The name for the point where a probability changes

Basicly you are saying it is not relevant to be informed of the probabilities, prior to making a decision that will realize some probabiilties of themselves. So it is not relevant to know the probabilities about the doors prior to choosing to switch or not, since "anything can happen".Would you just point out where probabilities are relevant, and how they are relevant, in stead of giving meaningless phrases.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

There is no patter of obfuscation. Why don't you just STOP to think in terms of "cause and effect" when talking about "realizations on probabilities". It is one thing that is different as "cause and effect". I make no attempt whatsoever to slyly suggest a "cause and effect" relationship between "probability and realization", that is all in your own mind, because you can't think outside the box of "cause and effect" (very difficult, but still you are also stubborn and unwilling to step outside the box).I claim that things going one way or another is basicly magic yes, that something goes on inside the determination, but as established it can't be cause and effect, it is other. I never said this claim was in evidence, that something goes on inside a determination, beyond the basic description of a probability that get's realized. I only said we should give a name to that point where a probability changes, and that people in general, like me, would also attribute magic to that point.As before I don't have a clue what you mean when you say "what happens, happens regardless of the probability" For as far as I know it only means that small probabilities also can get realized. So? So what? What's the point?ok how relevant is it to know that at some point there was a 1 percent chance of the holocaust, but it did in fact occur, zilch? Historian Klaus Fischer wouldn't agree. I use the terror of the holocaust as an example here to stamp it into your head, that knowledge about things going one way or the other is important. Why don't you get this simple idea, which you practice in everyday life all the time, your common knowledge about things going one way or another.I suggest you, and also Wounded King tell about your motivation to take the position that you do. That you do some investigation about it, why you take "cause and effect" to such an extreme that the resulting belief in it, in my opinion can only be typified as a sort of scientism. Far beyond the borders of a reasonable practical science, where probability and realization are neccessary, and need to be applied in many cases.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Motivation is typically accompanied by emotions, not solely logic. So what is the emotional basis here, you haven't given any insight.I have some idea about what it is, and I told you before, ruthlessness, brutality etc. the typical hollywoodesque "mad scientist" syndrome. Now you tell me, in all honesty.As referred to several times before, Klaus Fischer lifts out predeterminism as the most lethal attribute of communist and nazi ideology. He also says that it is important we shouldn't make the same mistake in reconstructing the history of the holocaust, that we make it appear as though the holocaust was somehow inevitable to happen in describing the causes. That we should pay attention to decisions, contingencies and whatnot. I don't have the quote handy, it's from memory. It's in the first chapter or so. That point about "decisions", is the particular message that stands out of that history of the holocaust. One would certainly remember it having read it.You are just taking a swipe now at science of history I think.You say that you are not such a hard determinist in your beliefs. How do you reconcile that with your manypost diatribe that it is somehow very significant that I have no absolute proof of the fundamental nature of the universe? As before, it is you who is making the unwarranted assertion of certainty, by attributing so much importance to knowing the "fundamental nature of the universe". You have yet to show that you can know anything about the "fundamental nature of the universe". What does "fundamental nature of the universe" mean other then a quest for the absolute fundamental truth of everything?As before, this is simply a matter of me asserting knowledge on a practical basis, and you undermining that with your assertion of knowledge of "the fundamental nature of the universe". I never claimed to know the "fundamental nature of the universe", it must be YOU who is making assertions in that area by extrapolating the practical knowledge into extremes for which they were not intended. It shows that you are used to extrapolating "cause and effect" into extremes, it shows that you have a resillient knowledge of the "fundamental nature of the universe".I think this is well evidenced also by the comments in this thread and other threads. It tends to go towards talking about the fundamental nature of the universe, and further it tends to limit things going one way or another solely to human affairs, if at all. Why don't you object to those people taking a stake in the "fundamental nature of the universe" knowledge? Could that be because these people have the kind of fundamentalist logic that you like? The much predeterminist kind? And oh yes, things going one way or another soley preserved for human beings, so that humans are the only one's who have any control in the universe. Is there any more glaringly selfcentered view of the universe possible? Certainly the egotrip to have the earth as the center of the universe means nothing compared to this humongous display of selfcentered thinking, to have human beings as the only ones in the universe that can make events turn out one way or another.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Ah so you are willing to accept that things can go one way or another, but you just don't think that any probability is real. If I say a probability is real, then you object. But probabilities are essential for descriptions of things turning out one way or another, so your willingness to accept has no substance.Let's just say you are unwilling to accept that for which there is no evidence, and since there is no evidence for things going one way or another, or at least not the evidence you like of absolute identical starting situations turning out differently, you don't actually accept things going one way or another. You therefore must deny that the holocaust was avoidable, but you are "willing" to talk about it as though it might have been avoidable.You previously indicated that you limit control to human beings, by ridiculing the idea of any owner to determinations except human beings.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

That's right no matter how meaningless, it's all magic.In "the blind watchmaker" Dawkins sought to put up the limit for proof of God's existence to a 1 in 10^50 probability being realized. If such a probability being realized was witnessed then he would accept it as convincing proof of God. (from memory, so Dawkins actual argument probably is a little different). But he never goes to address about what the other magnitudes of chances being realized prove. On 1 in 10^30 we may find proof of Santa Clause by this line of argument for instance, 1 in 10^10 an invisible pink unicorn, 1 in 10^20 the toothfairy....But all this just ignores the fact that you can't know even with a chance of 1 in 2. Ignores that any chance-realization neccessarily introduces an unknown. That is why later in the book Dawkins exclaims "chance is the enemy of science". This is certainly a mistake, because we can have knowledge about the probabilities involved, that knowledge increases our science. "chance and realization" is only an "enemy" to "cause and effect".edited to add:
The indications are that Dawkins is suffering from a religious problem. It is the problem of accepting the final judgement of God. Like this: you choose and *afterwards* God judges whether what you do is evil or good. Dawkins apparently wants to have it the other way, he wants to have the knowledge of good and evil *prior* to making the choice, rendering God's final judgement a futility. This is why he wants all knowledge to be of a predeterminist kind, where you can theoretically know all prior to choosing.regards,
Mohammad Nor SyamsuThis message has been edited by Syamsu, 01-13-2005 01:30 AM

If you offhandedly accept probabilities, you must also offhandedly accept determination or realization on the probabilities. The concept of probability doesn't work without it.I can simply disregard your need for the evidence which you speak of, since it shouldn't practically affect the way you describe things. It just affects your meta-philosophising. There is just a silent "maybe it's cause and effect after all" afterthought, every time you speak of a probability and realization.The role that your need for fundamental evidence plays, is of course suppresive and oppressive of knowledge about probabilities and realizations on them. If you just said you have some reservations in accepting any probability and realization for lack of fundamental evidence, then there wouldn't be a problem. But it is more like prejudice then it is a reservation, and the talk on this forum shows that it just tends for all knowledge to go towards "cause and effect" right down to consciousness even, by this inane prejudice.If I remember correctly it is you who first talked about a rock having some kind of motivation, denying it. I didn't bring up motivation of rocks. You made that link from determination to motivation yourself. I only brought up to have an owner to a determination. So it means I'm right in saying that people in general, including you, will tend to see some spiritual dimension to determinations. That is why you made the link from determination to motivation.You have little belief in events turning out one way or another, for anything except human beings, you don't go as far as to exclusively claim control to human beings.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The argument doesn't destroy free will at all, it just destroys the notion that free will exists apart from everything else. We also have decsionmaking processes with several people involved, that doesn't destroy free will, and so neither does it destroy free will when God is involved in decisions.And besides you are of course destroying belief in free will as real, by your refusal to acknowledge realization on probabilities as describing reality.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I understand what I'm saying, except when it is in reference to what you're saying. I have no clue what you mean with probabilities, chances not being real entities that can be discovered. You either have a chance of winning this debate, or you don't.I think it is all pretty much obvious that there is a glaring and substantial prejudice towards "cause and effect" in operation on the evolution-side. The resulting evolutionist base of knowledge can be ignored as much meaningless for not incorporating decisions. The generalised view in terms of laws and forces is worthless without an historical view in terms of decisions. The historical view in terms of decisions broadly substantiates creationism.I'm still convinced that this issue decides the creation vs evolution debate in it's entirety, and in favor of the creationists. Your criticism of chances not being real is just bizarre to me.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I disagree of course. You can't find much of any interest to the creation vs evolution debate outside of threads I'm engaged in, because generally only I deal with the fundamental issues in the creation vs evolution debate. The formulation of natural selection, the prejudice towards cause and effect, the relationship of darwinism to ideology, all fundamental issues, and hardly discussed at all except when I start discussion about it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I dealt with it all already. When Wounded King says that he basicly acts as though believing chances are real, and you I assume do the same, all criticism that they aren't real just becomes irrellevant philosophy. Your insistence on the value of your questions about chances being objectively real just goes to prove that there is a significant prejudice towards "cause and effect" on the evolutionist side.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Would there be any creation vs evolution debate if scientists acknowledgded the origin of organisms as a matter of decision?Scientists only tend to look backward seeing how causes in their effects relate to the present. They hardly ever look forward seeing how decisions on chances relate to the present.One evolutionscientist who did disparingly seek to convince his fellow evolutionists of the importance of the historical view of unique decisions was Gould. He did not actually put much work into seriously investigating the locality of the decisions that determined any kind of organisms to be. He never even used the word decision, or gave any proper name to that point at which it was decided. He only forcefully suggested as per example that if time were wound back, and evolution run again, there might not have been a comet that struck the earth, that killed the dinosaurs, and in stead the dinosaurs might have evolved into other species.A decision that fell some place, with huge consequences. So where did this decision take place, when did it become a relative certainty that the dinosaurs would be hit by a comet and go extinct? Mainly at the point where the trajectory of the comet was decided in exploding of a star perhaps.But what of other things being decided, like eyes, and ears, legs and nose? To what decision or decisions does the probability of the appearance of those attributes trace back to? When people seriously begin to ask questions like that, and investigating it as a matter of a search for the truth about the origin of organisms, the creation vs evolution debate loses it's meaning. There can't be much of a controversy over an intelligent design theory vs a theory that investigates the origin of things as a matter of decision, because they would overlap too much.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You first support that science covers decisions, and then you trivialize Gould's hypothesis, the one description of any decision of any magnitude in basicly all evolutionist literature, as mere opinion. You want to play both sides, because you know you are on the losing side.Evolutionist conception of intelligence is different as creationist conception of intelligence. You can see on this forum that evolutionists talk about intelligence without referring to decision at all. This is why you don't see an overlap.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You take your chances, but your chances don't exist according to you, so you can't take them. Your attempt to make bizarre science philosphy about probability as a measure of ignorance into common knowledge is doomed to fail.Again your argument is already refuted by the fact that there can be 2 people sharing a decision, and they still both have free will. You have no case to say that the involvement of God in a decision negates free will. You are of course stupified to think about decisions on a more formal level, having basicly discarded the concept as reflecting reality.And besides as argued previously it will not be in evidence that God owns decisions IMO, there would just be an apparent magic to decisions that leads to believe in God. But the evidence will point to decisions coming from nothing, or zero IMO.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Making spurious accusations won't disguise the fact of enormous prejudice for "cause and effect" in science, and prejudice against "probability and realization".regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It is mostly all just common knowledge yes. A creationist wouldn't say that "organisms are an "effect" of God". When a creationist says God caused there to be organisms, the creationist means God made a decision which sets the cause of organisms to be. As also it is common knowledge that free will is not lost in democracy, where people share in decisions. But of course I'm not saying that 2 people sharing a decision is the exactsame thing as sharing a decision with God. People are quite far away from God I'm sure.One could use many names for that which decides. The point is that it would all fall into the same class of things which decide. So if it is assumed true that intelligence decides in human affairs, than intelligence belongs to the class of things which decide. And since "intelligence" is the only thing commonly recognized to decide, the name for all of that which decides may be called intelligence, eventhough the quality of every thing that decides may be very much different. Of course you can also speak of chance deciding, but I think this messes up the structure of knowledge, when it is said that chance decides on chance, because chance seems to have a double meaning there. As before the next logical step to recognizing decisions, seems to be to hypothesise some kind of relationship between decisions. And so this structure of relationships may be called an intelligence, and be qualified with what the structure looks like.I don't understand what it means to specify the one that was actualized. I don't see where specification would be an essential component of intelligence.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu