Let's talk a little bit about probabilities...

page: 5
23
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by qisoa
 


Originally posted by qisoa
That's a rather presumptive and somewhat insulting statement.

I'm sorry if you were offended. Is not the self-evidence of free will an article of faith with you? It seemed so to me.


If I were not open to discussion, I would not be here in the first place.

It could well be that you are simply here to listen to faith-based arguments (they are common in this forum), or to propound them. There are plenty of creationists who visit this forum for exactly those purposes, so it is not an untoward assumption. In my experience, people who advance propositions based on faith are not really open to rational argument. If you are insulted at being lumped among the believers, I apologize.


I am neither a determinist nor a metaphysical libertarian; those systems of belief are untenable for me.

Very well, but you have yet to explain--that is, propose any reasons--why this is so. As far as anyone here can tell, your position is purely faith-based. I'm pleased you took time to read the link, however. Thank you.



Originally posted by Astyanax
It is of such compromises with truth that popes, swindlers, torturers and secret policemen are made.

That's not an accusation?

No, it is a warning. Beware.


I am curious: are those statements a result of causal determinism or indeterminism?

I am a determinist.




posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


HAHA thanks for this thread!!!!

Thats what my math II work is about this week, lol!

I am bookmarking this page so I can refer back to it if need be!
edit on 15-11-2010 by ldyserenity because: I dunno wtf I just wrote lol



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax


I'm sorry if you were offended. Is not the self-evidence of free will an article of faith with you? It seemed so to me.


I think I see where the misunderstanding lies. Are you using the religious definition of faith? My faith lies in my experiences and knowledge of the world through my perceptions. I trust that what I have seen, learned, known, and experienced will continue consistently in the future. As an example: I have learned and observed that pigment in human skin produces a variety of colors limited to a certain range. I trust that I will not see purple, barring any side effect of an illness. I did see someone on TV who had turned blue due to medicine or something.


It could well be that you are simply here to listen to faith-based arguments (they are common in this forum), or to propound them. There are plenty of creationists who visit this forum for exactly those purposes, so it is not an untoward assumption. In my experience, people who advance propositions based on faith are not really open to rational argument. If you are insulted at being lumped among the believers, I apologize.


I am open to listening to any argument or statement of belief. Everything that I take plays a role in extending my knowledge. That doesn’t mean I agree with every statement, but I strive for understanding of that which is unclear to me.


Very well, but you have yet to explain--that is, propose any reasons--why this is so. As far as anyone here can tell, your position is purely faith-based. I'm pleased you took time to read the link, however. Thank you.


Does the material in the first section – I think I see where the…’ – qualify as an explanation? Everything that I believe is determined by my observations of the world. I accept that which is most reasonable to me within the context of my experiences and learning.

I did realize that I can agree with a limited version of determinism. Here are some examples.

1) I do believe that any decision I make is influenced, or determined by, my prior experience. This would include everything from unconscious actions (being conditioned to put on the brake when seeing a red light) to conscious decisions (do I eat two pieces of cake and please my mouth, or do I eat one piece and please my waistline?).

2) Another existence of determinism would be anything that happens to me, not as a result of my own actions, but as a result of another occurrence. (Back to the traffic: if a car cuts in front of me too closely, I have to react with the brake.)

3) Plant leaves tend to turn their leaves toward a light source. That would definitely be a causal reaction.

I can accept these as facts, so perhaps it could be said that I believe in a modified version of determinism. The turning of the plant and the driving of the car could be predictable actions, but eating the cake could not be predictable. The eating/non-eating of the cake was a choice I made at that time. Whereas it was a type of determinism – my choice would be made by my brain or my stomach – but there’s no way to know which I would choose as any given time.

I can see aspects of determinism in plant biology, astrophysics, etc., but I still believe that humans have free will – the ability to make a choice – is not solely a deterministic occurrence. Conditioning to stop at a red light: I chose to learn the rules and train my reflexes. Cake: I made the conscious decision to eat more healthily. Reckless car: I made the decision to drive defensively.

So I’m unable to find an ‘ism’ label that accurately describes my position. I believe that some actions in the physical world are determined, while others are indeterminate. I believe that a human’s ability to choose is a factor of free will and is not strictly determinate.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
I'm going to take an oath to bump this thread whenever a creationist throws the old probability ball at me. I'll not stand for innumeracy distorting the conversation.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   


For those who are too lazy to read Madness' great posts


Also, for all you Helmuth haters like me, watch this epic suckout:

edit on 2-1-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
A creationist mentioned probabilities again, so I'm obliged to fulfill my promise and bump this again.

Remember, if someone tells you that something is mathematically impossible, ask them to show you the math behind this claim. Ask them how they derived the equation to determine the probability and ask them how they got the values for the terms in that equation.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr_Awesome
 

I was refereed to this thread by Madness from another thread.

And this heavily stared succinct comment caught my attention, in regards to the playing card example.



and what is the probability of getting 5 cards without a dealer?


What an excellent question.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Not really an excellent question at all. It's a silly question. I'm using a quick metaphor to explain how stupid mathematical wizardry by creationists (aren't there things against wizardry in the Bible?) proves nothing and is typically founded in deception.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


No ball throwing here. If one is talking about mathematical probability, then there is no impossibility involved. Be it probable or improbable, it involves a positive numerical value.

The evolutionary process depends upon the occurrence of events, therefore it involves probability.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Million to one chances happen nine times out of ten.
-Terry Pratchett

Good enough for me.





new topics
top topics
 
23
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join