|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The horror! The horror! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Deeper into the pit,the abyss, the downward spiral he goes... It's all absurd, It's all arbitrary. Get over it already robinrohan No one here wants to follow you into your personal
de-nihlism. "Sometimes when you look into the abyss, the abyss looks back at you." Neitzche
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
sylas writes: My position is that predictability and freedom are orthogonal concepts. That pretty much says a relationship between free-will and determinism exclusive of other factors. I feel there is a third axis (or more) for randomness beyond the scope of either free-will or determinism to answer for all possibilities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5260 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes: That pretty much says a relationship between free-will and determinism exclusive of other factors. No, it actually means about the opposite. "Orthogonal" means no correlation, and it says nothing whatsoever about other factors. In the remarks of mine that you quoted I am saying only that whether an act is free or not has nothing much to do with whether it is predictable or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
perhaps we are arguing the same point, but not understanding the terms.
to me orthogonal is perpendicular and when you arrange one to be orthogonal to the other you are creating a grid system to map all the relationships while only considering their "free-will-ness" and their "deterministic-ness" and no other factors. now a null-correlation position to me would mean a scattering of points with no discernable correlation, and I would agree with that. but you also seem to indicate that a high "free-will-ness" will correlate with a high "deterministic-ness" ... we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
heh. exactly the sort of closed minded approach that is not able to change according to need as I noted. tell me again how the ten commandments say it is immoral to abuse children? The first four commandments establish your allegience to the Biblical god, Jehovah and his book. If you get established into his precepts you will not abuse your child, your dog, your or anything of yours. Neither will you abuse or missuse anything of your neighbor's. You might eat your cow, but while it's living under your care, you will treat it humanely. The last six have to do with your treatment and how you relate to others, including your parents. If you follow these along with the 1st four relating to your god, you will treat others as you would have them treat you. Jesus alluded to this in teaching that we love God with all our hearts, souls and minds and that we love others as we love ourselves. All the commandments are implicated in this statement of Jesus.
history has shown? sorry, history has refuted. the "history" of religious imposed morality has been one of repression. history has shown that morallity is rationally derived from first principals and must be universal and not subject to bias or personal beliefs to be valid. That's not the case with most free and blessed nations historically and today. In these nations, first principles were not rationalized independent of the Bible. They were Biblically inspired.
It is subjective in the sense that each person derives their own version, whether they base it on real principles or borrow it from some other source: they decide what they are going to live by. It is not subjective in the sense that there are fundamental principles that apply and that can be logically derived. Mmmm hmmm. Mohammed's version, Hitler's version, Mao's version, Stalin's version, Jim Jones's version, paganism's versions, such as Caesar's, Nero's, primitive pagan versions, Hindu versions, and even the rational of the popes and bishops of the inquisitions, rational which ignored their very own book, the Bible in which were those Ten Commandments. Take a good look at the history of the cultures and nations which suffered and still suffer under these rationals.
I'll take anarchy over theocracy any day of the week and twice on sunday. I wouldn't know. I've never lived under a theocracy and hope I never will until rightious Jesus, king of kings and lord of lords sets up the perfect one. In Jehovah God's Universe, time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
buzsaw writes: The first four commandments establish your allegience to the Biblical god, Jehovah and his book. That makes them de facto inapplicable to any who do not believe it that system. You are already at 40% irrelevant to the needs of those people.
If you get established into his precepts you will not abuse your child, your dog, your or anything of yours. Neither will you abuse or missuse anything of your neighbor's. You might eat your cow, but while it's living under your care, you will treat it humanely. Sorry that is pure shinola and personal interpretation: I asked for chapter and verse from the 10 commandments. You claimed they were adequate to the task, and I have asked how they apply to one certain situation. If you need to dance around that one issue then I would say that my point is made: they don't apply to that situation, and thus are inadequate for modern needs. They are not adaptable to modern needs.
That's not the case with most free and blessed nations historically and today. In these nations, first principles were not rationalized independent of the Bible. They were Biblically inspired. What part of the bible talks about elections? What part talks about justice decided by a jury of your peers? What part talks about all people having the right to be free from slavery? Sorry the history of known christian\religious regimes was one of repression and one of the causes of people coming to the US to evade. And we aren't even talking about abuses of power here.
Mmmm hmmm. Mohammed's version, Hitler's version, Mao's version, Stalin's version, Jim Jones's version, paganism's versions, such as Caesar's, Nero's, primitive pagan versions, Hindu versions, and even the rational of the popes and bishops of the inquisitions, rational which ignored their very own book, the Bible in which were those Ten Commandments. Take a good look at the history of the cultures and nations which suffered and still suffer under these rationals. You also forget Mahatma Ghandi's version, Gautama Buddha's version, etcetera. The point is that individuals make individual decisions on the morals they live by -- and your examples are cases in point: their version of morality is subjective and based on their view. This is not saying it is correct or valid, it is saying that is the way it is. Now if I was going to pick a religious model to use it would be the Buddhist Noble Eight-Fold Path (click for full article)1.Right Understanding 2.Right Thoughts 3.Right Speech 4.Right Action 5.Right Livelihood 6.Right Effort 7.Right Mindfulness 8.Right Concentration Note that not one of those says you have to be a buddist or believe in buddhism. Nor do they say they are absolute edicts, rather they are a path that leads to the right behavior through individual subjective evaluation and knowledge. Note that "Right Action deals with refraining from killing, stealing and unchastity. It helps one to develop a character that is self-controlled and mindful of right of others." IS directly applicable to not engaging in child abuse ... "mindful of the rights of others" ... what a wonderful concept eh? Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
RAZD, you are confusing so many mathematical terminologies that it is hard to know where to begin.
From what I can gather, you are conflating orthogonality with correlation. I gather this because while you do correctly state that orthogonal can mean perpendicular, you suddenly switch to a discussion of "a scattering of points with no discernable correlation." The two have nothing to do with each other except where one might say that two variables that have 0 correlation are "orthogonal."
quote: No, not "correlate." "Can exist with." You seem to be wanting to say that you think there is a negative correlation between free will and determinism. That is, the more you have of one, the less you have of the other. But what the others are saying is that the two are disconnected. Free will and determinism both function and are compatible. You can have both, they are saying. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
buzsaw writes:
quote: And as I asked you directly, where is this "most free and blessed nation"? You certainly can't mean the US because the US is not based upon the Ten Commandments. The first four are all about worshipping god and the First Amendment trumps that. The other six are routinely broken by the government and the populace without consequence. So where is this mythic society that is based upon the Ten Commandments? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Really? Thanks for the compliment. Are we talking about the same definitions? are we talking the same discussion?
as far as meaning of the terminology I get
orthogonal adj.
1. Relating to or composed of right angles. more ... including statistics re correlation2. Mathematics. - a. Of or relating to a matrix whose transpose equals its inverse. - b. Of or relating to a linear transformation that preserves the length of vectors. the point being that there are several definitions in and out of math for the term ... there are also orthogonal views where things are looked at from different perpendicular lines of vision to correlate the description of objects involved. I am using orthogonal not as correlation but as a frame, axis at right angles on a grid, a map, to observe if correlation occurs, and saying that I not only don't see any correlation, I don't see any relationship to base a correlation on. my point is more that there is more than just free-will and determinism, that there exist random factors that cannot relate to either and yet affect the results just as readily insisting on clarity of vision is good. insisting on only one version of it is bad.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5260 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes: to me orthogonal is perpendicular and when you arrange one to be orthogonal to the other you are creating a grid system to map all the relationships while only considering their "free-will-ness" and their "deterministic-ness" and no other factors. By "orthogonal" in this context, I mean that there is no particular relationship between predictability and freedom (by my understandings of those terms). And that is all I mean. As for the maths, there is never ever any implication that other factors or co-ordinates are unimportant. You can have a multidimensional co-ordinate system, with as many axes as you like. To say two of them are orthogonal is to say that two of them are perpendicular to each other; but it does not ever say that those are the only axes needed. Also, note that my remark was with reference to predictability, not determinism. I have noted that determinism is not sufficient for predictability, due to the potential for chaos in deterministic systems. I have also argued that that some level of determinism is required for freedom. Cheers -- Sylas This message has been edited by Sylas, 01-17-2005 04:59 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
This again?
The universe has no meaning, but that tells me exactly nothing about my life - why? Because the absolute nature has no bearing on what I, personally, find meaning in. Meaning is a not a property of the universe, like morality it is a property of my own mental setup. (And, incidently, I too believe we have free will.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
fine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
To say two of them are orthogonal is to say that two of them are perpendicular to each other; but it does not ever say that those are the only axes needed. Which since axes are independent, is the same thing as saying their independent variables.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
my point on this issue is that free will is always compared to determinism, including is this whole discussion about how they are not related, but cannot be kept out of the argument? and to me it is a non-issue, almost an oxymoron term.
you have will. then there is the rest of the universe, with {unknown\chaos\random} factors that rule out determinism and free will being mutually exclusive or even significant portions of the whole picture, especially when you include {everything we don't know} this whole bit about orthogonal vs perpendicular vs whatever nit-picking little definition each and every person wants to use is a mountain out of a molehill irrelevant to the issue of free will being a non-starter. I was unaware of the use of orthogonal in statistics. My bad. In my opinion free will isn't even an {axis\line\issue} to be orthogonal to. personally I chuckle whenever someone mentions free will. especially as they cannot do it without lifting the other foot and putting it down on determinism. Now, shall we talk about the issue? sheesh.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Yep.
quote: - A New Machine Part 1, Pink Floyd This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-17-2005 11:02 AM This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-17-2005 11:02 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024