Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
539 online now:
PaulK, Tangle, Tanypteryx (3 members, 536 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,211 Year: 4,323/6,534 Month: 537/900 Week: 61/182 Day: 33/16 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Security Update Coming Soon


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the intellectual enemies of freedom
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4826 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 31 of 53 (357449)
10-19-2006 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by JavaMan
10-19-2006 7:25 AM


Re: Determinism and indeterminacy
I don't think agency, identity-issues, are part of science. Who somebody is in their heart is not a scientific issue, whether a choice is selfish, loving or hateful is not a science issue. Whether the structure of nature shows "benevolence" like creationist Paley said, is not a scientific issue, as I also don't believe Paley himself considered to have a science of "benevolence".

If you say it's predetermined that 6 will turn up, then it's not possible for any of the other numbers to turn up, and it's not free. This is just normal understanding of things.

You seem to be questioning all knowledge about free behaviour (with possible alternatives) in general, not just mine. Why do you do that? Is that because of natural selection theory?

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by JavaMan, posted 10-19-2006 7:25 AM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by JavaMan, posted 10-19-2006 12:38 PM Syamsu has replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 3330 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 32 of 53 (357451)
10-19-2006 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Syamsu
10-19-2006 11:19 AM


Re: Determinism and indeterminacy
If I put strange and charm into the arxiv physics archive I get 223 results hardly concepts not understood, or used at all, by scientists.

Similarly searching for 'beauty quark' gives me 28 hits including...

Measurement of open beauty production at HERA in the D* muon final state

Truth is the companion property to beauty in terms of quarks, the more prosaic use the terms 'top' and 'bottom'. Admittedly I can only find 4 Arxiv references to Truth quarks.

Evolution of morality is discussed in Darwin's "Descent of Man", and from there on endlessly by Darwinists.

Discussing the evolution of morality is very different from co-opting the word morality and using it out of context in a scientific theory. This sounds very much as if it is in exactly the usual context.

All you really seem to be saying is that if science comments on anything about which religion already holds an opinion the science becomes equivalent to religion itself, which is a pretty nonsensical argument, especially in those cases where the views held by the religious are patently wrong.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Syamsu, posted 10-19-2006 11:19 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Syamsu, posted 10-19-2006 1:10 PM Wounded King has taken no action

JavaMan
Member (Idle past 1555 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 33 of 53 (357457)
10-19-2006 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Syamsu
10-19-2006 11:37 AM


Re: Determinism and indeterminacy
I don't think agency, identity-issues, are part of science. Who somebody is in their heart is not a scientific issue, whether a choice is selfish, loving or hateful is not a science issue. Whether the structure of nature shows "benevolence" like creationist Paley said, is not a scientific issue, as I also don't believe Paley himself considered to have a science of "benevolence".

I'm not sure I understand which part of my post this is responding to. My mention of 'agency' in that post was in the context of defining what free behaviour means. To most people free behaviour can only be ascribed to agents capable of making choices, it can't be ascribed to inanimate objects like atoms and dice.

If you say it's predetermined that 6 will turn up, then it's not possible for any of the other numbers to turn up, and it's not free. This is just normal understanding of things.

No it isn't. Nobody believes a dice capable of free choice. If the dice rolls 6 it's because a series of events (being thrown, rolling across the floor, stopping) happen in such a way that the dice lands with the six uppermost. The movement of the dice is entirely defined by physical laws, so theoretically, after the event, you could trace back through a sequence of cause and effect to the starting conditions. That's all that determinism means. Whether the process is predictable is another matter; in the case of a non-biased dice, the rolling of the dice is a chaotic system and therefore, theoretically unpredictable.

You seem to be questioning all knowledge about free behaviour (with possible alternatives) in general, not just mine. Why do you do that? Is that because of natural selection theory?

On the contrary, I think your position on a lot of these issues is rather strange, and doesn't represent standard knowledge about free behaviour. Philosophical interest in the question of determinism and free will is much older than the theory of natural selection. Maybe I could recommend this article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy?

Compatibilism


'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Syamsu, posted 10-19-2006 11:37 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Syamsu, posted 10-19-2006 1:32 PM JavaMan has taken no action

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4826 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 34 of 53 (357463)
10-19-2006 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Wounded King
10-19-2006 11:52 AM


Re: Determinism and indeterminacy
Well what I "seem" to be saying is not the point huh. I make quite a specific argument there shouldn't be much seeming about it. Darwinists are destroying knowledge about choice. They either are, or they aren't.

We can somewhat see open hostility to knowledge about choice of Darwinists in general, right in this thread also in my opinion.

We can also see that Darwinists use language about chosing in a force way in science theories, without possible alternatives.

Why don't you just address Darwinist success, struggle for life, selfishness, choice, and any of those terms that they not lead to destruction of knowledge about choosing, in stead of bringing up charm?

As before, charm states are not understood AFAIK, that somebody can look at a material phenomenon and then say; oh this material must be in charm-state Y on average. So it is outside the scope of daily life, and not even scientists know much about it, which is why they build so many particle accelerators now.

But even for things like charm and beauty, it sounds a little odd to me. If you then get some physicists saying that charm and beauty according to traditinoal religion is a nonsense, and that this is what charm and beauty "really" is in stead, then they are supplanting the meaning of the words. And you get that sort of thing a lot among Darwinists. For instance the heart is really just a pump. The mind is really just a computer. Emotions are really softwareprograms etc. etc.

Besides charm states seem to be fundamentally tied to probabilistic knowledge. They aren't explained in terms of forces AFAIK. It doesn't destroy knowledge of free behaviour, it tends to establish it. So it's a different issue, and I see no reason why you not address the real issue.

Being a scientist you are among many Darwinists. So what is your experience of them, are they indeed more likely to say something made them do it, rather then say they decided to do it? Do they generally discuss identity and moral issues in context of natural selection theory for themselves? Do they think more when they should be feeling, calculate when they should be choosing in stead? Are they hostile to knowledge where there are alternatives from one state to another? Do the more Darwin inclined also use more "metaphorical" language of choosing in their theories? etc. etc.

That is the best kind of evidence you have in your position to decide this issue, and your talk about charms provides no evidence.

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Wounded King, posted 10-19-2006 11:52 AM Wounded King has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by nwr, posted 10-19-2006 3:25 PM Syamsu has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4826 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 35 of 53 (357467)
10-19-2006 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by JavaMan
10-19-2006 12:38 PM


Re: Determinism and indeterminacy
Well you are just wrong. People in general understand dice to behave freely, and the flip of the coin. That the chance which side turns up is decided per event, and that it is not predermined in the way you explained it. Talking about flipping coins is mainly used in context of deciding alternatives.

Then there are also many people who believe the outcome is predetermined, in the way that they believe there is some hidden law of the universe which keeps the decision which side turns up to be even on average. As before, they believe that if you throw heads a lot of times, then by this hidden law tails will most likely turn up next. But most people believe the chances are decided per event.

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by JavaMan, posted 10-19-2006 12:38 PM JavaMan has taken no action

nwr
Member
Posts: 5972
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 36 of 53 (357496)
10-19-2006 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Syamsu
10-19-2006 1:10 PM


Re: Determinism and indeterminacy
Darwinists are destroying knowledge about choice. They either are, or they aren't.

Darwinists are haters of vanilla ice cream. They either are or they aren't.

Perhaps "Darwinists are destroying knowledge about choice" and "Darwinists are haters of vanilla ice cream" both say exactly the same thing.

Well what I "seem" to be saying is not the point huh. I make quite a specific argument there shouldn't be much seeming about it.

No, you have not made a specific argument. You have emitted a string of ASCII characters. By themselves, such characters are meaningless.

You presumably meant something when you wrote the OP. People reading your OP ascribe meaning to it. But there is always a question as to whether what you mean, as author, is the same as what the readers take it to mean.

There is a significant body of literature discussing "freedom". Based on the meaning of "freedom", as used in that literature, your assertions appear to be wrong. Several people have pointed this out to you. However, it is always possible that what you actually mean, and what people take you as meaning, are quite different.

The usual way to sort out disagreements over meaning, is through dialogue. Somebody explains their disagreement with your statement. You respond by giving arguments to support your statement. As this dialogue proceeds, the readers are able to tease out more of what is your intended meaning. However, it seems that you will have nothing to do with this process. Instead of defending your claim, you keep referring people back to your OP. But there is nothing in your OP that would help.

You leave the readers with little choice, but to shake their heads and wonder about your ability at rational discussion.

I'm off to refute my earlier assertion about vanilla ice cream.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Syamsu, posted 10-19-2006 1:10 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Syamsu, posted 10-19-2006 3:43 PM nwr has replied
 Message 38 by Omnivorous, posted 10-19-2006 3:50 PM nwr has seen this message

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4826 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 37 of 53 (357503)
10-19-2006 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by nwr
10-19-2006 3:25 PM


Re: Determinism and indeterminacy
Ah you just don't like what I put at issue. You want to shroud this issue in a fog of philosophy. Do you also demand of yourself that your mind turns into a philosophical fog everytime you use the word choice, same as you demand of me to turn this thread into a philosophical fog when I talk about choosing? Your demands are just evidence of oppression of knowledge about free behaviour.

"Chance is the enemy of science" Richard Dawkins, The blind watchmaker.

See, open hostility to knowledge about free behaviour. Evidence in favor.

"If time were wound back, and evolution run again, things would turn out differently" paraphrase Gould

See, evidence against the thesis that Darwinists destroy knowledge of free behaviour.

But then of course Dawkins is the ultra-darwinist, and Gould was not.

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by nwr, posted 10-19-2006 3:25 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by nwr, posted 10-19-2006 4:08 PM Syamsu has replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3851
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 38 of 53 (357508)
10-19-2006 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by nwr
10-19-2006 3:25 PM


Re: Determinism and indeterminacy
Vanilla is my favorite flavor of ice cream.

I don't know why.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by nwr, posted 10-19-2006 3:25 PM nwr has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Syamsu, posted 10-19-2006 3:58 PM Omnivorous has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4826 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 39 of 53 (357510)
10-19-2006 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Omnivorous
10-19-2006 3:50 PM


Re: Determinism and indeterminacy
It's also not okay to junk the thread by interspersing comments meaningless to the subject at issue.

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Omnivorous, posted 10-19-2006 3:50 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Omnivorous, posted 10-19-2006 4:54 PM Syamsu has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 5972
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 40 of 53 (357511)
10-19-2006 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Syamsu
10-19-2006 3:43 PM


Re: Determinism and indeterminacy
Ah you just don't like what I put at issue. You want to shroud this issue in a fog of philosophy.

No. I want you to engage more in dialogue. That's the way to mutual understanding. It might not lead to agreement, but at least people will better understand what you are claiming.

"Chance is the enemy of science" Richard Dawkins, The blind watchmaker.

Dawkins does not speak for all evolutionists, nor for all scientists.

See, open hostility to knowledge about free behaviour. Evidence in favor.

I see no hostility to knowledge in what Dawkins said. He undoubtedly disagrees with some of your views, but that does not make him hostile to knowledge.

"If time were wound back, and evolution run again, things would turn out differently" paraphrase Gould

See, evidence against the thesis that Darwinists destroy knowledge of free behaviour.


Gould is disagreeing with Dawkins. But the disagreement has nothing to do with the alleged destruction of knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Syamsu, posted 10-19-2006 3:43 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Syamsu, posted 10-19-2006 4:52 PM nwr has seen this message

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4826 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 41 of 53 (357522)
10-19-2006 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by nwr
10-19-2006 4:08 PM


Re: Determinism and indeterminacy
You are just displaying more obstinacy to discuss the issue at hand.

As before, what is your experience of Darwinists, are they indeed more likely to say something made them do it, rather then say they decided to do it? Do they generally discuss identity and moral issues in context of natural selection theory for themselves? Do they think more when they should be feeling, calculate when they should be choosing in stead? Are they hostile to knowledge where there are alternatives from one state to another? Do the more Darwin inclined also use more "metaphorical" language of choosing in their theories?

etc. etc. etc. many ways to find evidence for or against.

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by nwr, posted 10-19-2006 4:08 PM nwr has seen this message

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3851
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 42 of 53 (357524)
10-19-2006 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Syamsu
10-19-2006 3:58 PM


Re: Determinism and indeterminacy
It's also not okay to junk the thread by interspersing comments meaningless to the subject at issue.

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Oh.

I see you are humorless as well as philosophically tone deaf and rhetorically fixated. The remark was actually a quite subtle comment on choice, but you are on too narrow a frequency to hear it.

I made the first direct response to your OP many posts back--that Darwinists qualify their informal teleological language with caveats about it being a convenient shorthand (the same shorthand the religious use without demonstrations of validity)--and you had no answer other than to repeat nonsense about rabbits with free will.

As you said in your opening post, this is your usual stuff tricked out in new rhetoric. Rhetoric--and not reason--is all you have to offer. To make that observation is not to violate any guidelines but rather to offer a perfectly supportable and relevant conclusion.

So have me evicted, Syamsu: you know you want to, and I've been tossed from better places. You wish to take the high ground of choice and freedom, but you would dictate belief and expression to all, if you could. You wish to charge Darwinists with linguistic contradictions and philosophical subterfuge, but your words of choice and freedom are belied by your rhetoric of hate and proscription.

Don't you like vanilla ice cream? Do you know why?


Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love at any time, madam, is all that distinguishes us from the other animals.

-Pierre De Beaumarchais (1732–1799)

Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Syamsu, posted 10-19-2006 3:58 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Syamsu, posted 10-19-2006 5:10 PM Omnivorous has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4826 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 43 of 53 (357530)
10-19-2006 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Omnivorous
10-19-2006 4:54 PM


Re: Determinism and indeterminacy
Right, please stop from posting in the thread.

Sure I recognized it was some subtle comment about choice, but then besides it being a subtle comment it was also distorting the issue much, and I don't believe that's a coincedence.

Take your philosophical discussion about free will elsewhere.

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Omnivorous, posted 10-19-2006 4:54 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Omnivorous, posted 10-19-2006 6:55 PM Syamsu has replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3851
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 44 of 53 (357554)
10-19-2006 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Syamsu
10-19-2006 5:10 PM


Re: Determinism and indeterminacy
I wouldn't make this last comment, but I couldn't help myself:

I notice that you still haven't responded to my substantive observation about Darwinist caveats about the misleading nature of informal language.

Can't you bring yourself to address that refutation? Or do you choose to ignore a telling reply because you have no rebuttal?


Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love at any time, madam, is all that distinguishes us from the other animals.

-Pierre De Beaumarchais (1732–1799)

Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Syamsu, posted 10-19-2006 5:10 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Syamsu, posted 10-20-2006 6:22 AM Omnivorous has taken no action

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4826 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 45 of 53 (357639)
10-20-2006 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Omnivorous
10-19-2006 6:55 PM


Re: Determinism and indeterminacy
Those caveats probably help some. That they mention those caveats at all means that they recognize that there is an issue, although they think it's a small issue.

But in context the caveats usually just add another layer of duplicity. So when Darwinists say we don't intend the informal meaning of success, purpose, choice, emotions etc., it becomes to mean that the informal meaning of those words are false.

You can approach this to say;

1 - science shouldn't assert things about purposes, because purposes are neccessarily by choice, neccessarily subjective.

2 - Or you can say that since purposes can't be identified objectively, therefore there aren't any purposes.

3 - or you can say purposes can be identified objectively with human beings only, therefore purposes only exist of human beings

1 is out, because Darwinists don't acknowledge alternatives, so usually those caveats they mention lead to 2 and 3. On 3, elsewhere Darwinists, evolutionary psychologists, do actually make a science of purpose by brains, so their purpose is the only valid purpose.

And while they make those caveats that their usage of those words is technical, they still refer to these "technical" things when thinking about identity - and moral issues for themselves. Such as; my genes make me selfish, but I want to be altruistic in stead. So then the technical sense of altruism is to help genetically similar creatures to yourself survive at the cost of survival of yourself. So then basically one ends up with Darwinist like goals anyway, which is really very close to a racist credo.

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Omnivorous, posted 10-19-2006 6:55 PM Omnivorous has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022