Message 137 of 224 (480102) 08-31-2008 8:14 PM

Reply to: Message 135 by Syamsu 08-31-2008 8:06 PM

So you agree that your version of freedom and anticipatory theory is nonscientific nonsense?

Message 138 of 224 (480103) 08-31-2008 8:15 PM

Reply to: Message 127 by Syamsu 08-31-2008 7:13 PM

They must have AMAZING weed in Amsterdam if toothbrushes can make decisions for themselves and anticipate things...especially something that doesn't exist like the future. Wow send some to Miami, Fl :D

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Message 139 of 224 (480106) 08-31-2008 8:21 PM

Reply to: Message 138 by onifre 08-31-2008 8:15 PM

I have been thinking this the entire thread. Some of Syamsu's responses seem like hasish induced delirium.

Message 141 of 224 (480110) 08-31-2008 8:46 PM

Reply to: Message 130 by Granny Magda 08-31-2008 7:39 PM

That is what creation "science" is all about.

It has no necessary relation to science and everything to do with religious apologetics.

Creation "scientists" (many or most of whom have degrees in theology and related subjects) look for any possible information which when stretched, twisted, misinterpreted, or otherwise abused, can be made to seem to support their religious beliefs--and then its off to the races.

I think this thread is a classic example.

Message 142 of 224 (480111) 08-31-2008 8:51 PM

Reply to: Message 140 by Syamsu 08-31-2008 8:29 PM

Then why dont you please explain to us?

All I see from you is bare assertions, invocation of magic, and an inability to explain anything Syamsu.

STILL WAITING FOR A RESPONSE TO Message 101

Message 143 of 224 (480115) 08-31-2008 9:11 PM

Reply to: Message 136 by Syamsu 08-31-2008 8:13 PM

Let me interrupt here for a second. This is one of the major problems with your idea: it does not make predictions. If it does not put forward a prediction, we cannot run an experiment to determine if the theory works, because experiments test theories based on their predictions.

Okay, continuing with the quote:

You have mentioned alternatives many times in this thread.

You are saying that possible alternatives are proof for "conscious" decision-making?

So, when I flip a coin, the coin decides whether it will land on heads or tails?

So, let's design a coin-flipping machine that will apply the exact same amount of force and spin to each coin flip. And, let's say that it flipped 100 coins, and that 97 of them landed on tails. Would you take the three that landed on heads as evidence for "freewill" in the system?

-----

P.S. Please use "quote" or "qs" boxes in your replies, because some posts you respond to contain more than one question, and it's sometimes hard to tell which question you're responding to.

Darwin loves you.

Message 144 of 224 (480133) 09-01-2008 2:11 AM

Reply to: Message 143 by Blue Jay 08-31-2008 9:11 PM

There are many predictions possible based on theory of freedom, such as that with equal starting conditions you get different results.

Message 145 of 224 (480136) 09-01-2008 3:37 AM

Reply to: Message 127 by Syamsu 08-31-2008 7:13 PM

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHH!!!!!:laugh::laugh::laugh:

You earlier suggested that inanimate objects could also experience love?
Do you think that, as well as decisions, paperclips, for example, are capable of love?

Message 146 of 224 (480137) 09-01-2008 4:12 AM

Reply to: Message 144 by Syamsu 09-01-2008 2:11 AM

How does freedom theory account for the indisputable fact that simple physical systems, like two balls colliding, are exceptionally predictable and therefore have much less "freedom" than complex conscious systems such as human beings?

If both balls and humans are equally capable of making decisions what makes one agent more "free" than another according to your theory?

So what predictions does freedom theory make that conventional science cannot? That is the question required to actually test this theory of yours.

What you seem to be talking about here (although frankly I don't think you realise it) is determinism. Mechanistic determinism in particular. Quantum theory however is non-deterministic by it's very nature. Even classical mechanics suggests that the evolution over time of a system can be so sensitive to differences in initial conditions that they are effectively unpredictable. This is called chaos theory.
So science is able to describe why certain systems are inherently less predictable without invoking the free-will of coffe cups, pooper scoopers and other such ridiculous and unevidenced ideas.

I suspect that, again without really even having this clear in your own head, you are taking the unpredictable aspects of relatively complex systems that are due to chaos and/or quantum theory and claiming them as evidence for "freedom".

The whole theory seems to fall apart, making you look very silly in the process, when the concepts of freedom are applied to simple and highly predictable systems comprised of inanimate objects that quite evidently are not "deciding" anything at all.

Based on your contribution so far I would guess that any discussion of quantum interpretations or chaos theory will be so far over your head as to give pilots of long haul aircraft cause for concern. But what the hell.........

Let the hilarity continue :D

Message 147 of 224 (480141) 09-01-2008 6:01 AM

Reply to: Message 146 by Straggler 09-01-2008 4:12 AM

As far as I know in standard quantum theory the decision is with the observer (or actually the issue of decisionmaking is fudged with the scientist as an observer, as explained before 50/50 uncertainty of the scientist, instead of indeterminacy of the system itself), and therefore there is no indeterminacy in quantum theory.

In any case I fail to understand your objections then. If it is acting indeterminately as you say, then toothbrushes can act alternative ways.

And let's not forget that toothbrushes here means the entire inanimate universe every starsystem etc. That supposedly it could have turned out alternative ways of it's own accord.

Message 150 of 224 (480148) 09-01-2008 6:45 AM

Reply to: Message 147 by Syamsu 09-01-2008 6:01 AM

The observer does not make a decision, though. Obvious really.

You haven't really thought this through, have you?

Mark