Re: Dawkins for president

Nando, you just snipped an entire essay about science, one which was
prompted by your comments. Why was that? Did you feel the topic had
been adequately treated? If so, you appear to agree with what I said,
since you responded to the post without disputing it. If that is so,
why haven't you made a serious effort toward the goals I suggested?

Or are you maybe snipping it because you can't respond, and because you
would rather be rhetorically feasible than right?

nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Ari Allyn-Feuer wrote:
nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

You are the oppressor and destroyer of knowledge about choice.

As of yet, as a result of your own actions and words, your theory does
not exist. I'm trying to bring it about, and debate it. So don't call
me a fool, an oppressor, an enemy, unyielding, or unresponsive. On the
contrary, I've been the most understanding of you and your ides in any
thread I've read on this board.

No, I'm not an oppressor or destroyer. Save those terms for men who
lie under oath, kill their kin, wage war, commit rape, or ruin
scientific careers out of malice.

I'm not an oppressor or destroyer. I'm your only friend here. Are you
mine?

If you want to be my friend on this forum, try and be honest. Your
attitude does not show any appreciation for knowledge about choice. The
talk about invisible gremlins is a case in point. You are just trying
to make it look ridiculous. In stead of talking about invisible
gremlins you should talk about emotions such as love or hate. Those are
the kinds of things that we say own our choices in our common language,
so why on earth do you start to talk about invisible gremlins?

I wasn't disputing decisions, nando. I was talking about MN. MN is
needed in order to weed out silly solutions like invisible gremlins.

Shall I infer that you agree that Ad Hoc Invisible Gremlins (AHIG) are
not proper? Doesn't that necessitate MN? If not, why not?

Really, your arguments are just silly. MN is no great leap, but rather
a mere generalization of Occam's razor to all unevidenced terms.
There's nothing to fight.

And i've given you other examples of the theoretical framework, such as
that cause and effect is how the past relates to the present, chance
and decision is how the future relates to the present. Fundamental
things like that, yet you acknowledge nothing and pretend I haven't
given you any evidence.

I acknowledge that you've told me that "cause and effect is how the
past relates to the present, chance and decision is how the future
relates to the present" here and elsewhere in this thread. I even
acknowledge your cute diagram about 6 posts ago.

What I do not acknowledge is the validity of the statement; I
categorically disagree. If indeed I have been remiss in explaining
why, allow me to do so now. I hope you'll do me the courtesy of
responding.

I think that is wrong because it is possible to predict future events
using cause and effect, and because some past events cannot be seen any
way but probabilistically.
It's as simple as this, nando. An event which is probabilistic will
always be probabilistic, and will have been probabilistic even after it
has occured. An event which is causative can be predicted in advance.

Your statement is absurd. Do the same probabilistic methods which
operated in the past operate in the future? All evidence seems to
indicate this is so. Do you deny that future events can be predicted
according to causative mechanisms?

If so, you are insane. There is no gentler, no kinder, indeed no other
correct way of saying it. A person who believes future events cannot
be subjected to any kind of predictive technique is insane.

If you acknowledge this capability, something which should be easy for
you since this principle underlies all the various devices and natural
processes keeping you alive, your statement is wrong.

Nor indeed can it be said that all past events are fundamentally
causative. We have at present no way to justify or explain causatively
the resolution of quantum decisions in the past, nor do we anticipate
any.

I also fail to understand how you can acknowledge quantum decisions,
but fail to acknowledge macro-decisions. Isn't *everything* quantum?
You act as though quantum mechanics is something that happens quite
seperately from the rest of the universe, so that when a
quantumdecision occurs, there is no decision on a macro level. In stead
of focusing on these quantum decisions, you just go into blind denial
that there are any decisions on a macro-level, for no apparent reason
whatsoever.

No, quantum decisions affect the rest of the universe. You can quote
me on that, and I feel quite comfortable saying that If I have denied
this now or anywhere else, I repudiate that statement.

Where we disagree, nando, is on the subject of the nature of these
decisions. I cited evidence they were random, and you responded by
categorically declaring that they were the work of intelligence. You
cited no evidence to support this, no matter how many times I asked.

The reason it matters that you have provided no decisions but quantum
decisions is in your line of reasoning. You refer me to human
intelligence as proof that some decisions are directed by intelligence,
and ask me to infer that they all are by using occam's razor, and to
infer the existence of a deity to direct the vast majority.

I responded that there was no evidence the human brain is responsible
for decisions, and that macro-scale decisions had not been
demonstrated. The only way you could say that we are responsible for
decisions is to enumerate these decisions, and you refer me to everyday
ones, which have not been shown not to be causatively decided.

I thus assume, since you have despite numerous queries refused to
enumerate other decisions, that you mean to ascribe quantum decisions
to human intelligence. If so, which ones?

To summarize, your theory requires:

A deity to direct most decisions
His goals and designs
His mechanism
The mechanism used by humans to direct these decisions
The reason all of this is unevidenced (or for you to cite some)

Mine requires:

Random decisions.

Let's go back to your original utilization of Occam's razor and have
another try, shall we?

So the decisions take place at the quantum-mechanical zeropoint. I
found this out by questioning a scientist about where I should get
randomness from for constructing an artificial consciousness. So they
say the random noise of a zener-diode originates at the qmz point in
the diode. You can't for instance find some pattern in the electrons
feeding the diode, and then find that same pattern coming from the qmz
point. So it means the pattern is decided there and then, which makes
it a good candidate for constructing articifical consciousness, since
we pressume by our experience that consciousness is what happens inside
decisions.

So quantum decisions are unpredictable. We agree on that. I say they
are random, and you say they are directed. We have sparred on the
subject, and a broadside has just been delivered above, but I'd like to
ask a question.

How can you infer intelligence except by citing a pattern? If this
intelligence has a goal and is deciding quantum events so as to meet
that goal, why can't you enumerate the pattern?

Why do you say that decisions as we know them are decided by
intelligence? The only decisions you've enumerated are quantum, and we
have no evidence human intelligence influences them.

Now some of this you may say is my knowledge somewhat, but really most
of this is all just mainstream common knowledge, somewhat formalized
and systemized. This is not my theory, this is just general knowledge,
as it is used in science as well. Science can't function without
scientists knowing to trace back the probability of something appearing
to decisions. So I am basically saying the methods that we use daily to
find the location of decisions are reasonably valid. There is no urgent
point to go philosophizing about wether or not it is truly decided
there, or if it can someway be further reduced to some cause. That is
just philosphy not science.

You can't cite "common knowledge" as evidence. Common knowledge is
that temperatures cause head colds, a that Saddam Hussein contributed
to the Sept. 11 attacks, and that white bread is not made from wheat.

Cite some evidence about decisions. Please, really. I've had quite
enough of you spouting off about common understanding of everyday
events when we both know you've cited no decisions which fall within
common knowledge. Besides, common knowledge tell us dice throws are
probabilistic, but this reflects insufficient equipment and expertise
to predict them rather than genuine probabilism. An experienced
cheater can throw dice to get the desired outcome. Common knowledge is
wrong.

And there's also no good reason to deny the spiritual realm in which
for instance love and hate are the owners of choices. That is also just
philosophy, got nothing to do with the practicality of doing science.
Scientists must recognize the border beyond which the spiritual realm
lays, and questions about if or not there really is such a spiritual
realm are not for science.

I am not asserting that there is no "spiritual realm," just that for
the purpose of constructing a scientific theory govirning probability,
it is not necessary. Lest you forget, we are discussing the TOE, and
that has no philosophical assumptions either.

As far as "borders" go, science recognizes none. Every observable
phenomenon is worthy of investigation. There are no exceptions.

You know, I'm really beginning to hope you'll start answering my
points. That we we could make some progress, I with you and you with
me, toward a shared set of agreed upon ideas and methods to reach
common understanding on the issue.

Until then, it's just you demanding answers, me delivering them, and
you ignoring them.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Ari Allyn-Feuer

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Science = no decisions
    ... common knowledge / religion, and science. ... Each time you toss a coin, the probability of it landing with the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • THE QUANTUM BRAHMAN
    ... THE QUANTUM BRAHMAN ... Quantum Theory and Vedic Cosmology ... "Science has missed something essential; ... Circle, a synthesis in the harmonies of the cosmos. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • THE QUANTUM BRAHMAN By Robert E Wilkinson
    ... THE QUANTUM BRAHMAN ... Quantum Theory and Vedic Cosmology ... "Science has missed something essential; ... Circle, a synthesis in the harmonies of the cosmos. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Ebooks Forum
    ... The Frontiers of Quark-Lepton Physics ... Science and Technology ... Quantum Philosophy: ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • Are we really that far apart?
    ... Quantum Mechanics as a Science-Religion Bridge ... brain research has led him to explore and write about how science can ... use to understand the workings of our universe. ... The von Neumann/Stapp Collapse interpretation considers the collapse ...
    (alt.religion.christian)
Loading