking about above? Seems to me, that you have no answer for the corner you painted yourself into. According to your model, you are nothing but a reflex, whether that be a computing reflex or any other kind of reflex. Be brave, admit it. I don't know why a machine such as yourself would be resistant to this realization and try to make silly, meaningless qualifications or exceptions.

of course we are.
We all are not only reflexes, but a machine. The way mouse trap works. But a lot of mouse trap, a lot logic of 1 and 0s, a lot of If then else statement. The only difference between reflexes and what you folks call conscious decision is, reflex has little processing whereas conscious has a lot of it. our brain has 1-e14 connection, could be even more. But every single particle of our brain and body works according to the laws of nature the way your home light switch works, the mouse trap, electron and electron repel each other etc. All rules based. But a lot of rules.
you couldn't digest that. you think, you are a god something ,that laws of nature will not apply to you?

This is what I call people have god complex without knowing it. Without acknowledging it.
Anyone who doesn't think his mind and body works like a machine he/she is asking an exception from the laws of nature. That is god complex.
No. You are no exception to the laws of nature.
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: 1. Initial Condition issue.Fathom thinks to prove No Free Will one must demonstrate that Big-Bang did occur.
That is not my argument. My position is not for you to prove no free will, but rather for you to advocate determinism by using a better argument than the proponents for free will have. I make my decisions based upon the arguments and evidence provided for either position, and not based upon what can be disproven.

In other words, you don't need to disprove Free Will, but only provide a better argument for Determinism.

Fathom,

Did you even read and think about this before responding?
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=6613&p=112431#p112427" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you are going to be unreasonable then there is no point debating/discussing.
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: 1. Initial Condition issue.Fathom thinks to prove No Free Will one must demonstrate that Big-Bang did occur.
That is not my argument. My position is not for you to prove no free will, but rather for you to advocate determinism by using a better argument than the proponents for free will have. I make my decisions based upon the arguments and evidence provided for either position, and not based upon what can be disproven.

In other words, you don't need to disprove Free Will, but only provide a better argument for Determinism.

Fathom,

Did you even read and think about this before responding?
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=6613&p=112431#p112427" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you are going to be unreasonable then there is no point debating/discussing.
I am not being unreasonable. Your argument is simply not convincing. Although it makes sense that the fate of existence can be determined by an initial condition (as per your pool ball analogy and snap-shot scenario), the problem I am having is simple:

The problem with your snapshot scenario is this. Let's say the Big Bang occured, and let's agree that it is not the origin of all of existence. let's make the Big Bang a mere snap-shot. Now, because it is a mere snap-shop, and does not represent the actual origin of existence, it's trajectory can be altered by variables that pre-existed the Big Bang. In other words, it is interfered with by random variables. Why are those variables considered random? Because we cannot pinpoint an original condition for them.

A snapshot does not work. Why? Because it is only a snap-shot, and not the big picture.

You need to make your argument more organized. Provide a numerical step-by-step description of your argument, and aside from providing links, sum up each point you make from those links in a small paragraph so that the readers do not get lost in attempting to understand too much data. Keep it simple.

You need to understand that I am totally open-minded on this subject and only currently favor Free Will because of the evidence. My mind can be changed, you just need to address the questions and problems I am having. I like the concept of Determinism, I just don't find the argument to be strong enough to over-power Free Will.
Last edited by Fathom on Fri Jun 04, 2010 7:37 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 »

MBL,
MBL wrote:Then why did you use an example, pool balls, that requires an initial state o starting point and hence the big bang? Don't you get it? Can't you understand what he is saying?
He and you are wrong. Here is why.
My pool table example that shows the future state of each ball has "no choice" doesn't have to start at the beginning. That is why it is called analogy.
You need to practice to take the relevant part of an analogy and do not get distracted with the irrelevant part of the analogy. Applying your way of theistic nonsensical argument one could argue with me that pool balls have colour. What is the colour of the universe is?
Or one could say the poll table is flat but the universe is not flat.
One could have said, well before the balls fall into the pocket someone else might randomly pick up a ball. See how stupid it can get.

You must realize, the objective of the analogy to demonstrate that the future states of the balls depend on its previous state and the rules. Regardless of how did the balls arrived at its previous state.
You moron. What, are you a highschool droop out?
MBL wrote:I didn't know Fathom is a theologian. Are you sure that's not just another one of your Muslim cross eyed mistakes?
We have debated before, 5 or 6 years ago. I am the senior most FFI member here. Fathom told me that. He left Christianity for Islam, then left Islam too.
MBL wrote:Has anybody ever taught you the concept or riddle of "infinite regression" of origin or cause??
Explain it and show me how that shows Free Will.
MBL wrote:And why was the universe the way it was at t1??
That is a very good question. I wish I had known. I wish we had known.
We do not know.
We do not know a lot of things. We don't have answer to many, many things.
But what we know is that, reason, logic, and science can explain more things more accurately than any other system/methodology can. Other systems/methodology are, religion, mysticism, witchcraft, astrology, meditation, voo-doo, new age peseudo science, superstition etc.
MBL wrote:What prior conditions caused that?? Why didn't you ask this very simple question?? Why are you so thick? So of COURSE the big bang is completely relevant. You still have the reasoning abilities of a Muslim.
Your ego, raw rage, damged neuroal network is speaking more than reason circuitry of your brain as indicated above.
Your above post clearly shows your subconscioius mind is frustrated finding/realizing your faith on free will and supernatural thing have been shaken.
As far as we scientist are concerned we know we do not know a lot of things and we do change our mind.
However, as of today, all the knowledge, logic, reason, science, shows we do not have Free Will. But people do have the false idea in their head that there is free will.

You have been cornered.

Thanks but No thanks to my employer Arab Seikhs, who sings my paycheck, who hired me to expose fake people like you and others at FFI.
You have no justification of making fun of Islamic Faith when you have your own irrational Faith. Faith on Free Will.
You have been terminated.
User avatar
Fathom
Posts: 894
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:50 am

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by Fathom »

AbdulRahman wrote:Thanks but No thanks to my employer Arab Seikhs, who sings my paycheck, who hired me to expose fake people like you and others at FFI.
You have no justification of making fun of Islamic Faith when you have your own irrational Faith. Faith on Free Will.
You have been terminated.
So, if the above is true, would I be correct in stating that the reason you are arguing against Free Will is to demonstrate that Muhammad had no choice but to be a pedophile?
User avatar
HollowScar
Posts: 501
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 9:06 am

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by HollowScar »

Fathom wrote:
AbdulRahman wrote:Thanks but No thanks to my employer Arab Seikhs, who sings my paycheck, who hired me to expose fake people like you and others at FFI.
You have no justification of making fun of Islamic Faith when you have your own irrational Faith. Faith on Free Will.
You have been terminated.
So, if the above is true, would I be correct in stating that the reason you are arguing against Free Will is to demonstrate that Muhammad had no choice but to be a pedophile?
Sorry to interrupt, but just wanted to give my two cents. I am assuming that back then it was normal, since her parents agreed, and he was a divinely appointed leader. However, I still think that he was wrong in sleeping with her.

When it comes to pedophilia, I don't think it's a choice, just like homosexuality, and fetishes. It just happens, and once it happens, deprogramming yourself is the hard part.
"Do you remember what you told me once? That every passing minute is a another chance to turn it all around" - Vanilla Sky
"If I could just go back... if I could rub everything out... starting with myself" - The Talented Mr. Ripley
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 »

HollowScar wrote:
Fathom wrote:
AbdulRahman wrote:Thanks but No thanks to my employer Arab Seikhs, who sings my paycheck, who hired me to expose fake people like you and others at FFI.
You have no justification of making fun of Islamic Faith when you have your own irrational Faith. Faith on Free Will.
You have been terminated.
So, if the above is true, would I be correct in stating that the reason you are arguing against Free Will is to demonstrate that Muhammad had no choice but to be a pedophile?
Sorry to interrupt, but just wanted to give my two cents. I am assuming that back then it was normal, since her parents agreed, and he was a divinely appointed leader. However, I still think that he was wrong in sleeping with her.

When it comes to pedophilia, I don't think it's a choice, just like homosexuality, and fetishes. It just happens, and once it happens, deprogramming yourself is the hard part.
That's true. and whether Muhammad was morally right or not might be said to be a factor of culture and times. But to be able to become sexually aroused by the form of a naked little nine year old girl is definitely a bizarre mental illness in my opinion, regardless of moral issues. This is why I wonder why Muslims even try to excuse it as a cultural thing. What does it matter?? It's bizarre any way you slice it. It's bizarre from a human mental development point in general, aside from any cultural issues.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night
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:MBL,
MBL wrote:Then why did you use an example, pool balls, that requires an initial state o starting point and hence the big bang? Don't you get it? Can't you understand what he is saying?
He and you are wrong. Here is why.
My pool table example that shows the future state of each ball has "no choice" doesn't have to start at the beginning. That is why it is called analogy.
You need to practice to take the relevant part of an analogy and do not get distracted with the irrelevant part of the analogy. Applying your way of theistic nonsensical argument one could argue with me that pool balls have colour. What is the colour of the universe is?
Or one could say the poll table is flat but the universe is not flat.
One could have said, well before the balls fall into the pocket someone else might randomly pick up a ball. See how stupid it can get.

You must realize, the objective of the analogy to demonstrate that the future states of the balls depend on its previous state and the rules. Regardless of how did the balls arrived at its previous state.
You moron. What, are you a highschool droop out?
No because those states owe their state to prior states. Get it? Get it? So the big bang is a valid part of the discussion. Dummy.
AbdulRahman wrote:
MBL wrote:I didn't know Fathom is a theologian. Are you sure that's not just another one of your Muslim cross eyed mistakes?
We have debated before, 5 or 6 years ago. I am the senior most FFI member here. Fathom told me that. He left Christianity for Islam, then left Islam too.
MBL wrote:Has anybody ever taught you the concept or riddle of "infinite regression" of origin or cause??
Explain it and show me how that shows Free Will.
I didn't say it showed free will, it shows that you don't even understand your point very well. Nothing comes out of nothing, right? Everyyhing owes itself and it's state to something else prior, right?

AbdulRahman wrote:
MBL wrote:And why was the universe the way it was at t1??
That is a very good question. I wish I had known. I wish we had known.
We do not know.
Well regardless of whether we know the specifics, would you not say that the universe was the way it was at t2 because of it's state at t1? Isn't t1 an inherent factor??

AbdulRahman wrote: We do not know a lot of things. We don't have answer to many, many things.
Good, at least we don't have to listen to you say "period" anymore. That was pretty ignorant.

AbdulRahman wrote: But what we know is that, reason, logic, and science can explain more things more accurately than any other system/methodology can.
That we are aware of.
AbdulRahman wrote: Other systems/methodology are, religion, mysticism, witchcraft, astrology, meditation, voo-doo, new age peseudo science, superstition etc.
MBL wrote:What prior conditions caused that?? Why didn't you ask this very simple question?? Why are you so thick? So of COURSE the big bang is completely relevant. You still have the reasoning abilities of a Muslim.
Your ego, raw rage, damged neuroal network is speaking more than reason circuitry of your brain as indicated above.
Your above post clearly shows your subconscioius mind is frustrated
Didn't I predict about three pages ago that you would take your frustration and project it onto me?? Remember that post where i called you a lair and then you tried to make me out to be a liar anyway that you could?? Remember that?? Remember what a miserable failure that was? Remember the embarrassment?? My my, how quickly you can forget.
AbdulRahman wrote: finding/realizing your faith on free will and supernatural thing have been shaken.
Can you show me one spot where I said that you changed my mind about even one tiny iota of what I've thought the whole time?
AbdulRahman wrote: As far as we scientist are concerned we know we do not know a lot of things and we do change our mind.
Fine, dump the usage of the word "period", silly clown. Drop the no IFs no Buts
AbdulRahman wrote: However, as of today, all the knowledge, logic, reason, science, shows we do not have Free Will.
How come scientists are split on the matter?
AbdulRahman wrote: But people do have the false idea in their head that there is free will.
You just keep repeating yourself and repeatedly fail to effectively demonstrate or prove you point, or even properly substantiate it. you think that if you just keep repeating yourself, you can ram your point through and people will start to agree with you. That is patently false. Get used to it.
AbdulRahman wrote: You have been cornered.
So i explain exactly how and why you have painted yourself into a corner, and you come back and claim I'm cornered without explaining any good reason why anybody should think so? This is the projection again. This is the same retarded thing that Muslims do. You catch them lying, and they spend their whole time trying to call you a liar to hide the fact they got caught. Dishonest down to the bone, and dumb as a stump to boot.

AbdulRahman wrote: Thanks but No thanks to my employer Arab Seikhs, who sings my paycheck, who hired me to expose fake people like you and others at FFI.


Yeah, wasn't that Christians and Muslims as a group at first?? :lol: Wasn't that your first story?? Now it's Arab Sheiks spelled "Seikhs". My God, you can't even keep your story straight and can't even keep your typing straight. Twisted thinking can lead to twisted typing you know.



AbdulRahman wrote: You have no justification of making fun of Islamic Faith when you have your own irrational Faith. Faith on Free Will.
You have been terminated.
And it wouldn't shock me to find out that you are still a Muslim and are attempting another stupid Muslim game like they always attempt, where they behave as though they are somebody they are not. and Muslims are always proud of this behavior rather than ashamed of it. Lying is clever, rather than shameful. And entirely different culture. you may say that people in the west lie, but that is looked upon as very shameful and nobody ever wants to get caught. Seems like in your culture if one catches another lying, he says "aha, I caught you lying" and the other says "good job, nice catch", and then they both go on their merry way like it's just a game to them as to who can be the most clever and wily liar. How odd.
orange jews for breakfast and 20 oz he brews at night
User avatar
Fathom
Posts: 894
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:50 am

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by Fathom »

HollowScar wrote:
Fathom wrote:
AbdulRahman wrote:Thanks but No thanks to my employer Arab Seikhs, who sings my paycheck, who hired me to expose fake people like you and others at FFI.
You have no justification of making fun of Islamic Faith when you have your own irrational Faith. Faith on Free Will.
You have been terminated.
So, if the above is true, would I be correct in stating that the reason you are arguing against Free Will is to demonstrate that Muhammad had no choice but to be a pedophile?
Sorry to interrupt, but just wanted to give my two cents. I am assuming that back then it was normal, since her parents agreed, and he was a divinely appointed leader.
Muhammad? "Divinely appointed?"

There is no "divine" to appoint anyone to anything.
When it comes to pedophilia, I don't think it's a choice, just like homosexuality, and fetishes. It just happens, and once it happens, deprogramming yourself is the hard part.
I don't think enough is known about the state of pedophilia. The subject is so taboo that I don't think anyone has studied it enough to find out why some people are pedophiles. It could be genetic, or any number of reasons. One thing is for certain however, it is totally wrong on so many levels that the behavior could never be justified under any circumstances.
yeezevee
Posts: 6547
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by yeezevee »

Sorry to interrupt, but just wanted to give my two cents. I am assuming that back then it was normal, since her parents agreed, and he was a divinely appointed leader.
Spoiler! :
However, I still think that he was wrong in sleeping with her.

When it comes to pedophilia, I don't think it's a choice, just like homosexuality, and fetishes. It just happens, and once it happens, deprogramming yourself is the hard part.
Hi HollowScar., I wonder whether you have read such stuff some where to prove that " back then it was normal, since her parents agreed

Do we have any examples from Muhammad's father, Grand father, uncles or from Khadija side., a generation older than Muhammad that such things took place in Pagan Arabia so a 53 year old guy marries and sleeps with a year old child?? I don't really care some Baboon tribe from middle of Arabian desert used to do that.,


But I certainly care if we have examples from well respected Pagan folks of that time from Arabia (which Muhammad's uncles.. father, grand fathers were) did such sex obsessed pedophilia act with a 9 year old child that too this guy being 53 not a 15 or 17 year old unmarried boy with high hormonal content flowing in the brain..

with best wishes
yeezevee
AbdulRahman
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:25 am
Location: aka GreatIslam

Re: God, Free Will & Contingency

Post by AbdulRahman »

Fathom wrote:
Your argument is simply not convincing.
Probably, not convincing to you because of your lack of training in reasoning, logic, and science.
Fathom wrote:A snapshot does not work. Why? Because it is only a snap-shot, and not the big picture.
Show us why it doesn't work. Which part doesn't work?
Fathom wrote:You need to understand that I am totally open-minded on this subject
Fair enough. I appreciate your honesty here.
Open mind means not unduly influenced by one way or the other. Question remains, are you unduly taking side due to your subconscious level bias, to maintain your CC and avoid CD?
Fathom wrote:currently favor Free Will because of the evidence.
What evidence do you have for Free Will?
Fathom wrote:My mind can be changed.
That is a very good news.
Fathom wrote:you just need to address the questions and problems I am having. I like the concept of Determinism, I just don't find the argument to be strong enough to over-power Free Will.
Now, I will address the questions you raised.
Fathom wrote:The problem with your snapshot scenario is this. Let's say the Big Bang occurred, and let's agree that it is not the origin of all of existence. let's make the Big Bang a mere snap-shot. Now, because it is a mere snap-shop, and does not represent the actual origin of existence, it's trajectory can be altered by variables that pre-existed the Big Bang. In other words, it is interfered with by random variables. Why are those variables considered random? Because we cannot pinpoint an original condition for them.
First of all the snap shot doesn't have to be at the big-bang. As a matter of fact, to avoid irrelevant things clouding our mind, it is better not to go that far back. For simplicity you can take the snap shot just 1 millisecond in the past.
Fathom wrote:Now, because it is a "mere" snap-shop
Word "mere" exposes your subconscious level unfair bias against No Free Will. but let's proceed.
Fathom wrote:does not represent the actual origin of existence,
Actual origin of the universe has nothing to do with our debate of Free Will.
Fathom wrote:it's trajectory can be altered by variables that pre-existed the Big Bang. In other words, it is interfered with by random variables.
Effects of pre-existing variables are already captured in the following.
In the absence of randomness the state of the universe U at a future time t2 is a function of (a) state of the universe U at a previous time t1 and (b) all the rules that are applied to the universe.
Fathom wrote:Why are those variables considered random? Because we cannot pinpoint an original condition for them.
My example of pool table game or the application of the logic of "cause and effect" deliberately, explicitly, completely disregard any randomness (QM).
Fathom wrote:Why are those variables considered random?
Because (a) theory, (b) mathematics, and (c) physics (d) empirical test results in the lab and in the universe, consistently confirm they are random. This have been demonstrated not by Abdul only but by thousands of scientists all over the world over almost a hundred years now. this is Quantum mechanics unpredictability is inherent in nature.

Fathom,
your argument imply, those might not be random after all.
Ok, fair enough. There are two possibilities.
1) they are random
2) they are not random

1. If they are random then it makes the case for No Free Will even easier. in the absence of randomness there exists ONLY the strict chain of "Cause and effect" - predictable laws of nature.

2. If there is really randomness then the question comes in who controls the randomness? Do we? Is there any single molecule in my brain or bunch of molecule in my brain or entire brain controlling the randomness?
Answer is of course not.
Even if it did then it must be controlling the randomness by certain rules projected by our brain. Then the rules come backs in. Back to square one of "strict chain of cause and effect"

That's why even the idea of free will is ludicrous.
That doesn't mean to say, people brain doesn't have the false memory of having the free will.

Corollary:
Even if the almighty god existed then this is the only way he could have existed.
That's is leaving no trace of his/her or it's existence. period. Because, if he had left any indication of his existence then we wouldn't have called him the god any way. That would have become a natural part of the Universe.

I know following might seem to you just a baseless statement but I will have to give it to you.
Not only that there is no evidence of Free Will but there is not even logical possibility of Free Will. As a matter of fact Free Will simply can't exist.

Now I agree, that most people feel like they have the free will. So many people genuinely feel so many things. That's why we must put our feeling aside when in search of the truth.

Fathom wrote:I like the concept of Determinism
Please use searcch function to find any place if I used the term "Determinism" to support my claim of No Free Will. I did not.

I wanted to make sure you have read my this post fully, and have thought about it. please...
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=6613&p=112452#p112427" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Post Reply