The "Freethinking" Atheist

Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
The "Freethinking" Atheist

The term "freethinking" presupposes a belief in "free will." However, in the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism, there is no free will. In other words, every thought or belief that an atheist has or entertains was completely predetermined and could not have been otherwise. This hardly constitutes the idea of freethinking.

The bottom line is that if there is no free will, then there is no freethinking. Moreover, the term "freethinking atheist" is actually an oxymoron. That being said, I will kindly ask the atheists on this forum to refrain from describing themselves as freethinkers. Intellectually honesty demands this.

Thank you. Smiling  

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


kaab
Posts: 113
Joined: 2007-10-21
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Paisley wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Paisley, (80 97 105 115 108 101 121 44)

13 83 105 110 99 101 32 121 111 117 32 116 104 105 110 107 32 119 101 32 97 114 101 32 110 111 116 104 105 110 103 32 98 117 116 32 114 111 98 111 116 115 32 119 105 116 104 32 99 111 110 115 99 105 111 117 115 110 101 115 115 32 73 32 115 112 101 97 107 32 116 111 32 121 111 117 32 105 110 32 116 104 101 32 108 97 110 103 117 97 103 101 32 111 102 32 99 111 109 112 117 116 101 114 115 46 32 89 111 117 32 97 103 97 105 110 32 97 114 101 32 119 97 114 112 105 110 103 32 100 101 102 105 110 105 116 105 111 110 115 32 116 111 32 121 111 117 114 32 101 110 100 115 32 97 110 100 32 102 97 105 108 101 100 46 32 71 111 111 100 32 76 117 99 107 33

Apparently, what we have here is a "robot with consciousness" taking a fatal error. Sorry for the meltdown. You have my condolences and sympathy.

you suck, like a lot of the assholes on here. big deal, you throw out  a bunch of numbers at someone, it doesn't mean that you make any philosophical sense. you are just one of the many other punks on here trying to make someone feel bad.

 

 

Paisley,

I have been waiting for you to correct your error of perception to post this response but it appears that you have no idea you made one. As you see I have not gone into a meltdown caused by a fatal error. You made an error in observation. As you have claimed to be a panentheist I am disappointed in this failure of observation by you. Since your belief assumes there is design and patterns as part of your worldview I really thought you would get my point. Your failure to recognize a simple ASCII code even when I gave you a clue to decipher it speaks volumes about you. In the heading I typed your name and in parenthesis gave the ASCII equivalent. As follows:

P=80 a=97 i=105 s=115 l= 108 e=101 y=121 ,=44

Hint: b=98, m=109, z=122, capital O=79, capital S=83

You don’t seem to have developed the ability of pattern recognition as evidenced by your failure to see a pattern in these numbers. What you saw was utter confusion, which is not the case; it is actually a paragraph making a clear statement. This leads me to question how it is that a simple ASCII character code looked like a robot with consciousness in a fatal error to you and yet you see design and patterns in the Universe. Perhaps you spend far too much time on theories and mysticism and too little time on reality. The whole point of this exercise was to see your reaction and you did as I expected.

I began to wonder after witnessing this failure in observation of yours just exactly what you really do know. Ditzy blondes (not meant as an insult I like blondes especially ditzy ones) can use a computer in the same manner as you have demonstrated. Do you really have no understanding? Are you nothing but a key pusher and a mouse clicker? Do you have any real understanding at all of the real world and the tools developed by the “robots of consciousness”? As someone in a complex technological world are you just someone that uses the inventions of others and have nothing to contribute except mysticism, your perceived philosophy and criticism of those that provide you with the tools you utilize? It is one thing to claim understanding of QM and quite another to rebuild your car engine. Do you have any clue how to design or even repair a computer? Can you repair a water pipe, replace a circuit breaker, build a wall, pour concrete, kill and skin a rabbit or even a fish? If you lost your technology would you be lost as well?

Ask and it shall be given you, Luke 11:9. Looks like someone needs a course in computers?

Paisley wrote:

Sorry, I don't know if it is my computer or if there are problems with the RRS application but I am not able to respond to all posts because some are being "cut off" at the bottom of a page. Also, I am now encountering problems with posting my own responses.

Make fun of “robots of consciousness” and the tools that the robots make give you issues. Maybe you are right, we are all part of the ‘universal mind’ and we instructed your computer to glitch because of your insults.

Consider your own comment here:

Paisley wrote:

We all have to learn respect in this life. Of this, we have no choice. Hopefully, you won't have to learn it the hard way.

Have you actually read your own comments in a detached manner?

 

You seem to be intelligent but have issues with people that claim to be atheists. You have demonstrated elitism, egocentric behavior, and consistent anger directed at atheism. I would suggest that you spend more time in reality and less time dwelling on things you can’t ever know, see your other thread for my comments about this. You have made yourself a magnet for criticism and have received harsh comments as a result. You take positions guaranteed to provoke anger, morph word definitions, use words in your own defined way and criticize when atheists point out your inconsistencies. I’m not sure what you are trying to accomplish but so far it doesn’t appear to be gaining you any measurable results of benefit.

I have read your comment in the thread Free Will and Determinism http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14010 where you use a random number generator:

paisley wrote:

$PickANumber = int(rand(10)) + 1;

Each time the program runs, all the statements in the program will be executed in a completely deterministic fashion. However, each time the foregoing statement is executed, it will "pick" a number that is (at least in theory) completely random.

There is one glitch here. The above function is not really random. The number that is actually chosen is based on the internal clock time of the computer. That is, whenever the program runs, then whatever number is in the "thousandths of second place" will be used. However, for all intents and practical purposes, the function is random even though in reality it is completely predetermined.

But if this were truly a random function, then the number that was "chosen" would have been selected without any physical cause.

This suggests you have taken at least a class in computer languages. In your example here you actually take a similar position to what I have previously stated. If you consider a human mind to be analogous to a complex computer the mind will process the data in a deterministic manner. What changes the outcome and makes it indeterminate is the human mind continues to receive inbound data packets continuously. Learning is analogous to receiving updates to our software or entire new programs. So if I make a decision regarding a river flooding and say we are safe in our location, five minutes later I may reverse this decision as I have noted the rising flood waters. In this way you are actually correct that free will does exist but it is always altered by prior causes (knowledge & memory) as well. I will generally always hit a 2 card 16 against a face card in Blackjack unless I think the dealer has a 6 for a hole card based on premonition, blood alcohol level, attention, card counting or the fact I glimpsed the hole card.

In your random number generator it is generated as you say by the internal clock of the computer. It is always a deterministic number due to the clock. It does not receive any new data to alter its outcome, except from the clock, while the human mind does. The difference is a human may be composed of physical materials as is the rest of the Universe but he is running his own CPU which may not always follow deterministic rules of the physical world. As a part of physical reality the human is subject to the laws of science which are deterministic as you have in great detail explained but the human within these laws can still be indeterminate in his responses. That means that I appear to agree with you in some respects. The Universe can be deterministic but the human’s actions can be indeterminate within the setting. Feel free to place whatever label upon me you choose for this position.

I have no issue with you as a person, only your use of misapplied knowledge to pursue what appears to be a vendetta. As I said you seem very intelligent but yet you demonstrate an apparent lack of understanding. These comments were made in the hope of enlightening you. It is not my purpose to be disrespectful with you or create conflict. As with all things you are welcome to dismiss them outright if you so chose. As I said I see intelligence in you but it seems focused in a manner that is not productive. I can only wish that you consider this and act in a way from which you could benefit. I have no desire to correct your god belief you are welcome to it but perhaps having head on collisions is not the way to win. It would seem that the only thing you accomplish in this manner is incorrectly stroking your own ego and irritating others in a way counter productive to understanding.

Robert A Heinlein said it best, “A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
kaab wrote:you suck, like a

kaab wrote:

you suck, like a lot of the assholes on here. big deal, you throw out  a bunch of numbers at someone, it doesn't mean that you make any philosophical sense. you are just one of the many other punks on here trying to make someone feel bad.

Thanks for your opinion.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
PaulJohn , don't you mean

PaulJohn , don't you mean thanks for agreeing with my opinion ? (kaab didn't write that , you did, and I agree, P isn't very helpful .... I think kaab was only agreeing with you.

   Ahhh dang confusion in my head  ..... again ! 

  


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

PaulJohn , don't you mean thanks for agreeing with my opinion ? (kaab didn't write that , you did, and I agree, P isn't very helpful .... I think kaab was only agreeing with you.

   Ahhh dang confusion in my head  ..... again ! 

  

I am, I didn't write that part. I suspect kaab meant that for me as an insult but I could be wrong. My skeptic nature allows me to wait for direct proof.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I see now, hey kaab, wish

I see now, Hey kaab, wish you'd edit your last post error ..... I am already half nuts as it is ...    I don't think JohnPaul would hurt a fly. He's trying to help, and yeah, loving helpers get mad too, especially in print ! ME does ....       

   [ Kaab was replying to Paisley and miss used the quote function ....  


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Thomathy

Paisley wrote:

Thomathy wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I do believe that when an individual curses the name of God that he (the individual) is exihibitng a belief in the existence of God. This is commonly referred to as a "Freudian slip."

That is not what a Freudian slip is at all.  Using 'god' in an expletive is not even a slip of any sort.  It is simply using a common expletive and it has no bearing on a person's belief in god.  Do you assume that in order to use 'god' in an expletive a person must believe they are offending god and thus believe?  If so, that's not how people use expletives.

You're probably right. This isn't a Freudian slip. It's a blatant display of blasphemy. When anyone yells "Jesus F***** Christ" after stubbing his toe, I will assume that he is blaming Christ for his mishap. There is no other rational explanation to account for such behavior.

The facts are that it is the tendency of human beings to cry out to a higher power (God) in a crisis situation. And by the same token, it is the tendency of human beings to curse "the powers that be" (God) when misfortune comes their way. That an atheist would curse the name of God over something so trivial as stubbing one's toe speaks volumes.

Indeed.  You have a problem with blasphemy.  In fact, it doesn't mean that someone is blaming jesus for stubbing his toe.  The rational account for such behaviour is that the person is yelling out a common expletive directed at no one and no thing except for the incident.  Just because you believe in jesus and believe that invoking his name is to, well, invoke his name, does not mean that everyone else who says such a thing believes they are doing the same thing.  They don't.  What they believe is that they're swearing.  By your logic anyone who yelled out Santo Vacca is invoking the Hindu regard for cows and the consequences of cursing that regardless of whether they believe cows to be holy creatures or not.  You must see the obvious implications of your argument.  As I have said before, an expletive can be just an expletive.

Paisley wrote:

Thomathy wrote:
Paisley wrote:
How has it lost its meaning? The meaning is clear. The atheist wants to blame God for the pain he now finds himself experiencing. If the atheist truly didn't believe in the existence of God and that the deity wasn't responsible for the incident, then there would be no reason to curse God. That he does curse God provides proof-positive that the "cultural expression" has retain all its original meaning.

When someone stubs their toe they might say 'God dammit!' (Most often I say 'Ow!' because my toe hurts.)  This is a common expletive.  Even taken literally, the person is not blaming god, they'd be asking god to damn something.

Agreed. The expression "God damn it" literally suggests that an individual is calling upon God to punish somebody (actually something..."it" is generally considered to be impersonal). This is why such an expression is called cursing. The individual is literally asking that someone or something be justly punished or condemned (i.e. cursed).

So, let's place this in proper context. The so-called unbeliever stubs his toe on the bottom leg of a coffee table and screams "God F****** damn it!!!" Now, what are we to make of such behavior? 

Well, the individual is clearly angry (a present state of "rage" is probably a better description). But if he is angry, then he must be angry with someone or something? So, with "whom" is he directing his anger? Or, at "what" is he directing his anger?

1) Is he angry with the coffee table? Does he actually believe that an inanimate object deliberately had the intention to bring him pain? Maybe? But what does this reveal about the unbeliever's beliefs? Whenever you're angry, you're angry with an intelligent agent, not with an inanimate object or an impersonal situation. Inanimate objects or impersonal situations cannot be held morally responsible for unpleasant experiences. So we can easily dismiss this explanation; it's simply absurd.

2) Is he angry with himself? Possibly. But when you consider the worldview of atheistic materialism, then this doesn't really make any rational sense. Why? Because in the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism, every action an individual performs "could not have been otherwise." In other words, each and every event that one experiences was predetermined by the blind, pitiless forces of nature playing themselves out. So why is he blaming and cursing himself for something he had absolutely no control over? It's completely absurd. Besides, are we to really believe that the unbeliever is demanding that he be punished for being such a bumbling idiot? This will only compound his pain and will not alleviate his sense of righteous indignation.

3) Is he upset with the "universe" itself? Does he actually believe that the forces of nature are conspiring argainst him? Perhaps. But, how can you be angry at something that is not intelligent and therefore cannot held morally responsible? This is no different than being angry with an inanimate object (e.g. the coffee table). It's absurd.

4) Is he upset with a higher power or intelligence (i.e. God) whom he believes is deliberately against him? Most definitely. This is the only thing that makes a smattering of rational sense.

Or the person is upset at the situation.  The only thing that makes sense is not that the person is upset with a higher intelligence.  Do you play stupid for fun?  The Atheist does not believe in such a higher power.  It is a moot point.  And even if the events that had transpired were unavoidable in what way is it irrational to be upset about the events?  Simply because something has happened doesn't mean that anyone has to be happy about it or like it.  A person could be justifiably angry.  (Please, don't take that as me agreeing with your insane notions, either.  I'm simply working within the framework of your response.)  Further, if a person is angry at the coffee table, that does not mean that the person believes the coffee table is at fault.  Humans very often anthropomorphize inanimate objects.  It may be absurd, but it happens regularly.  Do I, personally, get angry at the coffee table?  No, I'm not angry at all actually.  Cursing does not have to be about anger, it can be about a number of things.  I'm in pain and I can express that, sometimes well, by swearing.  When I swear, I use the expletives that I'm familiar with.  It is the same across cultures and unsurprisingly expletives tend to feature the use of similar words devoid of all their usual meaning.

Paisley wrote:

Thomathy wrote:
It is customary to use certain expletives in particular situations, this is a learnt trait, and thus they can carry connotations.  Sometimes expletives are used in place of other words or sentences and take over their meaning, for instance, 'Fuck off!' is understood to mean 'Go away!' or any other similar sentence, however, with the extra connotation that person uttering 'Fuck off!' is particular angry with whom they're telling to go away and has decided to convey all of that in their use of the expletive.
 

Agreed. An individual will curse another human being because he (the individual) is expressing righteous indignation and believes the other is guilty and deserving of retribution.

Sure.

Paisley wrote:

Thomathy wrote:
Your whole argument, however, is more simply refuted by pointing out that just because you believe it's cursing god to use god in an expletive does not mean that anyone who utters an expletive that includes the word god believes they're doing the same thing.  An Atheist certainly doesn't think that she's cursing god, she in fact can't curse god because she doesn't believe in god.  What you're arguing requires that the person uttering the expletive means to curse god and, as I've pointed out, that's not how people use expletives.

I have made a bullet-proof argument earlier in this post why the atheist does indeed exhibit anger directed towards God. The evidence for this behavior is played out everyday by such trivial mishaps as stubbing one's toe.

Here you are blatantly incorrect.

Paisley wrote:

Magus wrote:
So when I say to someone "Crap, I forgot my keys" I am really telling that person to take a crap?  Or is this different?

No, you're obviously upset with yourself because you said "I forgot" and are thus acknowledging personal responsibility. When you shout profanities after you stub your little toe, you're either angry with the coffee table (which is absurd) or God. Anger is always directed towards that which you believe is morally responble for inflicting you with pain or grief.

Paisley, I don't know where to begin.  Morals and anger don't necessarily have anything to do with swearing.  Why do you think everyone who swears after stubbing their toe must be angry?  They are not necessarily, and if they are, why does that anger have to be directed toward a responsible moral agent?  Cursing the coffee table may be absurd, but it happens!  I would think that very few people actually believe a coffee table is a responsible moral agent.  Certainly very few people believe that they are invoking god by using the word in an expletive.  That is very simply not how people use expletives.  It has been explained how people use expletives.  I have shown you how a person is not necessarily blaming anyone or anything for having stubbed their toe when they swear.  If a person instead said, 'shit' or 'dammit' or 'fucking a' or 'bastard' or 'bitch that hurt' (or simply bitch) or 'crap' or 'fuck' or anything else (and I mean any other extant expletive) what would you make of that?  You aren't making any sense.  An expletive is just an expletive, it is a release of emotion and it refers to nothing.  The choice of expletive can be seen as completely arbitrary in the sense that when you've stubbed your toe any expletive may be used only people tend to use an expletive they're familiar with in that situation.  The only way you'd have a case would be if every time anyone (and I mean absolutely anyone) stubbed their toe they used the exact same expletive and meant for god to curse the coffee table.  They don't and even when they do yell 'god dammit!', they're not invoking god's wrath!  Do you know how stupid you seem?

To add some to this in order to preempt any confusion, an expletive adds no meaning to a sentence because it contains no meaning in the sense of meaning as attributed to other words.  Expletives are used to add the strength of feeling to a statement and in and of themselves have no literal meaning.  They can add encouragement, show delight, anger, irritation, annoyance, happiness, they can do many things.  In fact, any expletive in English can be used in any statement to add whatever feeling a person intends to. 'God Dammit, it's good to see you!' 'Bloody hell, it's good to see you!' 'Fuck, it's good to see you!'  These sentences all mean the exact same thing, only the emphasized feeling was made apparent by the use of different groups of phonemes we call expletives and the expletive used could be anything.

One question, Paisley: Do you actually know anything about Linguistics?  Do you know that you are completely and thoroughly wrong when you insist that people mean the literal definition of each word in an expletive?  You ought to know now.  Why don't you go read up on expletives and their use in human language?  It is horribly pathetic to watch you continue to make a huge fool of yourself.  And, fuck off!  (See what I did there?  I replaced 'go away' with an expletive, so don't actually go fuck off, however you'd do that.  I might have written 'shove off' or anything else, but I'm more comfortable with 'fuck off'.  Thought I'd let you know since you believe in taking these things literally.  In fact, I wonder how many coffee tables god has damned and where coffee table hell is and what torment damned coffee table endure?)

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Is it just me or is Paisley

Is it just me or is Paisley (the pantheist who claims to be the only real "freethinker" here) spending a lot of time defending Yahweh and the Jesus?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Subject of saying......

Look every society has different saying for when you injure yourself in a non serious manner (such as stubbing your toe, hitting your shins, funny bone etc, etc, etc) Goddamnit, jesus fucking christ, jesus mary joseph, fuck, ouch OWW are really English speaking, and really more towards the north american side of it all (although I have have heard some UK'rs say it but they too have different sayings) In spanish these are some of the terms we use, Puta Madre (bitch Mother), la concha de tu madre (your mothers cunt), La remil putisma madre (loosely translated as fucking bitch mother) AII!!, Dios Mio (my god), Dios la remil puta (god that fucking bitch) and OI!!!.

My british mates I have heard say bollacks, Newfies (my wife especially) says blood of a bitch (girls this is s way to call another girl and SOB), and of course the famous newfie saying Lard tundering jesus. Every society has different termenology that they use to express negative feelings/pain which is in the spur of the moment, none of it is meant to take it as literal (unless of coure your an idiot and actually think that is what they mean), but hey, some people are morons and interpret tihngs so wrong that it is laughable.


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:The term

Paisley wrote:

The term "freethinking" presupposes a belief in "free will."

Ok... The windup.

Paisley wrote:

However, in the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism, there is no free will. In other words, every thought or belief that an atheist has or entertains was completely predetermined and could not have been otherwise. This hardly constitutes the idea of freethinking.

No, that would be more in the worldview of the Psychologist BF Skinner...

The Pitch...

Paisley wrote:

The bottom line is that if there is no free will, then there is no freethinking. Moreover, the term "freethinking atheist" is actually an oxymoron. That being said, I will kindly ask the atheists on this forum to refrain from describing themselves as freethinkers. Intellectually honesty demands this.

Thank you. Smiling  

Swing, and a miss!

I'm an Atheist.

I'm not a Skinnerian.

I don't see materialism as inherantly deterministic.

Synergy, the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.

A crate of parts on the floor is useless, a little time and some tools, and you can drive off in a Lambergini. No magic required.

Yes, my mind is the sum of all that i have experienced, however, it is capable of independant decision making, free will, no magical diety involved.

 

By the way, did you get a permit to construct that Straw man?

 

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yeah Louis, I AM milking my

Yeah Louis, I AM milking my freewill for all I can get , so get out of my way Paisley, STOP denying me !


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:Paisley

Louis_Cypher wrote:
Paisley wrote:

The bottom line is that if there is no free will, then there is no freethinking. Moreover, the term "freethinking atheist" is actually an oxymoron. That being said, I will kindly ask the atheists on this forum to refrain from describing themselves as freethinkers. Intellectually honesty demands this.

Thank you. Smiling  

Swing, and a miss!

I'm not playing baseball and neither are you.

Louis_Cypher wrote:
I don't see materialism as inherantly deterministic.

Materialism requires that for every physical event there must be a physical cause.

Quote:
materialism 1 a: a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter (source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

Louis_Cypher wrote:
Synergy, the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.

A crate of parts on the floor is useless, a little time and some tools, and you can drive off in a Lambergini. No magic required.

Yes, my mind is the sum of all that i have experienced, however, it is capable of independant decision making, free will, no magical diety involved.

I would say that "uncaused" events require a little bit of magic. Obviously, you believe that you are some kind of deity with supernatural powers. Isn't that right "Loucypher?"

Quote:
indeterminism 1 a: a theory that the will is free and that deliberate choice and actions are not determined by or predictable from antecedent causes b: a theory that holds that not every event has a cause (source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)  

Incidentally, materialism is a worldview based on reductionism, not holism (synergy).

Quote:
The general principle of holism was concisely summarized by Aristotle in the Metaphysics: "The whole is more than the sum of its parts."

source: Wikipedia "Holism"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism 

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Let us reason together.....

Paisley wrote:

I'm not playing baseball and neither are you.

I always suspected theists don't actually have balls.... >;-}>

Paisley wrote:
[Materialism requires that for every physical event there must be a physical cause.

Agreed. And I support it whole heartedly...

But, is it nessesarily deterministic?

Chaos theory says no...

Paisley wrote:
I would say that "uncaused" events require a little bit of magic. Obviously, you believe that you are some kind of deity with supernatural powers. Isn't that right "Loucypher?"

Just as it is obvious that you are a tacky, garish and ultimately tasteless cloth pattern, eh, 'paisley'...

It's hard to fathom how someone who believes in an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent god, (magic) can at the same time claim 'free will'. The nature of omniscience means that all events are known in advance, set in stone, as it were, unchangeable... the 'free will' of the theist is delusional...

Of course, since there is no such magic being...we do have free will, in all it's chaotic glory...

Paisley wrote:
Incidentally, materialism is a worldview based on reductionism, not holism (synergy).

Synergy doesn't negate materialism, nor does materialism negate synergy...

It appears that Dorothy wasn't the only one who loved her straw-man most of all...

LC >;-}>

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5862
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley does seem to be

Paisley does seem to be somewhat literal minded:

!. Freethinking is assumed to be the same as 'free thinking', rather than a refusal to be governed by dogmatic beliefs sytems;

2. Insistence that expletives are to interpreted literally, which displays a breathtaking misunderstanding of human psychology;

3. Even the trivial response to the sporting metaphor with "I'm not playing baseball and neither are you."

4. Materialism, at least in the modern, as against the medieval sense, is assumed by Paisley to to mean there is absolutely nothing but material, rather than material (actually matter/energy) AND its modes of interaction, and the processes it can undergo, the complex structures that can evolve or be created with emergent properties, etc.

Regarding 'cause' and  'effect', at the quantum level, many events such as the decay of an individual unstable nucleus has no discernable cause. We know it is at a higher energy state than it's decay products, but it needs some tiny input of energy to get it past the initial phase of decay. Where does that come from? It can't be from specific objects in its environment, because exhaustive measurements have established that the probability of decay in any specifed time period is totally unaffected by its surroundings, its temperature, etc.

It seems consistent with an intrinsic perfectly random 'jitter' of energy at the lowest possible level, permeating all space.

The problem with simplistic  notions of 'cause and effect' is that they seem to assume a clearly identifiable 'cause', whereas in reality many events are 'triggered by the nett contribution of a large number of parameters in the environment ,many of which are varying significantly, to happen to combine in sufficient nett effect to initiate some event.

So. causes for readily observable events may be anything from an all but infinitesimal quantum twitch, or a combination of a whole bunch of minor environmental variables happening to have a nett effect sufficient to trigger, say, a hurricane or an avalanche.

With an adequate flow of energy available, physical systems can display self organization, spontaneously forming ordered structures.

Even theoretically 'perfectly' deterministic systems can be utterly unpredictable under certain conditions, ie, they can display chaotic behaviour.

All of this is modern 'materialism', or perhaps as I would prefer, 'Scientific naturalism', more than adequate to make things like the emergence of life and mind, quite plausible, at least in principle. I mean by that there are no fundamental scientific principles being violated, as far as we know.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
   Louis_Cypher

Louis_Cypher wrote:
Paisley wrote:
[Materialism requires that for every physical event there must be a physical cause.

Agreed. And I support it whole heartedly...

But, is it nessesarily deterministic?

Chaos theory says no...

This is interesting. You say you agree - agree that every physical event has a physical cause. But then you question as to whether this is deterministic when it is deterministic by definition.

Sorry, but you are misinformed. Chaos theory is deterministic.

Quote:
In mathematics, chaos theory describes the behavior of certain dynamical systems – that is, systems whose state evolves with time – that may exhibit dynamics that are highly sensitive to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, which manifests itself as an exponential growth of perturbations in the initial conditions, the behavior of chaotic systems appears to be random. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully defined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos

source: Wikipedia "Chaos theory"

http://www.rationalresponders.com/comment/reply/13976/170155?quote=1#comment-form

Louis_Cypher wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I would say that "uncaused" events require a little bit of magic. Obviously, you believe that you are some kind of deity with supernatural powers. Isn't that right "Loucypher?"

Just as it is obvious that you are a tacky, garish and ultimately tasteless cloth pattern, eh, 'paisley'...

The "paisley" design is considered to be a very sophisticated and classy pattern. My guess is that the gentleman (Robert DeNiro) in your avatar has a "pasiley necktie." Paisley neckties were very fashionable in the late 1980's and early 1990's when "Angel Heart" was filmed.

Also, I am surprised to learn that someone who is espousing the implications of "chaos theory" doesn't have an appreciation for the connection between chaos theory, fractals, and the paisley pattern.

Quote:
Modern observers have noted that fractals generally form intricate paisley-like designs

source: Wikipedia "Paisley"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paisley_%28design%29

Louis_Cypher wrote:
It's hard to fathom how someone who believes in an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent god, (magic) can at the same time claim 'free will'. The nature of omniscience means that all events are known in advance, set in stone, as it were, unchangeable... the 'free will' of the theist is delusional...

Actually, I never stated whether I believed in free will or not. This is an assumption on your part. I simply stated freethinking presupposes free decision-making which presupposes free will.

Also, the theological character trait of "omniscience" does not preclude free will. Omniscience simply means, in this context, that God knows all that there is to know, not necessarily that the future is completely predictable and already known. This view is known as "open theism." Open theism (a.k.a. free will theism) is a very popular movement today in evangelical circles.

Quote:
Open theism, also known as free will theism, is a philosophical view about the nature of a theistic God's knowledge, according to which God is incapable, to some extent, of knowing the future actions of a human being with free will.

Open theism is a theological movement that has developed within Evangelical and post-evangelical Protestant Christianity as a response to certain ideas regarded by some as a synthesis of Greek philosophy and Christian theology.source: Wikipedia "Open theism"

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

Whether determinism, indeterminism, or acausality hold true does not threaten theistic belief. Each view has implications that support some form of theism.

Louis_Cypher wrote:
Of course, since there is no such magic being...we do have free will, in all it's chaotic glory...

I have already provided you with documentation that states explicitly that chaos theory is deterministic, not indeterminate. However, even if it were indeterminate, you seem to be missing the entire point. Indeterminism implies that you have physical events without physical causes. The bottom line is that indeterminism sounds the death knell of materialism.

Also, this is very strange. You want to call the free will of theism delusional while you allow yourself the luxury of asserting that you have free will. I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

Louis_Cypher wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Incidentally, materialism is a worldview based on reductionism, not holism (synergy).

Synergy doesn't negate materialism, nor does materialism negate synergy...

It does negate scientific materialism. Scientific holism supports my worldview, not yours (unless you fancy yourself as some kind of New Age pantheist).

Quote:
Further resistance to holism has come from the association of the concept with quantum mysticism. Scientists were as a rule discouraged from doing any work which may perpetuate such deception. Recently, however, public understanding has grown over the realities of such concepts, and more scientists are beginning to accept serious research into the concept.

source: Wikipedia "Holism"

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

Quote:
Quantum mysticism refers to the practice of selectively borrowing ideas from quantum physics to support New Age and pseudoscientific beliefs, or to draw metaphorical similarites between principles in quantum physics and principles in Eastern mysticism.[1] The term is used pejoratively by skeptical scientists to discount the idea that quantum theory supports mystical beliefs.

source: Wikipedia "Quantum mysticism"

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

Louis_Cypher wrote:
It appears that Dorothy wasn't the only one who loved her straw-man most of all...

The fact is that the worldview of atheistic materialism is made out of straw and the atheists on this forum are having a hissy fit because I am simply lighting matches and playing with fire (metaphorically speaking, of course). Smiling

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Louis_Cypher

Paisley wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:
Paisley wrote:
[Materialism requires that for every physical event there must be a physical cause.

Agreed. And I support it whole heartedly...

But, is it nessesarily deterministic?

Chaos theory says no...

This is interesting. You say you agree - agree that every physical event has a physical cause. But then you question as to whether this is deterministic when it is deterministic by definition.

Sorry, but you are misinformed. Chaos theory is deterministic.

Quote:
In mathematics, chaos theory describes the behavior of certain dynamical systems – that is, systems whose state evolves with time – that may exhibit dynamics that are highly sensitive to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, which manifests itself as an exponential growth of perturbations in the initial conditions, the behavior of chaotic systems appears to be random. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully defined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos

source: Wikipedia "Chaos theory"

http://www.rationalresponders.com/comment/reply/13976/170155?quote=1#comment-form

Louis_Cypher wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I would say that "uncaused" events require a little bit of magic. Obviously, you believe that you are some kind of deity with supernatural powers. Isn't that right "Loucypher?"

Just as it is obvious that you are a tacky, garish and ultimately tasteless cloth pattern, eh, 'paisley'...

The "paisley" design is considered to be a very sophisticated and classy pattern. My guess is that the gentleman (Robert DeNiro) in your avatar has a "pasiley necktie." Paisley neckties were very fashionable in the late 1980's and early 1990's when "Angel Heart" was filmed.

Also, I am surprised to learn that someone who is espousing the implications of "chaos theory" doesn't have an appreciation for the connection between chaos theory, fractals, and the paisley pattern.

Quote:
Modern observers have noted that fractals generally form intricate paisley-like designs

source: Wikipedia "Paisley"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paisley_%28design%29

Louis_Cypher wrote:
It's hard to fathom how someone who believes in an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent god, (magic) can at the same time claim 'free will'. The nature of omniscience means that all events are known in advance, set in stone, as it were, unchangeable... the 'free will' of the theist is delusional...

Actually, I never stated whether I believed in free will or not. This is an assumption on your part. I simply stated freethinking presupposes free decision-making which presupposes free will.

Also, the theological character trait of "omniscience" does not preclude free will. Omniscience simply means, in this context, that God knows all that there is to know, not necessarily that the future is completely predictable and already known. This view is known as "open theism." Open theism (a.k.a. free will theism) is a very popular movement today in evangelical circles.

Quote:
Open theism, also known as free will theism, is a philosophical view about the nature of a theistic God's knowledge, according to which God is incapable, to some extent, of knowing the future actions of a human being with free will.

Open theism is a theological movement that has developed within Evangelical and post-evangelical Protestant Christianity as a response to certain ideas regarded by some as a synthesis of Greek philosophy and Christian theology.source: Wikipedia "Open theism"

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

Whether determinism, indeterminism, or acausality hold true does not threaten theistic belief. Each view has implications that support some form of theism.

Louis_Cypher wrote:
Of course, since there is no such magic being...we do have free will, in all it's chaotic glory...

I have already provided you with documentation that states explicitly that chaos theory is deterministic, not indeterminate. However, even if it were indeterminate, you seem to be missing the entire point. Indeterminism implies that you have physical events without physical causes. The bottom line is that indeterminism sounds the death knell of materialism.

Also, this is very strange. You want to call the free will of theism delusional while you allow yourself the luxury of asserting that you have free will. I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

Louis_Cypher wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Incidentally, materialism is a worldview based on reductionism, not holism (synergy).

Synergy doesn't negate materialism, nor does materialism negate synergy...

It does negate scientific materialism. Scientific holism supports my worldview, not yours (unless you fancy yourself as some kind of New Age pantheist).

Quote:
Further resistance to holism has come from the association of the concept with quantum mysticism. Scientists were as a rule discouraged from doing any work which may perpetuate such deception. Recently, however, public understanding has grown over the realities of such concepts, and more scientists are beginning to accept serious research into the concept.

source: Wikipedia "Holism"

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

Quote:
Quantum mysticism refers to the practice of selectively borrowing ideas from quantum physics to support New Age and pseudoscientific beliefs, or to draw metaphorical similarites between principles in quantum physics and principles in Eastern mysticism.[1] The term is used pejoratively by skeptical scientists to discount the idea that quantum theory supports mystical beliefs.

source: Wikipedia "Quantum mysticism"

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

Louis_Cypher wrote:
It appears that Dorothy wasn't the only one who loved her straw-man most of all...

The fact is that the worldview of atheistic materialism is made out of straw and the atheists on this forum are having a hissy fit because I am simply lighting matches and playing with fire (metaphorically speaking, of course). Smiling

 

You do know wikipedia sucks as a source, don't you? One could just as easily make up a definition, give it a cool-sounding name and pass it off as an "official" definition.

Not saying you're doing it - just that it's possible to do it.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: You do know

jcgadfly wrote:
You do know wikipedia sucks as a source, don't you? One could just as easily make up a definition, give it a cool-sounding name and pass it off as an "official" definition. Not saying you're doing it - just that it's possible to do it.

You call this an argument? Wikipedia's articles cite sources. If you have a problem with anything stated in the Wikipedia articles that I have quoted, then I expect you to do your homework and explain why they are in error. If not, then you have nothing to back up your assertion.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Paisley

BobSpence1 wrote:
Paisley does seem to be somewhat literal minded:

1. Freethinking is assumed to be the same as 'free thinking', rather than a refusal to be governed by dogmatic beliefs sytems;

Yes, I defined "freethinking" to mean literally "free thinking." And as made evident by your foregoing statement, you were able to make that connection too - that the atheistic definition of "freethinking" does not actually mean free thinking. This is the whole point! The atheist is precluded by his worldview from literally identifying himself as a free thinker! Moreover, that there are atheists on this thread that are vainly attempting to argue that they have "free will" leads me to believe that my argument has struck a chord.

BobSpence1 wrote:
2. Insistence that expletives are to interpreted literally, which displays a breathtaking misunderstanding of human psychology;

The use of expletives generally reveal anger. Anger is always directed at an agent who is believed to be morally responsible. When an individual stubs his little toe on a coffee table and begins cussing, then he is expressing anger. Human beings typically project their anger. This is a basic psychological fact. What are we to deduce when this happens? Either the individual is projecting his anger at the coffee table (which is absurd), or he is projecting his anger elsewhere. So this begs the question: "With what or with whom is the individual directing his anger?" With a little reflection, the answer is obvious - God. There is no other logical explanation. And no one on this thread has made a cogent argument to suggest otherwise.

BobSpence1 wrote:
3. Even the trivial response to the sporting metaphor with "I'm not playing baseball and neither are you."

It's called sarcasm. Evidently, it went over your head.

BobSpence1 wrote:
4. Materialism, at least in the modern, as against the medieval sense, is assumed by Paisley to to mean there is absolutely nothing but material, rather than material (actually matter/energy) AND its modes of interaction, and the processes it can undergo, the complex structures that can evolve or be created with emergent properties, etc.

Sorry, but if ultimate reality includes anything else but the PHYSICAL, then it is not materialism. It's that simple! A non-physical force or cause is simply a euphemism for the mental or the spiritual. If you say that some physical events are without physical causes, then your worldview leaves something very much to be desired. At the very least, you're certainly in no position to be accusing others of being irrational.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Regarding 'cause' and 'effect', at the quantum level, many events such as the decay of an individual unstable nucleus has no discernable cause. We know it is at a higher energy state than it's decay products, but it needs some tiny input of energy to get it past the initial phase of decay. Where does that come from? It can't be from specific objects in its environment, because exhaustive measurements have established that the probability of decay in any specifed time period is totally unaffected by its surroundings, its temperature, etc.

It seems consistent with an intrinsic perfectly random 'jitter' of energy at the lowest possible level, permeating all space.

I guess this bears repeating...

"If you say that some physical events are without physical causes, then your worldview leaves something very much to be desired. At the very least, you're certainly in no position to be accusing others of being irrational."

BobSpence1 wrote:
The problem with simplistic notions of 'cause and effect' is that they seem to assume a clearly identifiable 'cause', whereas in reality many events are 'triggered by the nett contribution of a large number of parameters in the environment ,many of which are varying significantly, to happen to combine in sufficient nett effect to initiate some event.

So. causes for readily observable events may be anything from an all but infinitesimal quantum twitch, or a combination of a whole bunch of minor environmental variables happening to have a nett effect sufficient to trigger, say, a hurricane or an avalanche.

This is besides the point. Mathematical probability functions do not have causal efficacy. They simply describe a probabilistic event. Pure chance events are without physical cause by definition.

BobSpence1 wrote:
With an adequate flow of energy available, physical systems can display self organization, spontaneously forming ordered structures.

What does "self-organization" have to do with the subject at hand? Besides, the principle of self-organization lends support to the view that nature is intrinsically intelligent. I would say this is a pantheistic argument, not an atheistic one.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Even theoretically 'perfectly' deterministic systems can be utterly unpredictable under certain conditions, ie, they can display chaotic behaviour.

They can display what APPEARS to be random behavior (the term "appears" is the key word here). If they are perfectly deterministic, then whatever happens could not have been otherwise. But I will congratulate you on recognizing that "chaos theory" is actually deterministic, not indeterminate. Evidently, there are some atheists here who would have us believe that "chaos theory" somehow provides an explanation for the first-person experience of free will. It does not.

Quote:
All of this is modern 'materialism', or perhaps as I would prefer, 'Scientific naturalism', more than adequate to make things like the emergence of life and mind, quite plausible, at least in principle. I mean by that there are no fundamental scientific principles being violated, as far as we know.

Materialism and naturalism are not interchangeable terms. Panpsychism is compatible with naturalism. The question here is what is the "nature" of ultimate reality. If conscious-awareness has primacy or is on equal-footing with the physical, then we have some form of pantheism. Pantheism is a "God-belief" and is not compatible with atheistic materialism.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:The use of

Paisley wrote:

The use of expletives generally reveal anger. Anger is always directed at an agent who is believed to be morally responsible. When an individual stubs his little toe on a coffee table and begins cussing, then he is expressing anger. Human beings typically project their anger. This is a basic psychological fact. What are we to deduce when this happens? Either the individual is projecting his anger at the coffee table (which is absurd), or he is projecting his anger elsewhere. So this begs the question: "With what or with whom is the individual directing his anger?" With a little reflection, the answer is obvious - God. There is no other logical explanation. And no one on this thread has made a cogent argument to suggest otherwise.

When I feel good, I don't blame it on God. When I feel angry, I don't blame it on God. Humans often have free-floating emotions. We don't need a target for our anger to feel angry. In addition, I fucking curse all the time, and I don't need any goose-phlegm reason to do so.

Or: Sometimes a banana is just a banana.

But aside from that, you've avoided the whole topic of the psychology of cursing by presenting usupported blanket statements. You've constructed a faulty syllogism, and present that as "proof."

As a psychology-related aside: have you ever been diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder?

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BobSpence1

Paisley wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Regarding 'cause' and 'effect', at the quantum level, many events such as the decay of an individual unstable nucleus has no discernable cause. We know it is at a higher energy state than it's decay products, but it needs some tiny input of energy to get it past the initial phase of decay. Where does that come from? It can't be from specific objects in its environment, because exhaustive measurements have established that the probability of decay in any specifed time period is totally unaffected by its surroundings, its temperature, etc.

It seems consistent with an intrinsic perfectly random 'jitter' of energy at the lowest possible level, permeating all space.

I guess this bears repeating...

"If you say that some physical events are without physical causes, then your worldview leaves something very much to be desired. At the very least, you're certainly in no position to be accusing others of being irrational."

It seems quite possible that the current quantum model is flawed at best, and perhaps completely incorrect at worst. Invoking QM as evidence of God, or even evidence that physical positivism is irrational, is avoiding several things:

First, we don't have any clue why things behave as they do on the quantum scale. We just have a description of that behavior, and a few SWAGs (scientific wild-assed guesses) about the processes going on underneath.

We're not saying that there are physical events without physical causes. We're saying we don't know what all those causes are. As BobSpence1 mentioned (and you conveniently ignored by invoking rhetoric instead of logic), there is a strong case for planck-scale energy fluctuations as a cause for quantum events. The fluctuations may be caused by anything. They may be oscillations from the birth of the universe or from the expansion of the universe, or simply vibrations caused by the movement of energy and matter. Whatever the cause, these fluctuations are more than sufficient to explain many things about quantum mechanics that you attribute to the intelligence of the universe.

As for the free-thinking aspect of this discussion: you blithely mix philosophy and physics, and seem to think they are two sides of the same coin. They are not. General philosophy is a poor tool for determining the "ultimate reality" of the universe. Physics, as a specific practice of science, has had much more success. And currently, the ontology of our physics indicates that we have no clue why QM is apparently random. We have some SWAGs, as I said, but nothing that even looks remotely supportable by observation. At least one of these SWAGs brings us back to a strictly deterministic, and highly chaotic, universe.

And so, supporting any philosophical worldview with QM is arguing from ignorance. Discussing "free will" is mutual philosophic masturbation. From an objective standpoint, it niether matters, nor is a serious question.

Finally, we also have no clue about the fundamental nature of information. Information may be an intrinsic or emergent property of the universe. At them moment, we have no method of testing it. The same is true of information processing. It may be intrinsic, or it may be emergent.

Even if both of these properties are intrinsic to the universe, there is no way this indicates that intelligent information processing is an intrinsic property, and not an emergent property. So, to claim Spinoza's pantheistic God exists makes three separate leaps about things that are currently unknowable. This makes your entire argument concerning a pantheistic God unsupportable from our current ontology. It is at best a personal belief, just like every other theistic belief.

To sum up: "Free will" is a philosophical discussion, and not a scientific one. QM appears random, but so does any chaotic system, so all QM proves is that chaos theory is alive and well at the smallest scales of our universe. Finally, we don't have enough information to support a pantheistic God. It's like old-school Vikings using ligthning as evidence that Thor exists.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Didn't I explain QM to

Didn't I explain QM to Paisley in another thread?

 


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Didn't I

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Didn't I explain QM to Paisley in another thread?

Yep, Cap, that you did. Much of this is a re-hash of the same rhetoric Paisley keeps trotting out as if it were fresh halibut, instead of month-old cod. Pretty much, he has to go hit wikipedia to figure out what our argument is, pick the few things he can find to quibble over, ignore the rest, and present that as a rebuttal.

So I imagine you'll be explaining it to him again, in another thread somewhere.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
That was interesting Bob /

That was interesting Bob / Paisley. I have a zillion questions that will have to wait.

  I just wanted to share this again, with especially with P, and say again thanks P for your posts. As a hard core Atheist I do have an appreciation for the Pantheists awe and ideas, tho I disagree with their view of consciousness or anything being separate from material, or energy/matter.  That is, if I am understanding any of this correctly. (???) I am not a well read guy. Thanks again, and understand my onryness is directed at the causes of "unnecessary" suffering. > "Separation" Dogma.

Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion, has described Pantheism as “sexed-up atheism.”

http://www.pantheism.net/atheism.htm

"Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a non supernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings."

    Yes, i god as you, 100% connected and natural. Defeat all Dogma .... all of it, even as it is found in Pantheism etc.

 [ that was awesome Nigel the Bold ; yeah, "Discussing "free will" is mutual philosophic masturbation."   ]


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:That

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

That was interesting Bob / Paisley. I have a zillion questions that will have to wait.

  I just wanted to share this again, with especially with P, and say again thanks P for your posts. As a hard core Atheist I do have an appreciation for the Pantheists awe and ideas, tho I disagree with their view of consciousness or anything being separate from material, or energy/matter.  That is, if I am understanding any of this correctly. (???) I am not a well read guy. Thanks again, and understand my onryness is directed at the causes of "unnecessary" suffering. > "Separation" Dogma.

What? You're a hard core atheist who espouses that "I AM GOD AS YOU?" You're kidding....right?

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:
Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion, has described Pantheism as “sexed-up atheism.”

http://www.pantheism.net/atheism.htm

"Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a non supernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings."

Yes, I'm quite aware that Richard Dawkins is clueless on what constitutes pantheism. 

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Paisley

nigelTheBold wrote:

Paisley wrote:

The use of expletives generally reveal anger. Anger is always directed at an agent who is believed to be morally responsible. When an individual stubs his little toe on a coffee table and begins cussing, then he is expressing anger. Human beings typically project their anger. This is a basic psychological fact. What are we to deduce when this happens? Either the individual is projecting his anger at the coffee table (which is absurd), or he is projecting his anger elsewhere. So this begs the question: "With what or with whom is the individual directing his anger?" With a little reflection, the answer is obvious - God. There is no other logical explanation. And no one on this thread has made a cogent argument to suggest otherwise.

When I feel good, I don't blame it on God. When I feel angry, I don't blame it on God. Humans often have free-floating emotions. We don't need a target for our anger to feel angry. In addition, I fucking curse all the time, and I don't need any goose-phlegm reason to do so.

Or: Sometimes a banana is just a banana.

But aside from that, you've avoided the whole topic of the psychology of cursing by presenting usupported blanket statements. You've constructed a faulty syllogism, and present that as "proof."

As a psychology-related aside: have you ever been diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder?

I don't see anything in your response that remotely addresses the issue I broached earlier in this thread concerning the stubbing of one's toe. I suggest you do your homework first and then come back with some kind of argument.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
P wrote me, "What? You're a

P wrote me, "What? You're a hard core atheist who espouses that "I AM GOD AS YOU?" You're kidding....right?"  ////

  Hey friend, I think I get it, our misunderstanding.  ???   

  So tell me please, what isn't G-O-D ?       And further more, how is your "world view" more helpful to our world, above the simple atheist one ? 

   I say we are all god , all is god , as to crush dogma. And you say ?

 

  


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Paisley

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I guess this bears repeating...

"If you say that some physical events are without physical causes, then your worldview leaves something very much to be desired. At the very least, you're certainly in no position to be accusing others of being irrational."

It seems quite possible that the current quantum model is flawed at best, and perhaps completely incorrect at worst. Invoking QM as evidence of God, or even evidence that physical positivism is irrational, is avoiding several things:

First, we don't have any clue why things behave as they do on the quantum scale. We just have a description of that behavior, and a few SWAGs (scientific wild-assed guesses) about the processes going on underneath.

We're not saying that there are physical events without physical causes. We're saying we don't know what all those causes are.

When you say "we," I assume you are referring to physicists. And to say "we don't know what all those causes are" displays a basic misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. According to the standard interpretation of QM, nature is fundamentally indeterminate. Quantum events are uncaused and unbidden. Pure chance events have no cause by definition.

Quote:
The Copenhagen interpretation, due largely to the Danish theoretical physicist Niels Bohr, is the interpretation of quantum mechanics most widely accepted amongst physicists. According to it, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics predictions cannot be explained in terms of some other deterministic theory, and does not simply reflect our limited knowledge. Quantum mechanics provides probabilistic results because the physical universe is itself probabilistic rather than deterministic.

source: Wikipedia "Quantum mechanics"

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

nigelTheBold wrote:
[As BobSpence1 mentioned (and you conveniently ignored by invoking rhetoric instead of logic), there is a strong case for planck-scale energy fluctuations as a cause for quantum events. The fluctuations may be caused by anything. They may be oscillations from the birth of the universe or from the expansion of the universe, or simply vibrations caused by the movement of energy and matter. Whatever the cause, these fluctuations are more than sufficient to explain many things about quantum mechanics that you attribute to the intelligence of the universe.

Virtual particles (quantum fluctuations) pop in and out of existence, uncaused and unbidden. Sounds like "creation ex nihilo" to me.

nigelTheBold wrote:
As for the free-thinking aspect of this discussion: you blithely mix philosophy and physics, and seem to think they are two sides of the same coin. They are not. General philosophy is a poor tool for determining the "ultimate reality" of the universe. Physics, as a specific practice of science, has had much more success. And currently, the ontology of our physics indicates that we have no clue why QM is apparently random.

The standard interpretation of QM states that nature is fundamentally indeterminate. To be indeterminate means to be "without a cause" by definition. If something is without a physical cause, then it is beyond the purview of science. And what is beyond the purview of science is definitely open to philosophical reflection. If you're not capable of philosophical reflection, then you have dispensed with your rational faculties and therefore forfeit your right to engage in a rational discussion.

Quote:
indeterminism 1 a: a theory that the will is free and that deliberate choice and actions are not determined by or predictable from antecedent causes b: a theory that holds that not every event has a cause 2: the quality or state of being indeterminate; especially : unpredictability

(source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indeterminism

nigelTheBold wrote:
We have some SWAGs, as I said, but nothing that even looks remotely supportable by observation. At least one of these SWAGs brings us back to a strictly deterministic, and highly chaotic, universe.

Stop the nonsense. Any QM interpretation other than the standard interpretation is philosophical speculation. This includes the "information theory" interpretation of QM.

nigelTheBold wrote:
And so, supporting any philosophical worldview with QM is arguing from ignorance. Discussing "free will" is mutual philosophic masturbation. From an objective standpoint, it niether matters, nor is a serious question.

Wrong on two counts!

1) There's evidence for free will. It's called first-person experience. 

2) The prevailing scientific evidence suggests that nature is fundamentally indeterminate.

Both present evidence to suggest that materialism is patently false. And unless you can present some counter-argument, I suggest that you make your exit now.

nigelTheBold wrote:
Finally, we also have no clue about the fundamental nature of information. Information may be an intrinsic or emergent property of the universe. At them moment, we have no method of testing it. The same is true of information processing. It may be intrinsic, or it may be emergent.

We know that information only has meaning relative to conscious intelligence. 

nigelTheBold wrote:
Even if both of these properties are intrinsic to the universe, there is no way this indicates that intelligent information processing is an intrinsic property, and not an emergent property. So, to claim Spinoza's pantheistic God exists makes three separate leaps about things that are currently unknowable. This makes your entire argument concerning a pantheistic God unsupportable from our current ontology. It is at best a personal belief, just like every other theistic belief.

Atheistic materialism is at best a personal belief - a personal belief that is held by individuals in spite of the fact that there is compelling scientific and first-person evidence to suggest that it is patently false.

Just FYI, Spinoza's pantheistic God is completely deterministic. This is the primary reason why Einstein could not accept QM.

nigelTheBold wrote:
To sum up: "Free will" is a philosophical discussion, and not a scientific one.

"Atheistic Materialism" is a metaphysical discussion, not a scientific one.

nigelTheBold wrote:
QM appears random, but so does any chaotic system, so all QM proves is that chaos theory is alive and well at the smallest scales of our universe.

If QM proves indeterminism, then "atheistic materialism" is patently false.

Just FYI, chaos theory is deterministic, not indeterminate.  

nigelTheBold wrote:
Finally, we don't have enough information to support a pantheistic God. It's like old-school Vikings using ligthning as evidence that Thor exists.

Who's "we?" Speak for yourself.

It's like taking one of two positions: Either you accept the idea that conscious will is fundamental or resign yourself to the absurd position that physical events do not have causes. Personally, I like my position better than yours. 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Yes, I defined

Paisley wrote:

Yes, I defined "freethinking" to mean literally "free thinking." And as made evident by your foregoing statement, you were able to make that connection too - that the atheistic definition of "freethinking" does not actually mean free thinking. This is the whole point! The atheist is precluded by his worldview from literally identifying himself as a free thinker! Moreover, that there are atheists on this thread that are vainly attempting to argue that they have "free will" leads me to believe that my argument has struck a chord.

Please demonstrate how my position, which we have discussed many times, precludes me from such an identification. That people think you are wrong does not mean you are right.

Paisley wrote:

The use of expletives generally reveal anger. Anger is always directed at an agent who is believed to be morally responsible. When an individual stubs his little toe on a coffee table and begins cussing, then he is expressing anger. Human beings typically project their anger. This is a basic psychological fact. What are we to deduce when this happens? Either the individual is projecting his anger at the coffee table (which is absurd), or he is projecting his anger elsewhere. So this begs the question: "With what or with whom is the individual directing his anger?" With a little reflection, the answer is obvious - God. There is no other logical explanation. And no one on this thread has made a cogent argument to suggest otherwise.

Once again, Paisley, anger is not always directed at an agent who is believed to be morally responsible. If I stub my toe, there is no issue of morality involved, and if, in the course of stubbing my toe, I exclaim with some profanity, it is likely out of pain, not anger. Moreover, if there is anger inolved, it is at most directed at myself, not any supreme being. Nor even a supreme pizza.

Please demonstrate a)what the moral component of stubbing my toe is; where is the morality? the immorality? b)why you claim anger as a universal response to pain is a 'basic psychological fact', and c)why an exclamation, regardless of content, must be more than a yelp of pain filtered through our trained response to express ourselves in language.

If you cannot do so, then please, stop using an example you cannot support.

Paisley wrote:

Sorry, but if ultimate reality includes anything else but the PHYSICAL, then it is not materialism. It's that simple! A non-physical force or cause is simply a euphemism for the mental or the spiritual. If you say that some physical events are without physical causes, then your worldview leaves something very much to be desired. At the very least, you're certainly in no position to be accusing others of being irrational.

...

I guess this bears repeating...

"If you say that some physical events are without physical causes, then your worldview leaves something very much to be desired. At the very least, you're certainly in no position to be accusing others of being irrational."

He didn't reference anything but the physical. Quantum mechanics is a branch of physics. If it can be described by physics, it is thus physical.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
HEY P , How free is the Sun

HEY P , How free is the Sun , How free is the Earth ???  And so, how free are we ???


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5862
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BobSpence1

Paisley wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Paisley does seem to be somewhat literal minded:

1. Freethinking is assumed to be the same as 'free thinking', rather than a refusal to be governed by dogmatic beliefs sytems;

Yes, I defined "freethinking" to mean literally "free thinking." And as made evident by your foregoing statement, you were able to make that connection too - that the atheistic definition of "freethinking" does not actually mean free thinking. This is the whole point! The atheist is precluded by his worldview from literally identifying himself as a free thinker! Moreover, that there are atheists on this thread that are vainly attempting to argue that they have "free will" leads me to believe that my argument has struck a chord.

You defined "freethinking"? WTF? That is precisely what we keep trying to point out to you - it is what makes your whole OP a pointless stawman!! You then compound the error by contrasting this with the definition you claim Atheists give the word. This is nonsense on steroids!

The word has a generally understood usage, and meaning, according to the New Oxford American Dictionary:

"a person who rejects accepted opinions, esp. those concerning religious belief."

From Webster's Unabridged:

"a person who forms his opinions about religion independently oftradition, authority, or established beliefs."

From Wikipedia:

"Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logic and should not be influenced by emotion, authority, tradition, or any dogma. The cognitive application of freethought is known as freethinking, and practitioners of freethought are known as freethinkers."

If some atheists define the word in significantly different sense from these, that is irrelevant, just as is your re-definition.

None of these assume free will, just the capacity to make choices, in the same way as any other choice, whatever the assumed mechanism by which we arrive at any decision.

I will deal with your other nonsense later, if I feel you are worth wasting any more typing on.

Your persistence with this blatant straw-man argument in the teeth of all attempts to point out the gaping flaw in your approach and assumptions puts you dangerously close to being classified as a troll.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5862
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BobSpence1

Paisley wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
4. Materialism, at least in the modern, as against the medieval sense, is assumed by Paisley to to mean there is absolutely nothing but material, rather than material (actually matter/energy) AND its modes of interaction, and the processes it can undergo, the complex structures that can evolve or be created with emergent properties, etc.

Sorry, but if ultimate reality includes anything else but the PHYSICAL, then it is not materialism. It's that simple! A non-physical force or cause is simply a euphemism for the mental or the spiritual. If you say that some physical events are without physical causes, then your worldview leaves something very much to be desired. At the very least, you're certainly in no position to be accusing others of being irrational.

Nothing I added to the concept of matter/energy (structure, process, etc) was spiritual or mental (in the sense of being generated or governed in any way by thought ). It was just a way to more fully describe the way science studies the universe. We don't just analyse the composition of matter, we study the dynamics of the interactions of matter and energy, and the evolution/emergence of complex structures such as galaxies and DNA molecules, solar systems and the human brain and mind.

If these ideas and objects of study do not fit into your definition of materialism, then it is not your version of materialism, but it is definitely not spiritual either. You will note that nowhere in that description did I refer to a non-physical force, by the way.

In accordance with the true scientific approach, if we identify any currently mysterious influence or phenomenon which can be characterised consistently and predictably, and cannot be currently decomposed into known elements/forces, it is just added to the list of physical 'forces' or factors, just as historically happened with invisible influences like 'electricity' and 'gravity', and in more recent times , the strong and weak nuclear forces.

For that matter, if, as in QM, there appear to be phenomena which exhibit purely random behaviour, by which I mean displaying a probability that is definable with exquisite accuracy by a relatively simple mathematical equation, or even a constant, such as seems to apply to virtual particles, then that means that that behaviour is added to the lexicon of science, Note that pure randomness, or events whose rate of occurrence over time converges unerringly to precisely defined value is utterly inconsistent with any kind of meaningful thought process, otherwise you would have to assign sentience to a tossed coin...

It is your simplistic concept of 'materialism' that is way past its use-by date.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I don't see

Paisley wrote:

I don't see anything in your response that remotely addresses the issue I broached earlier in this thread concerning the stubbing of one's toe. I suggest you do your homework first and then come back with some kind of argument.

"...do your homework first." Ah, you are so cute when you avoid the actual issues!

But thanks for answering the question of whether or not you suffer from NPD. That does explain a lot -- your inability to admit that you are wrong, even on the slightest or most inconsequential point; your failure to address arguments that eviscerate your baseless assertions; your arrogant assumption that you are smarter and cleverer than others.

Not that it matters to you, as you will continue going through life being smugly wrong. That's fine. I have a big brother like that. He's also funny as he keeps repeating the same things that have been proven wrong time and again.

But, here's the problem with your assertion that we are cursing God, which shows we actually believe in God. You are deluded by your own belief in God, and you feel you are so obviously right in that belief, that others must also believe. So, to you, atheists are merely suppressing their God-belief.

That's so ludicrous, it is your most patently stupid assertion yet. And from you, that says a lot.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:When you say

Paisley wrote:

When you say "we," I assume you are referring to physicists. And to say "we don't know what all those causes are" displays a basic misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. According to the standard interpretation of QM, nature is fundamentally indeterminate. Quantum events are uncaused and unbidden. Pure chance events have no cause by definition.

Quote:
The Copenhagen interpretation, due largely to the Danish theoretical physicist Niels Bohr, is the interpretation of quantum mechanics most widely accepted amongst physicists. According to it, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics predictions cannot be explained in terms of some other deterministic theory, and does not simply reflect our limited knowledge. Quantum mechanics provides probabilistic results because the physical universe is itself probabilistic rather than deterministic.

source: Wikipedia "Quantum mechanics"

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

You do realize that "indeterminate" merely means we don't know the cause, and it seems as if it's perfectly random, right? It doesn't mean uncaused. Nowhere does Copenhagen claim it's "uncaused." He says it's "probabilistic."

There are other things that appear probabilistic, and would meet the terms of the Copenhagen interpretation. Do you know what they are? I'll give you a hint, since you'll probably need it. It's been mentioned a couple of times here already, and its initials are "chaos theory."

BobSpence1 referred to it, talking about fluctuations of energy. This happens on the planck scale, and is perfectly consistent with the standard interpretation.

Quote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
[As BobSpence1 mentioned (and you conveniently ignored by invoking rhetoric instead of logic), there is a strong case for planck-scale energy fluctuations as a cause for quantum events. The fluctuations may be caused by anything. They may be oscillations from the birth of the universe or from the expansion of the universe, or simply vibrations caused by the movement of energy and matter. Whatever the cause, these fluctuations are more than sufficient to explain many things about quantum mechanics that you attribute to the intelligence of the universe.

Virtual particles (quantum fluctuations) pop in and out of existence, uncaused and unbidden. Sounds like "creation ex nihilo" to me.

Riiiiight.

Here's the problem: we don't know if they are uncaused or not. All we know is that they do. Energy fluctuations on the planck scale would also account for this behavior. Or are you missing that point? You seem to be. You seem to be missing the point that there's a lot we still don't know.

Any claim of knowledge you have on this point is not certain. You may be certain, but your certainty is unfounded in our current knowledge.

Quote:

The standard interpretation of QM states that nature is fundamentally indeterminate. To be indeterminate means to be "without a cause" by definition. If something is without a physical cause, then it is beyond the purview of science. And what is beyond the purview of science is definitely open to philosophical reflection. If you're not capable of philosophical reflection, then you have dispensed with your rational faculties and therefore forfeit your right to engage in a rational discussion.

Quote:
indeterminism 1 a: a theory that the will is free and that deliberate choice and actions are not determined by or predictable from antecedent causes b: a theory that holds that not every event has a cause 2: the quality or state of being indeterminate; especially : unpredictability

(source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indeterminism

Do you see where 1a. is more applicable? You've had many people here try to explain it, many people who've had an actual education in physics, with some who've even practiced in the field. So far, the only one who even vaguely supports your idea is Eloise, and even she disagreed with you on most points.

What is your education in QM? Have you even studied it at university at all? I believe you have not. You certianly are completely incorrect on many of your assertions about it. And your constant insistence that we know the nature of QM events (and that is the Mind of God) is so fucking baseless, you're not even in the same ballpark as "the standard interpretation."

Quote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
We have some SWAGs, as I said, but nothing that even looks remotely supportable by observation. At least one of these SWAGs brings us back to a strictly deterministic, and highly chaotic, universe.

Stop the nonsense. Any QM interpretation other than the standard interpretation is philosophical speculation. This includes the "information theory" interpretation of QM.

"Stop the nonsense." That's funny. You are a funny, funny man.

I wasn't talking about the information theory of QM. You're the one bringing up information theory. (Yes, I've mentioned it before in other threads, but that's because I thought you'd be interested, and because it's fun. Not because it's likely.)

What I'm mentioning is chaos theory as applied to energy fluctuations at the planck scale. This model explains both the indeterminate nature of QM (with causes!) and the spontaneous creation and mutual destruction of particles and anti-particles. This model was first brought up by BobSpence1, and further mentioned by me, in the hopes that you'd get the hint, and actually address the fucking issues. Instead, you go off on your repetitive (and quite ridiculous) assertion that "atheistic materialism can't account for QM."

As it turns out, it can. Just because you are too caught up in your dogma to recognize sufficient explanations isn't our problem. It's yours.

Quote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
And so, supporting any philosophical worldview with QM is arguing from ignorance. Discussing "free will" is mutual philosophic masturbation. From an objective standpoint, it niether matters, nor is a serious question.

Wrong on two counts!

1) There's evidence for free will. It's called first-person experience. 

2) The prevailing scientific evidence suggests that nature is fundamentally indeterminate.

Both present evidence to suggest that materialism is patently false. And unless you can present some counter-argument, I suggest that you make your exit now.

1. How does first-person experience "prove" anything about free will? All it means is you have the illusion of free will, and your brain accepts it.

2. "Indeterminate" does not mean "uncaused." It means simply that it's unpredictable, random, seemingly-arbitrary. As has been explained to you over and over (and you haven't rebutted), chaos is indistinguishable from true randomness. We've presented a chaos-based mechanism that fits the standard, accepted QM model.

You've  presented nothing but your same old tired arguments that are based on a presupposition of God. Any argument that presupposes God is a dead end.

So, unless you have something new to present, I suggest that you make your exit now.

Quote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
Finally, we also have no clue about the fundamental nature of information. Information may be an intrinsic or emergent property of the universe. At them moment, we have no method of testing it. The same is true of information processing. It may be intrinsic, or it may be emergent.

We know that information only has meaning relative to conscious intelligence. 

Who's this "we" you speak of?

I suggest you go do your homework. This is a stupid statement, and if you knew anything about informtion theory and its implication in QM, you'd have avoided embarrassing yourself like that.

Quote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
QM appears random, but so does any chaotic system, so all QM proves is that chaos theory is alive and well at the smallest scales of our universe.

If QM proves indeterminism, then "atheistic materialism" is patently false.

Just FYI, chaos theory is deterministic, not indeterminate.  

Again, "indeterminism" does not mean "uncaused." That is merely one possible (and fairly-well debunked, at this point) interpretation. Usually, it's the one brought up by blow-hard philosophers who like to think they know more than scientists, and are afraid to admit their persuit of knowledge is subjective and doomed to failure.

Quote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
Finally, we don't have enough information to support a pantheistic God. It's like old-school Vikings using ligthning as evidence that Thor exists.

Who's "we?" Speak for yourself.

It's like taking one of two positions: Either you accept the idea that conscious will is fundamental or resign yourself to the absurd position that physical events do not have causes. Personally, I like my position better than yours. 

Like it all you want. Doesn't make it right.

The thought that intelligence suffuses the universe is also absurd. Basically, any claim to knowledge we don't have is absurd. The only rational approach is to accept the knowledge we have, admit the knowledge we don't have, and live our lives to the best of our ability.

You have a "God of the Gaps." You are cherry-picking the most ridiculous interpretations of QM to support your model, and you avoid any real point brought against you. You are not going to change your mind, as you suffer from a mental illness, NPD. Your argument is repetitive and tiresome and contains nothing of interest. I only jumped in because I wanted you to address BobSpence1's post, rather than dodge it like you've dodged everything else.

But I see that you are incapable of actual discussion. You aren't here to discuss: you're here to lecture us on how wrong we are, and how smart and interesting you are. Sorry, Professor, you're not nearly as interesting nor intelligent as you think yourself. I wish you could engage in an intelligent discussion, because I think you'd have real points to bring up. You border on being fun once in a while.

Better luck next time, though.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Still nothing new. Paisely,

Still nothing new. Paisely, you FAIL.

 

 

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:jcgadfly

Paisley wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
You do know wikipedia sucks as a source, don't you? One could just as easily make up a definition, give it a cool-sounding name and pass it off as an "official" definition. Not saying you're doing it - just that it's possible to do it.

You call this an argument? Wikipedia's articles cite sources. If you have a problem with anything stated in the Wikipedia articles that I have quoted, then I expect you to do your homework and explain why they are in error. If not, then you have nothing to back up your assertion.

Others have done that better than I have. You haven't looked at their arguments. Why should I be less of an ass to you as you have to everyone else here?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Still

MattShizzle wrote:
Still nothing new. Paisely, you FAIL.

I guess this is an improvement over your signature potty humor. Hopefully in the near future, you will actually make an effort to formulate some kind of logical argument.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Still

MattShizzle wrote:
Still nothing new. Paisely, you FAIL.

I guess this is an improvement over your signature potty humor. Hopefully in the near future, you will actually make an effort to formulate some kind of logical argument.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
All righty then

All righty then Paisley:

 

Find the first three energy levels of a free particle in a 2-D box of length and width L.  If you can't even do that, then you shouldn't be talking about QM.

 

 

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:MattShizzle

Paisley wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:
Still nothing new. Paisely, you FAIL.

I guess this is an improvement over your signature potty humor. Hopefully in the near future, you will actually make an effort to formulate some kind of logical argument.

 

I see little point, as you have demonstrated in this and every other thread you have participated in that you either dismiss logical arguments or respond with language tricks or other sophisms.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Paisley

BMcD wrote:
Paisley wrote:

Yes, I defined "freethinking" to mean literally "free thinking." And as made evident by your foregoing statement, you were able to make that connection too - that the atheistic definition of "freethinking" does not actually mean free thinking. This is the whole point! The atheist is precluded by his worldview from literally identifying himself as a free thinker! Moreover, that there are atheists on this thread that are vainly attempting to argue that they have "free will" leads me to believe that my argument has struck a chord.

Please demonstrate how my position, which we have discussed many times, precludes me from such an identification. That people think you are wrong does not mean you are right.

My response was addressed to "BobSpence1," not you. I suggest that you allow BobSpence1 to defend his own position.

BMcD wrote:
Paisley wrote:
The use of expletives generally reveal anger. Anger is always directed at an agent who is believed to be morally responsible. When an individual stubs his little toe on a coffee table and begins cussing, then he is expressing anger. Human beings typically project their anger. This is a basic psychological fact. What are we to deduce when this happens? Either the individual is projecting his anger at the coffee table (which is absurd), or he is projecting his anger elsewhere. So this begs the question: "With what or with whom is the individual directing his anger?" With a little reflection, the answer is obvious - God. There is no other logical explanation. And no one on this thread has made a cogent argument to suggest otherwise.

Once again, Paisley, anger is not always directed at an agent who is believed to be morally responsible. If I stub my toe, there is no issue of morality involved, and if, in the course of stubbing my toe, I exclaim with some profanity, it is likely out of pain, not anger. Moreover, if there is anger inolved, it is at most directed at myself, not any supreme being. Nor even a supreme pizza.

If the expression of profanity "is likely out of pain, not anger," then how does this support your counter-argument that "anger is not always directed at an agent?" I suggest you take a few minutes, think about it, and have another go at it later because right now you are failing miserably.

BMcD wrote:
He didn't reference anything but the physical. Quantum mechanics is a branch of physics. If it can be described by physics, it is thus physical.

Clearly you do not have a basic understanding of QM. If you did, then you would know that quantum events have no physical cause and this would have prevented you from making such an ridiculous argument.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5862
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Another comment on chaos

Another comment on chaos theory, indeterminate, etc.

A chaotic system is fully deterministic, in that we can quite definitely trace the cause/effect chain thru the system, but we cannot predict which outcome of the possible outcomes will actually follow from a given input, because of the extreme sensitivity to the actual magnitude of the input value - prediction would require knowing the input conditions to a literally infinite precision. So such a deterministic, fully 'causal' system is also indeterminate.

Similarly with a quantum event, such as the spontaneous decay of an unstable nucleus - we know the cause, it is all in the relative energy level of the intact nucleus and the lower energy of the decay products, with the slightly higher state of it has to pass thru before it can start the decay process being all that is stopping it. Quantum indeterminacy, an observed physical phenomenon that we don't know the ultimate nature of, means that at any given time, the actual energy of the nucleus has a finite and precisely known probability of temporarily exceeding the threshhold and actually decaying.

The idea of a background field of chaotically interacting energy quanta, or virtual particles, or whatever, is all we would need to drive such indeterminate, ie unpredictable, energy fluctuations.

Now of course we don't know how accurately this concept reflects the reality, but is broadly consistent with other well-established physics, and is therefore at least a model of what seems to be happening, which is ultimately all that we ever have about any phenomenon. Some models are more detailed and descriptive than others. Just another way of saying we have not reached the level of 'ultimate' reality, whatever that may be, and we may be 'doomed' to only get ever closer but not reach it. Along the way, we do get ever more accurate and usefully predictive models, AKA 'theories'.

As long as we have at least one plausible model, we are still in the realm of science, and it would be gratuitously naive to jump to the assumption of 'non-physical', whatever that ill-defined concept means, apart from just being a label we paste over stuff we don't currently understand. We are surrounded by discarded label reading 'supernatural' or 'God did it' for phenomena now well and truly integrated into our scientific understanding.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Clearly

Paisley wrote:

Clearly you do not have a basic understanding of QM. If you did, then you would know that quantum events have no physical cause and this would have prevented you from making such an ridiculous argument.

And where did you, o most enlightened one, study QM? From your understanding of it, I would say philosophy class, circa 1990-95. That's about right, since philosophy generally trails science by about 50 years, and your understanding is about what we had back in 1945, and more-or-less wrong in its conclusions, even for that, which is also par for the course in philosopohy classes.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:All

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
All righty then Paisley:

 

Find the first three energy levels of a free particle in a 2-D box of length and width L.  If you can't even do that, then you shouldn't be talking about QM.

How does this negate quantum indeterminacy?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5862
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I think Paisley's comment

I think Paisley's comment about us not understanding QM, along with his claim to actually understand it, should be directed to the ghost of Richard Feynman, who famously said "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics"".

Seems to apply to his position perfectly...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Cpt_pineapple

Paisley wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
All righty then Paisley:

 

Find the first three energy levels of a free particle in a 2-D box of length and width L.  If you can't even do that, then you shouldn't be talking about QM.

How does this negate quantum indeterminacy?

It shows you don't know what you're talking about. If you can't even answer a simple problem in QM how could you make statements about it?

 

Anyone else in this thread can PM me the answer if they want.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I think

BobSpence1 wrote:
I think Paisley's comment about us not understanding QM, along with his claim to actually understand it, should be directed to the ghost of Richard Feynman, who famously said "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics"".

You call this a compelling counter-argument?

I understand that the standard interpretation of QM states that quantum events are probabilistic ones, and as such, are without physical cause.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Paisley

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Paisley wrote:
How does this negate quantum indeterminacy?

It shows you don't know what you're talking about. If you can't even answer a simple problem in QM how could you make statements about it?

I know that the standard interpretation of QM states that quantum events are probabilistic ones. And I also know that you cannot refute this.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Paisley

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Clearly you do not have a basic understanding of QM. If you did, then you would know that quantum events have no physical cause and this would have prevented you from making such an ridiculous argument.

And where did you, o most enlightened one, study QM? From your understanding of it, I would say philosophy class, circa 1990-95. That's about right, since philosophy generally trails science by about 50 years, and your understanding is about what we had back in 1945, and more-or-less wrong in its conclusions, even for that, which is also par for the course in philosopohy classes.

Ad hominem attacks do not constitute a logical rebuttal. I do not have to have a Ph. D. in physics or mathematics  from MIT to grasp the basic idea that quantum events are probabilistic events and are therefore without physical cause. That you profess to have a degree in physics and have not been able to grasp this basic idea does not speak well of your college or university.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5862
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley, can you get it into

Paisley, can you get it into your head that 'probabilistic' does NOT, repeat NOT, mean without physical cause. In a chaotic regime, it means that the slightest variation in the actual parameters of the physical cause can lead to very different effect, therefore we can only assign a probability to any particular outcome for an input 'cause' within a certain range of values.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Cpt_pineapple

Paisley wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Paisley wrote:
How does this negate quantum indeterminacy?

It shows you don't know what you're talking about. If you can't even answer a simple problem in QM how could you make statements about it?

I know that the standard interpretation of QM states that quantum events are probabilistic ones. And I also know that you cannot refute this.

 

Hence the reason I asked you the question. You don't know how probablity in QM works.

 

If you did, you'd be able to answer the question and see how it's relivant

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5862
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BobSpence1

Paisley wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
I think Paisley's comment about us not understanding QM, along with his claim to actually understand it, should be directed to the ghost of Richard Feynman, who famously said "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics"".

You call this a compelling counter-argument?

I understand that the standard interpretation of QM states that quantum events are probabilistic ones, and as such, are without physical cause.

It wasn't meant to be a counter-argument, it was a comment on your demonstrated misunderstanding of Quantum Mechanics and indeterminacy. This should have been obvious.

It was at least partly sarcastic, so it obviously went straight over your head....

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology