It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are atheists more intelligent than religious believers? Study suggests such a correlation

page: 19
24
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


He is not talking about something so rigid as IQ, but rather saying something like your tunnel reality does not stretch across all, as it is the human beast's tendency to have blind faith in such a thing.

Edit: I cannot be sure of this, but it seems quite likely that I am in the ballpark.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by orwellianunenlightenment]




posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
This thread is kind of reaching IMO. It's one thing to argue whether or not there is a god, and another to compare that to pure cognitive ability. Plus you have to consider some people within dogmatic faiths that are more open minded to the scientific / natural world and how it could function.

Some people take dogmatic faith uber literal while others take it as pure symbolism. I don't know if this has been asked but has anyone presented data dealing with the difference between these two dogmatic subclasses?

Does this data also include atheistic persons that preach atheism more than a door knocking Mormon? Are these people considered when reaching these conclusions?

When a scientific study is conducted (especially dealing with intelligence based on belief systems) how many of the variables are not considered? The study group can only consist of so many people (obviously cannot include the whole population). However people even in christian faiths hold their beliefs to different standards of information and interpretation therefore these people would have to be broken down into two different study cases.

Plus there are agnostics leaning one way or the other. Are these agnostic subclasses considered? What about atheistic subclasses? There are pure literal atheists and atheists that don't hold a god but believe different spiritual ideas concerning the natural world.

During a Dane Cook (i know he is a butt hole right lol) routine I heard him actually say something interesting.

Edit: I typed it out but I found the video so I'm posting it instead.

Warning: There may be portions of questionable language that I forgot about. Be warned.

Dane Cook - Athiests
[edit on 30-7-2009 by DaMod]

[edit on 30-7-2009 by DaMod]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
Well ultimately you cannot prove that. You, yourself have brought up Quantum Physics to contrast determinism. What's more is that you have yet to prove that logic cannot create other logical systems just because you have dabbled with AI and have not been able to do it.


Prove it to yourself. I don't give a crap if you believe me. There are things beyond the physical that can't be proven or whatever, but can be experienced and understood. If you can't understand that kind of stuff, then what is the point?

Prove to me what a flower smells like. Prove to me that love exists. Some things must be experienced before it is understood, and even when understood can't be proven. It's called subjective experience, as has been pointed out to you a few times, and not just by me.

How is it even possible to prove to you that logic can not create logic. No matter what, you will always be able to run to the safe house of "well just because you can't do it, doesn't mean it's not possible". Fine, sure. If you want to be that way, then you can be and there is nothing I can say otherwise. The only thing that could ever happen is that I am proven wrong by someone doing it. So it is impossible in itself to prove, it can only be disproven.

It's ridiculous, and quite honestly not even worth my time anymore. If you are going to just run to such things all the time, it would be more productive for me to run my nuts through a cheese grader than to keep going with this.



As best as I understand things, the Laws of nature are not designed at all. It's a common philosophy in science today that beyond the bubble that is our universe is a much grander and more exotic infini-verse wherein perhaps an infinite number of bubbles like our own exist where each one has different characteristics and different laws of nature. The incomprehensibility of QP is explained as our logical mind trying and failing to grasp an all together alien "logic" - a logic that we cannot recognise. In this sense each -verse inside the infini-verse are themselves an example of emergence - complexity and stability out of simple (albeit exotic in this case) interactions.


Oh I see, it's ok for you to bring up theoretical things, but not for others. When others do it, then it's right back to the prove it safe house.

All is perspective. And if you should ever happen to elevate your perspective beyond what your senses provide and what people can prove to you then maybe you will be able to understand me. Until then, you are just going to keep going right back to your own current perspective and expect things to be proven to you within it. I'm a fool for even bothering with you.




Since you insist on looking at everything in terms of AI, has it ever dawned on you that perhaps our intelligence is also artificial, ie. not real but an allusion assumed to be actual intelligence?


An illusion can not exist without an observer there to be fooled by it. As such, it is impossible for the observation itself to be the illusion. It is quite possible that you do not have a soul and that you are just AI. I do not know. But I know that I am a conscious being, able to observe, understand and create logic. Therefore, I know that I am not such a thing.



In a deterministic universe, the concepts of freedom and slavery are moot, as may our own imagined freedom and slavery be.


And yet, where do you get the freedom to imagine anything outside that? It's ridiculous. If you want to believe that crap, then be my guest. But the fact you can even choose which to believe and such pretty much invalidates your entire view point and exposes it for the illogical BS it is.




You do realised that a tree does make a sound if it falls in the forest with no one around to hear it. People being absent doesn't stop the air vibrating from the collision of the tree to the ground. Time is one of the 4 spatial dimensions whether it is perceived or not. Take your solipsism and go, you are no use here.


You do realize that without an ear to convert that range of waves from the tree, then it does not make a sound at all. Because there is nothing there to perceive it. Subjective experience once again.




Lack of belief does not negate illusion, it negates perception of illusion. More of this solipsism.


WTF are you talking about, lack of belief? IF you do not have something already observing, then you can't provide an illusion to it. In order to provide illusion, you have to have something which is able to observe the illusion. PERIOD.

The very act of calling something an illusion, means there is something there which can perceive the illusion. You can not get around it. It's the exact same problems I ran into with AI.




A computer does not evolve, it is not a product of emergence. This is like the watchmaker argument with creationists.


You are no different than religious people. All you do is replace god with other things like emergence and so forth. Ridiculous. Plain and simple, you don't understand anything, all you do is repeat what is accepted and pass it off as your own understanding.

It's foolish, and I am ashamed at myself for giving you this much attention. I should freaking know better.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by orwellianunenlightenment
Highly dogmatic religiosity and atheism are both polarized lies, in my opinion. The non-spiritual religious have gained little in the way of personal/spiritual development, so their God is the false self masquerading as the divine. The atheist perceives this, but merely becomes the so-called antithesis, and does the same thing as the religious, thinking that his or her view is the way. They both, again, in my opinion, tend to suffer from the syndrome of, "I, the false self, am the greatest of all." The atheist just calls the false self his or her "self." The religious, but blind spiritually, just call their false self "God." It is my understanding that we are conditioned to believe in a false self to maintain whatever order has been imposed, no matter the virtues of that order. The only people who can transcend myopic paradigms, in my view,are those possessing the humility and courage to look beyond the false image, with a genuine desire to see truth. This does not included the desire to be a pseudo intellectual or the desire to be seen by the world as holy. It is not about the desire to be "seen as," but the desire to "be."


I agree, and generally is what my sig is trying to convey. Real truth can only be understood, not told. When told it becomes just a belief, and a belief is in itself false - even if the words are correct.

The only thing is in regards to the false self. I understand what you are saying, but as soon as we try to communicate things, we are by default reduced to being in that false self. It's one thing to understand it, but to be able to express that is another story in itself.

Hard to explain for this reason. There are really no words that can describe the true self. And so we can only really point out the possessions of that true self, and yet to call it those possessions is a lie in itself. But when we communicate with each other, we are reduced to only tangible things, because that is the only way we can give to each other.

I can't just give understanding directly to you or another. I can only express that understanding - which then when taken in and by itself literally becomes a lie if not understood.

Like, if you understand math/algebra then if I say A+B=C, then you know I am expressing that any value can be in those variables. Even still, I am using literal variables in order to express that understanding, I have too. There is no getting around it. Because you also understand, then it makes sense and we can agree. Someone else comes along, just repeats the A+B=C, and yet they do not actually understand what it means. Same words, but we aren't talking about the same thing. 1+1=2 is a single expression of that understanding, but while 1+1=2 is a true statement, it is not the truth in itself.

Hope that makes sense. I have tried and tried to find ways around this, but can't do it. I simply can not in this world give the understandings directly.

And like with the bible, I'm a big fan of it. I see the understanding it is expressing and how it attempts to show the differences and so forth. But it too is a 1+1=2 or expression of understanding, when the real truth is the understanding behind it. Of which, can be expressed in many ways.

What welfard keeps asking for me is a 1+1=2 he can accept as proof, and I simply can not do it. One must have the understanding itself, and we just simply can't give that to each other. Seems to be the human condition.

And with religious people, they will sit around and say 1+1=2 and so forth. But then after talking with them, they also do not understand. They also just accept it and repeat it without understanding. They don't realize 1+2=3, and other expressions, which someone with real understanding would recognize. If someone had told them 4+5=84 they would just be repeating that instead.

The only real difference between an atheist and a religious person is simply what they have accepted. No real understanding.

It's an extremely frustrating hell I tell ya. But what are those with understanding to do? How can we break that open and get into the understanding beyond the expression? Is it something we can even really do? Or is it just going to always be something which can be revealed to those who seek it and look for the real truth as you say?

Sometimes I think I should just take the Buddhists advice, and just go fishing instead. But I feel as if I am turning my back on things if I do.



[edit on 7/30/2009 by badmedia]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 


No, that's not what he's saying. He's saying primarily that people of lower IQ are more likely to gravitate towarrd religious beliefs and accept what they are told, particulalrly by authority figures, as true rather than think critically and draw their own conclusions. It's the chicken before the egg thing. As with everything in life, other factors also come into play. He's drawing an imperfect correlation between lower IQ (lower critical thinking capacity) and the tendency to uncritically accept what one has been told is true.

There are some great examples of this tendency on ATS outside the religious context, i.e. birthers ("blithers" per Grover), self-proclaimed debunkers of 911 truth, and more.



[edit on 7/30/2009 by dubiousone]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Shoowee ... since I first read this thread, there has been an exponential growth in it ... so S&F to the OP ... respect


I read the first few interactions and then got kinda side-tracked with other stuff - so, to be honest, I've only skimmed through some of the subsequent replies ... but here's my rub on the topic ...

A resounding YES (yes, atheists are more intelligent than theists) ... Why? ... because, as I've touched on in another thread on ATS, KNOWING something is very different from BELIEVING something.

Frankly put, we have an enquiring mind for a reason ... its not a sin (no really) to ask questions ... even if you want to lay stock in the Bible, then you have to acknowledge that if the god of the Bible really did create us in his own image, then our enquiring mind was bestowed upon us by him ... though I would argue that the god of the Bible is not the creator of all things and that no Universal God would give us capabilities or gifts that we were not allowed to use.

You wanna zombie? … Then create one dammit!

Friends tell us something is so ... and we Google or research the subject (in doubt) to verify if they are being truthful about their statement or claim ... yet, some of us, take for absolute truth something that was stated for truth some 1,100 years ago - by total strangers and no means of measuring their personal agendas?!

IMO Intelligence requires of you to question EVERYTHING … Laziness and ignorance requires of you to BELIEVE ... nuff said.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Psyagra
 


Actually the bible teaches to question everything and to always take the road of understanding.

The funny thing about the bible and religion is - the bible is basically against religion. That's why I like it so much. But it's meaning is manipulated, people are told to accept it or they are wrong by men and so forth. Not to mention it's a collection of books, and I don't think all the books are exactly "holy".



Mohandas Gandhi: I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.


But atheism is really no different. If you take the opinion of just "I don't know", then I don't consider that atheist and even if you call yourself that, it's exempt. But when atheists say for sure that there is no god and all that stuff, it's just also a blind belief.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by Psyagra
 


Actually the bible teaches to question everything and to always take the road of understanding.

The funny thing about the bible and religion is - the bible is basically against religion. That's why I like it so much. But it's meaning is manipulated, people are told to accept it or they are wrong by men and so forth. Not to mention it's a collection of books, and I don't think all the books are exactly "holy".



Mohandas Gandhi: I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.


But atheism is really no different. If you take the opinion of just "I don't know", then I don't consider that atheist and even if you call yourself that, it's exempt. But when atheists say for sure that there is no god and all that stuff, it's just also a blind belief.



That's exactly it. Nailed it right on the head. Atheism can be just as blind as anything else and so can religion. They say love is blind. Well so is hate. So is a set belief. However believing in god and exploring the possibilities and workings of everything we can go hand in hand. The same with no belief can be more blind or not blind at all. It really depends on how you view your world or the workings thereof. Either way the quest for knowledge is not hindered at least on my and many others parts. However there are some (most likely the ones everyone always complains about in this kind of thread) who blindly believe and those who blindly disbelieve without allowing possibilities of anything else.

They, although being opposite sides of the coin are both the same. I believe in god, and you don't. Why don't we put that aside and make a superconductor together? Or perhaps discover the true nature of Dark Matter / Energy and whether it exists at all. If not we explore further options. Seems like a better use of our time. Whether or not people share beliefs or not doesn't mean we can't coexist in the world. The ones that take it to the extremes are the worst of us on both sides. No matter what either side argues and bickers over, I guarantee god want's no part in that kind of childish argument and neither should you.

Thomas Jefferson Said:

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."

Question but don't go blind into your world devoid of possibilities, because no matter which side is right we are all in this together.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by DaMod]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


How is it even possible to prove to you that logic can not create logic. No matter what, you will always be able to run to the safe house of "well just because you can't do it, doesn't mean it's not possible". Fine, sure. If you want to be that way, then you can be and there is nothing I can say otherwise. The only thing that could ever happen is that I am proven wrong by someone doing it. So it is impossible in itself to prove, it can only be disproven.

It's ridiculous, and quite honestly not even worth my time anymore. If you are going to just run to such things all the time, it would be more productive for me to run my nuts through a cheese grader than to keep going with this.


Oh whaaaa. Someone call the waaaaambulane for poor Badmedia.

I once said there is no God. It was quickly pointed out to me that I could not prove that, and therefore it was unreasonable to rule out that possibility. A point that I conceded, I changed my position to one of doubt until sufficient evidence is put forward beyond reasonable doubt.

You position that logic cannot create logic is as arrogant that either absolute theist or atheist that you then criticize.

However this does not matter in the end. The mind, every experience (subjective as it may be), every decision, reasoning, impulse, desire and emotion is a reactive one. As always input determines output, regardless if you are dulling over joining a poker game or not.


Oh I see, it's ok for you to bring up theoretical things, but not for others. When others do it, then it's right back to the prove it safe house.

Well it’s a free-for-all outside of the known universe, but inside it, we have learned a few things like reality. A planet forms out of dispersed dust from supernovae, one that goes on to seed life. A star forms the same way. Solar systems form in the same way. On earth in the vast open primordial ocean, simple organic chemical reactions occur every second for a billion years and eventually one happens that produces a self-replicating piece of amino acid called RNA, it finds itself inside the abundant easily forming lipid shells and is protected and proto-life begins. Crystals grow, snowflakes form, termites’ build fortresses, survivability invokes natural selection, on and on it goes. Simplicity occasionally produces complexity. This is not faith in some god or spirits, this is not the religious belief; emergence is an everyday occurrence that works on every scale. Yet to you the supposition that it produced what we call the ill-defined consciousnesses of humanity is unpalatable to you, and your reasoning is that logic cannot create logic. Well something happened to produce our degree of consciousness. Something is amiss.

Either consciousness somehow negates causality – which is irrational – or the word is ill defined and in fact is not incompatible with causality.

If the proof of concept for consciousness is subjective experience, I would think that we don’t understand what experience is either.




And yet, where do you get the freedom to imagine anything outside that? It's ridiculous.

I can’t imagine life in higher dimensions – seems I don’t have that much freedom.


You are no different than religious people. All you do is replace god with other things like emergence and so forth. Ridiculous.

I can believe emergence because I can see it. That’s the major difference here, it happens. You may aswell be calling me religious because I believe gravity occurs.


In fact I don't even know why we are discussing consciousness, logic or emergence or any of that. The argument was about freewill which I reasoned did not exist and you didn't produce an argument to counter that. This whole argument shifted dramatically after that point.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by Welfhard]

[edit on 30-7-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
In fact I don't even know why we are discussing consciousness, logic or emergence or any of that. The argument was about freewill which I reasoned did not exist and you didn't produce an argument to counter that. This whole argument shifted dramatically after that point.


A real and actual choice can't be made without it. If all is a matter of causality, and all of existence is linear then choice is in itself not possible. Getting AI to make a "choice" based on causality and determinism isn't hard. I just realize that it's not a real choice.

Logic, AI and consciousness are related because the AI is subject to casuality and so forth. As such, we can see in AI exactly what you are talking about. And it is has been noted by many, not just me, that there is a big difference in it all. I thought that with the AI references, maybe you could see that I actually know and understand what you say.

It's the entire reason they called it Artificial, and if you claims are true, then it means that no human or anything of this universe has any real intelligence either, it has no real choice, and so forth.

Freewill is the base of intelligence. If it doesn't have freewill then intelligence is impossible, because it has no choice in the matter of it's perception. Which is evident in AI. However, part of freewill is the ability to give it away, and we do this all the time for certain experiences - including life. When free will is given away in such a manner, you agree to certain rules and laws, from that of a card game, to the laws of physics.

So I tried to show you the difference, and that there was a difference. I thought that perhaps by showing you how things that are deterministic behave and why, that maybe you could see that you are different.

In the end, all you really did was prove the bible and other texts right about a few things to me. And to be honest, it's rather disappointing to say the least. It's impossible for you to understand as you see yourself as being flesh and of this world, you only look externally and you have proven that fact over and over. So what is the point? There is none, outside me wasting my time. So good day.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by makinho21
 


Seeing as how most educated people have no reason to believe in fairy tales, I see not why this would be surprising?

But fairy tales are not God, to me at least. I do not need fairy tales. Some people do, so they reject science. That's their problem. I continue to be educated as much as I can and my belief in a God remains.

This only but confirms that belief in fairy tales being mixed with belief in God is a bad choice and that relying on something someone else says to find God will not work. I continue to believe that God is personal and cannot be "discovered" working with others, but sharing with others personal experiences helps the personal connection to God.

Not that I care though. Belief in God is your choice, and I think if God cared, he'd do something about it after 10,000+ years of doubt in him.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


A real and actual choice can't be made without it. If all is a matter of causality, and all of existence is linear then choice is in itself not possible.

You see, I categorically disagree. There is nothing in the definition of the word that makes it and causality mutually exclusive. You say that you can make AI make a choice but "that choice is not real." You can't exactly make such a statement without qualifying it.

The way in which we make decisions/selections of the very few things that we are fully aware of, can be shown to be linear. Input -> output / Stimulus -> response. The method of making a selection is determined by with option fits the merit best - that's how we choose and it is deterministic.

There is no avoiding that but you kept just rejecting that holding the assumption that choice in nature is not determined. And then you drag it down the alley of AI and the idea that if you "choose" play a poker game (or rather make a determined decision to join based on innumerable factors) that you give it away. Causality is not something to be violated here.

If you want to show that choices are not deterministic then you have to outline at what point in the deciding process freewill occurs. So far you have failed to do so.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
You see, I categorically disagree. There is nothing in the definition of the word that makes it and causality mutually exclusive. You say that you can make AI make a choice but "that choice is not real." You can't exactly make such a statement without qualifying it.


It is because the so called "choice" is predetermined. As it is pre-determined, then it's not a choice. If it had been a real choice, there would have been atleast some chance of a different answer involved. But as there is no chance for a different outcome, then there is no choice. It is pre-determined. Exactly what I came up with in AI.

The closest thing you can do to this and give the illusion of choice is to generate a pseudo-random number. It is pseudo-random because in a deterministic world of casuality, such as is the universe itself, it also is already pre-determined and can be predicted. The provide the illusion because as we do not know the factors, it appears random to us. But in reality, they are not random at all, and everything is pre-determined and predictable.

So in the world of causality, which I do agree this universe is(Einstein and quantum physics is right, it's just that the things aren't random), you have neither randomness, and you don't have change or choice. As I am rather sure that choice and free will exists, then it means that the ability to make a real choice has to be separate from this universe/world itself - and has to be beyond logic itself.

However, even when you have free will, part of that is the ability to give it away, and that is the laws of this universe. We obey them in order to have this experience, and it is not an infringment of free will.

Notice in a poker game, if all the cards were known in advance, the randomness disappears? So we agree to limit perspective in order to have that experience. Same reason pseudo-random numbers work and so forth.

But as Jesus would say, how will you believe me about "heavenly things", when we can't even agree on earthly things? So I know before I say it that as you have no memory of doing such things, you will never agree/understand the concept. The poker game is about the closest thing I can relate it too.

Input determines the output, action determines the reaction and so forth. No choice or randomness involved. It is how this universe works. What is ultimately you is not part of the universe, and from that you have free will, and the choice to introduce the actions you want, which return the reactions wanted. This is what people of power do.

The entire reason manipulation exists is to try and turn people into what you claim. If it was already that way, then no manipulation would be needed.



[edit on 7/30/2009 by badmedia]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
I think this page describes the problem here very well.

Subjective Reality Simplified

You believe in Objective Reality, I am of the Subjective Reality. You keep accusing me of Solipsism, but that isn't true at all, as that would mean I, and only I am "real". While I can't prove that you are real, and I know I am real and it leaves the possibility open, I don't think that is the case at all.

Solpsism says "I am god". I am of the Subject Reality, and I would instead say - "I am god, and I am arguing with myself".

Which is interesting that you accused me of it, as that is basically what the page says someone of an OR perspective will say.



Do OR and SR contradict each other?

This depends on your perspective.

If you begin from an OR perspective, then you would say they cannot both coexist. If OR is correct, then SR must be false. At best you’re able to adopt the mindset of solipsism within the larger context of OR, but you cannot fit the perspective of SR within an OR framework. To me, this is one of the major limitations of the OR model. OR rejects SR but can never disprove it, so OR inherently rejects a potentially valid perspective. It’s like saying, “I’m right and you’re wrong” just because I’m me and you’re not. This is a major failure of the OR model.


But, just as the page says, I do not reject your OR perspective. I think your perspective is just of the "dream" word, and on a different level is all.

As it mentions, have you ever had a dream where you thought you were actually the person in the dream, and that it was all real?



Now let’s consider OR from the perspective of SR.

An intelligent model of reality should account for all potentially valid perspectives, and SR does this very well. It does not reject OR out of hand. It simply puts OR at a different level. The objective world is the dream world, which is basically a simulation running within the larger consciousness that is you. By shifting to your first-person perspective and interacting with the simulation from the inside — which is admittedly a very seductive perspective to adopt – you can experience the perspective of OR within the larger SR context. If you’ve seen The Matrix movies, when the characters go into the Matrix and interact with it, they’re in the OR world of the simulation. Setting aside their enhanced physical abilities and the outside help they receive, their bodies are still otherwise subject to the laws of the simulation, just as your body is subject to the laws of this OR simulation.


And finally, at the end it says this:



Of course if you do make the shift to SR, good luck explaining it to other OR addicts!




You ask me to "prove" things to you, but really you are just asking me to feed your objective reality. And as you will never even consider the other perspective as being valid, all I am doing is wasting my time.

[edit on 7/30/2009 by badmedia]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


If it had been a real choice, there would have been atleast some chanceof a different answer involved.


Show me where in the definition of the word, chance is a part of it!

The only time chance plays a role is when trying to estimate other peoples decisions.

And you keep tiptoeing around the demonstrated linear process of choice.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
Show me where in the definition of the word that is a part of it!


Choice



Choice
1. The act of choosing; selection.
2. The power, right, or liberty to choose; option.
3. One that is chosen.
4. A number or variety from which to choose: a wide choice of styles and colors.
5. The best or most preferable part.
6. Care in choosing.
7. An alternative.


In fact, when the variables you mention are so determined, what does one say? "I had no choice in the matter".



SYNONYMS choice, alternative, option, preference, selection, election. These nouns denote the act, power, or right of choosing. Choice implies broadly the freedom to choose from a set: The store offers a wide choice of vegetables. I had no choice in the matter. Alternative emphasizes choice between only two possibilities or courses of action: “An unhappy alternative is before you, Elizabeth.... Your mother will never see you again if you do not marry Mr. Collins, and I will never see you again if you do” (Jane Austen). Option often stresses a power or liberty to choose that has been granted: The legislature outlined several tax options. Preference indicates choice based on one's values, bias, or predilections: We were offered our preference of wines. Selection suggests a variety of things or persons to choose from: The video store had a wide selection of foreign films. Election especially emphasizes the use of judgment: The university recommends the election of courses in literature. See also synonyms at delicate.


That freedom to choose and such = free will.

Choose



Choose

To select from a number of possible alternatives; decide on and pick out.


Determinism and causality offer no possible alternative - no choice.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 

Having options from which to choose is a prerequisite for a choice, but that does not mean that the outcome is not predetermined - as the process of choosing is linear and reactive and dependant of the circumstances.

What you are saying is that if the choice was repeated with exact same circumstances, that a different outcome may occur, a situation which is irrational.

Chance is a human word for our uncertainty about a potential event - it doesn't mean anything could happen, it means that the outcome is not known ahead of time.

This is not enough to make choice = freewill.


Determinism and causality offer no possible alternative - no choice.

Determinism allows choice, just not freewill. To terms which you seem unable to differentiate between.


In fact, when the variables you mention are so determined, what does one say? "I had no choice in the matter".

Because the situation prevented them from going through the process, themselves.


That freedom to choose and such = free will.

No it = options from which to choose, yet choice remains a linear process.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


Well good luck with that. That it is irrational and illogical is the entire point. It's what I have been trying to point out the entire time, and why it is is not of this universe/reality, which is in fact a result of casuality.

Because the AI relied only on rational and logical things, it became impossible to have irrational and illogical things within the AI. A truly random number is illogical and irrational.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 

So that's it then. Thank Christ for that.


A truly random number is illogical and irrational.

As is a truly free act.



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Well at least Bad Media is Intelligent enough to create very good arguments! I guess this proves that Atheists and NOT more intelligent than religious believers! MYTH BUSTED! We are equal! Lets roll on to the next thread!



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join