Author Topic: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?  (Read 18962 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12466
  • Darwins +294/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #696 on: January 16, 2012, 09:55:17 PM »
Just like the gun isn't shooting someone, the bullet is.  Gun isn't and wasn't affected at all.   :-*

(This is entertaining me greatly now, Gill)
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #697 on: January 16, 2012, 09:57:29 PM »
Just like the gun isn't shooting someone, the bullet is.  Gun isn't and wasn't affected at all.   :-*

(This is entertaining me greatly now, Gill)

There's no energy lost while the light goes around the curve , now is there?  So then conservation, yet a change in direction, without actually making contact with a material thing.  Interesting.....

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12466
  • Darwins +294/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #698 on: January 16, 2012, 09:59:26 PM »
Of course there's no energy lost.  There's just energy transferred.  Energy lost would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics - the law of conservation of energy.

But as I explained in my edit a few posts ago, energy is definitely transferred, just like if it hit the object.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12466
  • Darwins +294/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #699 on: January 16, 2012, 10:01:23 PM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure

If light which impacts an object applies a force, then light which is redirected by that object is applying a force as well.

EDIT:  To explain why that is, consider the case of a photon whose path is bent enough that it wraps around the object and continues in the opposite direction.  That is the same, in terms of momentum, as a full reflection - like if a perfect mirror had just reflected it off the surface of the object.  That means that ratiation pressure has been applied.  Less bending means less energy-transfer, but the transfer is still there.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #700 on: January 16, 2012, 10:15:53 PM »
"[The signals coming from the mind], ex hypothesi, are not physical; they are not light waves or sound waves or cosmic rays or streams of subatomic particles.  No physical energy or mass is associated with them.  How, then, do they get to make a difference to what happens in the brain cells they must affect, if the mind is to have any influence over the body?  A fundamental principle of physics is that any change in the trajectory of any physical entity is an acceleration requiring the expenditure of energy, and where is this energy to come from?  It is this principle of the conservation of energy that accounts for the physical impossibility of "perpetual motion machines," and the same principle is apparently violated by dualism.  This confrontation between quite standard physics and dualism has been endlessly discussed since Descartes's own day, and is widely regarded as the inescapable and fatal flaw of dualism."
  {Daniel C. Dennett, "Consciousness Explained"}

But electromagnetic waves themselves, don't need energy to accelerate.   As has already been discussed here.   So why would there have to be some material thing to accelerate them, as suggested here?

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #701 on: January 16, 2012, 10:22:10 PM »
The bottom line is anyway;  if one starts with the premise, that nothing immaterial can effect something material,  then there's really no point in debating since you've already discounted anything which isn't consistent with your original premise.

But,  explain, how is it that you know the premise is true?  Again,  it's still simply an assumption. 

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12466
  • Darwins +294/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #702 on: January 16, 2012, 10:33:32 PM »
But electromagnetic waves themselves, don't need energy to accelerate.   As has already been discussed here.   So why would there have to be some material thing to accelerate them, as suggested here?

They do transfer energy in order to change their direction, or to be absorbed.  Hence radiation pressure.

If you wish to deny that radiation pressure happens, then feel free to make your case.  Otherwise, if you wish to be honest,[1] then you need to admit you were wrong.
 1. Big if, I know.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1243
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #703 on: January 16, 2012, 10:35:43 PM »
The bottom line is anyway;  if one starts with the premise, that nothing immaterial can effect something material,  then there's really no point in debating since you've already discounted anything which isn't consistent with your original premise.

But,  explain, how is it that you know the premise is true?  Again,  it's still simply an assumption.

No, It is not an assumption, it is an observation. If you can find a force that can affect matter from a supernatural source, please show us and explain it. We don't think it exists because no one has ever found it before, but you may be the first? Prove your woo!
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #704 on: January 16, 2012, 10:37:32 PM »
But electromagnetic waves themselves, don't need energy to accelerate.   As has already been discussed here.   So why would there have to be some material thing to accelerate them, as suggested here?

They do transfer energy in order to change their direction, or to be absorbed.  Hence radiation pressure.

If you wish to deny that radiation pressure happens, then feel free to make your case.  Otherwise, if you wish to be honest,[1] then you need to admit you were wrong.
 1. Big if, I know.

Never said energy transfer didn't occur, I was talking about the cause of the energy transfer.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #705 on: January 16, 2012, 10:38:31 PM »
The bottom line is anyway;  if one starts with the premise, that nothing immaterial can effect something material,  then there's really no point in debating since you've already discounted anything which isn't consistent with your original premise.

But,  explain, how is it that you know the premise is true?  Again,  it's still simply an assumption.

No, It is not an assumption, it is an observation. If you can find a force that can affect matter from a supernatural source, please show us and explain it. We don't think it exists because no one has ever found it before, but you may be the first? Prove your woo!

And what are you making observations with?  Your mind?  Which according to you is matter/energy.  So then how do you know your mind , matter/energy produces true observations?

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12466
  • Darwins +294/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #706 on: January 16, 2012, 10:55:15 PM »
Never said energy transfer didn't occur, I was talking about the cause of the energy transfer.

You were saying that an energy transfer could occur without a source for that energy.  You cited light changing direction in a gravitational field as an example of this.  I showed that it's not an example of what you thought it was, and that the light does indeed exert a force on the matter.

Effect on the light: Change in direction.
Effect on the matter:  Change in momentum.

What you need the mind to be able to do is to affect the direction of a photon without being physically affected, like the matter is in the example you gave.  Because the mind, according to you, isn't physical and doesn't have qualities like location, velocity, gravity, charge, etc.  The non-physical mind cannot have energy, according to substance dualism, because energy is a physical quantity.

This is a well-known problem with substance dualism.  That you disagree that it's a problem says less about substance dualism than it does about your own ignorance on the subject.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12466
  • Darwins +294/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #707 on: January 16, 2012, 10:59:31 PM »
And what are you making observations with?  Your mind?  Which according to you is matter/energy.  So then how do you know your mind , matter/energy produces true observations?

The same way that you do.  It's not a problem with the mind being matter/energy.  It's a broader issue in epistemology.  It is unrelated to monism/dualism.

You've had this explained to you before.  Pretending you havn't is essentially lying again.  Then again, that's your M.O.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #708 on: January 16, 2012, 11:01:54 PM »
Well, dualism is only a problem if you accept the materialistic premise to apply to everything.   I don't.

The materialistic premise of the mind being a product of energy/matter still creates a paradox.   

That's enough for me to believe in substance dualism.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #709 on: January 16, 2012, 11:08:18 PM »
Well, dualism is only a problem if you accept the materialistic premise to apply to everything.   I don't.

The materialistic premise of the mind being a product of energy/matter still creates a paradox.   

That's enough for me to believe in substance dualism.

Translation:  "I've already made up my mind!  Don't try to confuse the issue with facts!"
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #710 on: January 16, 2012, 11:09:58 PM »
Actual translation:  the facts don't change the logical paradox.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12466
  • Darwins +294/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #711 on: January 16, 2012, 11:25:56 PM »
Well, dualism is only a problem if you accept the materialistic premise to apply to everything.   I don't.

The materialistic premise is merely that things function in a coherent way.  If you don't believe in the coherency of reality, then that allows for any belief one likes.  Useful, but not especially honest if one then claims the belief to be true.

The materialistic premise of the mind being a product of energy/matter still creates a paradox.

The mind being a product of anything creates that paradox.  The only thing that supernaturalism offers is an excuse to stop thinking about it.

That's enough for me to believe in substance dualism.

Which speaks volumes about you.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5380
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #712 on: January 17, 2012, 12:21:53 AM »

The materialistic premise of the mind being a product of energy/matter still creates a paradox.

The mind being a product of anything creates that paradox.  The only thing that supernaturalism offers is an excuse to stop thinking about it.



QFFT   +1
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #713 on: January 17, 2012, 01:39:59 AM »
Let's take as a given that all random influences have been excluded from the simulation, so Joe will either have a slice of pizza or a hamburger, and the choice will not be random.  You are essentially saying that he will only pick one option - say, pizza - in every single instance of the simulation, whereas I am saying that he may pick either option.  Your argument is that because there are no random influences, the choice will be deterministic, thus you can predict with certainty the result of every single simulation.  Mine is that you can predict that Joe will pick one of the two options given the way the situation is set up, but that you cannot predict exactly which one even when the initial conditions are identical.  I see both as being possible, but without actually being able to test it, it doesn't matter which happens to be more plausible.

Why do you keep asking me to explain how this would work? 

Because you appear to want to deny causality, and I'm trying to understand the basis for that claim. 

My point is that - leaving aside random interference - in a situation where ALL factors are entirely identical, B will always follow from A.

Your point seems to be that in a situation where ALL factors are entirely identical, and with no random interference, sometimes B will follow A, but sometimes C, and sometimes D.  And it could be either, and not only is there no way of telling which it will be, but there can be no way of telling which it will be.  But this does NOT happen as a result of random chance, but as a definite act.

That's what I'm asking you to explain - the process by which C can follow A as likely as B from the exact same circumstances, but without it being random or stochastic, since you are determined (heh) that it cannot be deterministic.

I want to know how your "fourth option" actually operates - at whatever level you feel comfortable explaining it.  Because, I have to repeat, so far you've given NO evidence or opinion as to how this happens other than "because I think it does".
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #714 on: January 17, 2012, 05:00:33 AM »
Sorry about the massive posts but I was unable to participate for a while. They are separated into a post for Gill then one for the more rational people.

If the mind can do things which no individual neuron can do, then the mind isn't limited to what a neuron can do.

This was almost clever.

For instance, if my mind is my body, then how can I imagine having no body?  Should not my mind then disappear to?  But it doesn't.
If my mind is my brain,  then how can I imagine having no brain?  My brain would disappear out of existence if my brain was my mind.   This may not be sufficient proof for you,  but it is for me.

Imagining things does not make them real so imagining that you don't have a body does not do anything. That is why your body doesn't disappear. As for your mind – the jury is still out – but I think the evidence is mounting for that being gone. Long gone.

Sure, the mind's workings can be measured.  Not in great detail, yet, but so what?
What you're doing is akin to saying that since we can't be observing all of the particles of a car engine, then the car engine's workings are unmeasurable.
I agree, the workings, the effects could be measured.   But the thing itself,  the substance,  mind, is not quantifiable.   I couldn't talk meaningfully about some sort of 'amount of mind', you know, so that's what I mean.

So, what amount of engine is in a car?

Right,  but more specifically,  I don't consider those brain dead experiences illusions because of the verifiable evidence,  such as the people accounting for things that surgeons said during the procedure.

There's this really cool sense that allows people to absorb what other people say and do – it's called hearing. It links in with the rest of the brain and can actually supply images in the mind when you hear things like talking or metal on metal would make on think of a scalpel being picked up. All your supposedly verifiable evidence is not evidence but you know that – or you would if you had read the replies to you in another thread where you brought up NDEs.

I don't know what that author is talking about, since energy doesn't need any energy added to it to accelerate.   As pointed out before,  electromagnetic waves can slow down traveling through a substance,  but they don't need anything to accelerate them back to the speed of light after coming out of the substance.
Therefore, an if an immaterial substance, like gravity, can direct energy without effecting the total energy, I don't see why an immaterial substance such as 'mind' could not do the same.

Gravity is one of the fundamental forces – not immaterial. You are wrong.

No, the mind doesn't give energy to the system, it directs energy.  And energy doesn't necessarily have to be added to a system for it to be directed.

Since your only support for this idea is gravity and you are wrong about that so you have no support for this claim. Also, energy is very required to (re)direct other energy. Energy does not magically go wherever you want it to go. You are very wrong.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #715 on: January 17, 2012, 05:08:20 AM »
Sorry about the massive posts but I was unable to participate for a while. They are separated into a post for Gill then one for the more rational people.

Why would increased randomness promote free-will?
Now, if you please, would you answer how that automatically promotes the part that I have both bolded and underlined?

As I understand the argument as it has been framed here, the determinism being cited is a hard determinism which is a polar opposite of free will. If something negates determinism that would facilitate free will. Like a see-saw. That is the impression I have gotten from you and Anfauglir.

Certainly, a true random element (like quantum fluctuations) can lead to multiple outcomes arising from the same starting parameters.  I can understand basically how that would work.  And complexity might allow those fluctuations to have a larger macroscopic impact than they would in a simpler system.  Putting those aside for a moment, though, how could complexity alone possibly give rise to multiple possible outcomes from the same starting parameters?  This is your claim.  An explanation is called for.

While you addressed this to someone else, I would like to ask for any support you have for the opposite claim you are intrinsically making: that complexity alone can not give rise to multiple outcomes.

You suggest that the interplay between the "mind" and the brain could lead to different outcomes in the exact same circumstances?  (As Azd pointed out, I ignore quantum fluctuations as they would by definition be random, and hence provide no support to any "free will" argument.  Assume that any random fluctuations are likewise replicated....if you see what I mean!  Where was I.....)

Ah yes - that the mind can somehow influence the brain to come to more than one decision.

But I say again...how?

The mind that we are talking about in the model is, in the same way, identical on each reload.  It has the same memories, has developed the same way, has the same preferences and moral codes and so on and so forth.  And it too is reloaded into the exact same situation and environment.

So in exactly what manner is it able to sometimes do this, and sometimes do that, as the result of a non-deterministic, non-random, and non-stochastic process?  Because what you seem to be saying is that the actions of your mind are NOT the result of its previous status and experience, and that it can make any decision it "wants".

How is a mind that is unaffected by its past or its environment anything other than random?


Underline & bold mine.

Quote from: Wikipedia
Stochastic (from the Greek for aim or guess) refers to systems whose behavior is intrinsically non-deterministic. A stochastic process is one whose behavior is non-deterministic, in that a system's subsequent state is determined both by the process's predictable actions and by a random element.

How can something be non-deterministic, non-random, and non-stochastic since that leaves nothing?

You are constructing a false argument via the bold portion just like the theists do when questioning evolution. I read nothing suggesting that a non-deterministic universe would be unaffected by its past OR that it would be random. Free will does not equal random. And to have free will means making a choice which requires knowing something which requires a past upon which to base decisions.

It seems that you are arguing for hard determinism but have not presented any evidence for it (unless I missed it somewhere). Why not present evidence?

Why do you assume that the random quantum fluctuations can be removed? If they matter then you can not remove them and have a valid argument either way. If they don't matter then they don't need to be removed.

Neither total determinism nor total free will can exist in this universe. There are random fluctuations at least as large as the atomic scale with isotope decay preventing hard determinism on a macroscopic scale. But there are physical laws (physics, chemistry, etc) as well as our own history (mental, sexual, physical) that constrain us.

Quote from: Wikipedia
In a deterministic system, every action, or cause, produces a reaction, or effect, and every reaction, in turn, becomes the cause of subsequent reactions. The totality of these cascading events can theoretically show exactly how the system will exist at any moment in time.

Is there a limited determinism, yes. We can make predictions but they get exponentially inaccurate the farther away they are in time. But a limited determinism doesn't preclude at least a semblance of free will.

How does complexity not introduce differences? In an avalanche just one isotope decaying can change which rocks stick together and which slip at a crucial point. Will there always be a difference, no, since those complex situations can also drown out small variations. But I have not read any evidence to support the claim that complexity does not matter. How can it not matter?

Jaimehlers indirectly touched upon a point which I don't think Anfauglir or Azdgari have read about considering their arguments: chaos theory. Have either of you read anything on chaos theory?

Let's take as a given that all random influences have been excluded from the simulation, so Joe will either have a slice of pizza or a hamburger, and the choice will not be random.  You are essentially saying that he will only pick one option - say, pizza - in every single instance of the simulation, whereas I am saying that he may pick either option.  Your argument is that because there are no random influences, the choice will be deterministic, thus you can predict with certainty the result of every single simulation.  Mine is that you can predict that Joe will pick one of the two options given the way the situation is set up, but that you cannot predict exactly which one even when the initial conditions are identical.  I see both as being possible, but without actually being able to test it, it doesn't matter which happens to be more plausible.
 
My point is that - leaving aside random interference - in a situation where ALL factors are entirely identical, B will always follow from A.

Are you saying, in his example, that the guy will always pick pizza? Why when there are equal chances for pizza or a hamburger? How?

That's what I'm asking you to explain - the process by which C can follow A as likely as B from the exact same circumstances, but without it being random or stochastic, since you are determined (heh) that it cannot be deterministic.

While something stochastic is non-deterministic, you seem to be implying that a stochastic system is also non-free will. How can that be so? A stochastic system would by definition be supportive of (at least a limited) free will.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #716 on: January 17, 2012, 09:11:11 AM »
The materialistic premise of the mind being a product of energy/matter still creates a paradox.
The mind being a product of anything creates that paradox.  The only thing that supernaturalism offers is an excuse to stop thinking about it.


Exactly, which is why, the mind, consciousness, isn't a product of anything.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #717 on: January 17, 2012, 09:15:39 AM »
For instance, if my mind is my body, then how can I imagine having no body?  Should not my mind then disappear to?  But it doesn't.
If my mind is my brain,  then how can I imagine having no brain?  My brain would disappear out of existence if my brain was my mind.   This may not be sufficient proof for you,  but it is for me.

Imagining things does not make them real so imagining that you don't have a body does not do anything. That is why your body doesn't disappear. As for your mind – the jury is still out – but I think the evidence is mounting for that being gone. Long gone.

My whole point has nothing to do with whether imagining something is real or not.    Something has to exist in order to imagine something's non-existence, correct?  I can imagine my legs not existing, because my mind still exists to do so....  So then,  if I imagine my brain not existing, there must be something other than the brain still existing to do that imagining,   and that's the mind....  Whether or not you believe the mind is immaterial is not relevant here, but the mind is clearly not the brain....
« Last Edit: January 17, 2012, 09:29:29 AM by Gill »

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #718 on: January 17, 2012, 09:31:28 AM »
Gravity is one of the fundamental forces – not immaterial. You are wrong.

So, gravity, being the warping of space-time;  you think space-time is matter?

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12583
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #719 on: January 17, 2012, 10:44:45 AM »
Right.   And the concept of mind doesn't violate such laws.   So back to square one.

You are talking about a radio station broadcasting at 0 watts. 



Well, dualism is only a problem if you accept the materialistic premise to apply to everything.   I don't.

Gill, you are just being stubborn and frankly, it is making you look like a petulant dick.  It has been explained to you why you are wrong and you appear to be just stomping your feet and refusing to accept it.  If you think you are right, you need to explain in detail and in ways that make sense[1] why you are right.

The materialistic premise of the mind being a product of energy/matter still creates a paradox.   

Only if you look at the situation with flawed preconceptions, as you have.

That's enough for me to believe in substance dualism.

It shouldn't be. It should tell you that you have a pet belief and you are allowing it to occupy your brain without paying rent.
 1. as opposed to your gravity malarkey
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12466
  • Darwins +294/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #720 on: January 17, 2012, 12:52:25 PM »
As I understand the argument as it has been framed here, the determinism being cited is a hard determinism which is a polar opposite of free will. If something negates determinism that would facilitate free will. Like a see-saw. That is the impression I have gotten from you and Anfauglir.

Anfauglir and I both hold to a model of the universe which is a stochastic combination of randomness and determinism, either being more prevalent at different physical scales.  We are not so much "hard determinists" as we are "hard non-free-willers".

In describing the universe, you have placed randomness, determinism, and free will on a linear scale and placed randomness somewhere between determinism and free will, such that when one moves the universe's 'composition' toward randomness and away from determinism, it is a move toward free will.

I can see no justification for this set-up.  It makes the assumption that an incease in randomness is an increase in free-will.  I cannot see how this is the case.  It is entirely possible to move away from an end-member composition without moving toward a particular other end-member composition.  Observe:



Think of A, B, and C, as determinism, randomness, and free will (respectively).  I see the universe as lying on the line between A and B, closer to A.  An increase in B would move the composition away from A, but would not move it any closer to C.

That's how ternary diagrams (those representing 3 end-members) work.  You are advocating a binary diagram.  In order to justify this, you need to actually answer the question I'd asked you - how randomness increases free-will.  Not how it reduces determinism.  How it increases free-will.  That is what I'd asked, after all.

While you addressed this to someone else, I would like to ask for any support you have for the opposite claim you are intrinsically making: that complexity alone can not give rise to multiple outcomes.

Because all of the less-complex components are following a deterministic path, yielding the same result.  And if all the components are yielding the same result, then there is no room for the combination of those components to yield a different result.  Do this for each step up to the size of the universe.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12466
  • Darwins +294/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #721 on: January 17, 2012, 12:56:11 PM »
Exactly, which is why, the mind, consciousness, isn't a product of anything.

Oh so it doesn't need any sort of universe to exist in.  Cool.

Wait, how does that work?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #722 on: January 17, 2012, 01:13:45 PM »
Well, dualism is only a problem if you accept the materialistic premise to apply to everything.   I don't.

Gill, you are just being stubborn and frankly, it is making you look like a petulant dick.  It has been explained to you why you are wrong and you appear to be just stomping your feet and refusing to accept it.  If you think you are right, you need to explain in detail and in ways that make sense[1] why you are right.
 1. as opposed to your gravity malarkey

I don't see what this has to do with right and wrong.   You and other's have your philosophy, I have mine. 

And as I've stated, the fact that materialism cannot logically account for the mind, awareness, is the main reason for my philosophy.   The whole gravity analogy is more of a secondary afterthought....
« Last Edit: January 17, 2012, 01:21:22 PM by Gill »

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #723 on: January 17, 2012, 01:15:09 PM »
Exactly, which is why, the mind, consciousness, isn't a product of anything.

Oh so it doesn't need any sort of universe to exist in.  Cool.

Wait, how does that work?

No, it just doesn't need the brain to create it. I believe consciousness is eternal, as I've said before.

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2250
  • Darwins +76/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #724 on: January 17, 2012, 01:20:27 PM »
Quote from: Dante
Gill,

Do other animals have consciousness? Apes, elephants, dogs, dolphins? If not, why not?

If so, do you suppose that their's isn't bound by physical laws too?
Yeah, I think they do to a degree.  As far as being bound by physical laws; as long as they can make a decision at times based on what they think may happen, and not what they know will happen for sure, then they would have a degree of freedom from such laws.
Exactly, which is why, the mind, consciousness, isn't a product of anything.

Oh so it doesn't need any sort of universe to exist in.  Cool.

Wait, how does that work?

No, it just doesn't need the brain to create it. I believe consciousness is eternal, as I've said before.

So all these animals that have ever lived, and ever will live, including humans, have eternal consciousnesses?

Where were these consciousses prior to the formation of our universe, do you suppose?
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.