A philosophy thread.
Sort:
Tomtalk
Dec 18, 2016
0
#201
That's beautiful opti.
<<I believe hawking though when he says time did not exist at the point of singularity.>>
Tom, I don't believe Hawking when he talks about a singularity. That was what we learned as kids. We also learned that God made the universe in six days and Father Christmas comes round in a sleigh, over the rooftops. Very nice for children, of course. Grown-ups are also kids.
A singularity is a fancy way of referring to a breakdown of normal laws of physics at one point, which is said to explain by magic everything physicists aren't capable of explaining. I'm not joking .... that's what it is. Yet they talk glibly about singularities like they really occur and in doing so they mysticise science in an attempt to make it appear that they have the answers.
My son Eddie would NOT like me talking that way. After all, he's a quantum physicist although he's having a nice rest at the moment, doing some computer programming for a consultancy firm.
0
#203
Opti 208. As I've said hawking states Maxwell's laws apply to biology and chemistry and therefore within the animal everything is determined. That seems entirely reasonable to me.
But we've talked about at the quantum level things are different. Hawking talks about things being different there.
I'm not sure what to think about the concept of absolutely determinism.
A part of me thinks that Einstein is just about the smartest man that ever existed and I tend to favour his view. I also think why shouldn't causality be King on a quantum level too?
But then hawking has access to information Einstein didn't. And is very talented too.
I tend to think that hawking is probably right in that he states Einstein is right that human beings don't have free will but at a quantum level determinism doesn't apply.
As for my past. Everyone that thinks free will to be an illusion is trying to escape from themselves?
I don't know about that. It's true that I've no strong desire to be the person I am. Maybe you need to feel that way to relinquish the ego.
I sensed the kindness in you and I appreciate your good wishes. But my own feeling is that life just happens. It's not about facing up to anything.
Still I see where you are coming from and I acknowledge it and thank you.
Do we believe what we want to believe?
But we've talked about at the quantum level things are different. Hawking talks about things being different there.
I'm not sure what to think about the concept of absolutely determinism.
A part of me thinks that Einstein is just about the smartest man that ever existed and I tend to favour his view. I also think why shouldn't causality be King on a quantum level too?
But then hawking has access to information Einstein didn't. And is very talented too.
I tend to think that hawking is probably right in that he states Einstein is right that human beings don't have free will but at a quantum level determinism doesn't apply.
As for my past. Everyone that thinks free will to be an illusion is trying to escape from themselves?
I don't know about that. It's true that I've no strong desire to be the person I am. Maybe you need to feel that way to relinquish the ego.
I sensed the kindness in you and I appreciate your good wishes. But my own feeling is that life just happens. It's not about facing up to anything.
Still I see where you are coming from and I acknowledge it and thank you.
Do we believe what we want to believe?
<<Think about it. Consider the implications of evolution. How could free will exist within that framework? It can't. All you think and feel happens entirely naturally and as a result of causality>>
You asked me how and then you tell me I'm wrong before I answer. 
As a matter of fact, I was heavily involved in Facebook discussions about free will and determinism a couple of years ago and as a result I decided to have a real crack at working out how free will might exist in an otherwise deterministic universe. And I did. I invented a model of the brain and of thought that explains the possibility of free will. I called it the Zener model, after the Zener diode, with which the mechanism is related.I believe the model is borne out by evidence and that it will ultimately be found to be the case. Unfortunately the scientists working on it at the moment may not be bright enough to get past the problem regarding the incorrect model of thought they seem to have adopted. It's going to take them much longer than it should, due to that.
Tomtalk wrote:
The idea of all experience applicable to one human unit is the self. I can accept that terminology. It's a world away from identity but I can accept those words as factual. I agree my philosophy could reasonably be described as nihilistic. I don't accept the self exists in the conventional way believed. But nature. Animals. Creatures. Sure. I accept matter is present. Only that matter is affected by causality.
Let me ask you something opti.
Is there any part of what you class as you that you imagine to be separate from causality?
Your thought feeling behaviour. That you love. >>>
The problem is that I tend not to think in the same way this question implies. The logical positivists and scientismists that espouse determinism think in a purely mechanical manner, allowing no room for the imagination. My name on a chess site a few years back was Indeterminist. Now I'm called Optimissed, obviously. But Indeterminist describes me pretty well.
Whenever we get an abstract question like the one you asked there, it's fine if we answeer yes and no at the same time. So relativity is definitelty true and if so then absolutism must be just as true. Yin and Yang.
Yang is Heaven, bright, absolute. Yin is Earth, obscured, relative. Yin and Yang is as simple as that and they're inseperable. neither is complete in itself. Each depends on the other.
So causality is true and yet itt's not true. The zener brain model explains simply how free will occurs in a deterministic universe. Do you know what a Zener diode does? Well, the brain does something very, very similar.
Which part isn't constrained by cause and effect?
I believe you see yourself as a god. Along with most other people.
Let me ask you something opti.
Is there any part of what you class as you that you imagine to be separate from causality?
Your thought feeling behaviour. That you love. >>>
The problem is that I tend not to think in the same way this question implies. The logical positivists and scientismists that espouse determinism think in a purely mechanical manner, allowing no room for the imagination. My name on a chess site a few years back was Indeterminist. Now I'm called Optimissed, obviously. But Indeterminist describes me pretty well.
Whenever we get an abstract question like the one you asked there, it's fine if we answeer yes and no at the same time. So relativity is definitelty true and if so then absolutism must be just as true. Yin and Yang.
Yang is Heaven, bright, absolute. Yin is Earth, obscured, relative. Yin and Yang is as simple as that and they're inseperable. neither is complete in itself. Each depends on the other.
So causality is true and yet itt's not true. The zener brain model explains simply how free will occurs in a deterministic universe. Do you know what a Zener diode does? Well, the brain does something very, very similar.
Which part isn't constrained by cause and effect?
I believe you see yourself as a god. Along with most other people.
Optimissed wrote:
Tomtalk wrote:
The idea of all experience applicable to one human unit is the self. I can accept that terminology. It's a world away from identity but I can accept those words as factual. I agree my philosophy could reasonably be described as nihilistic. I don't accept the self exists in the conventional way believed. But nature. Animals. Creatures. Sure. I accept matter is present. Only that matter is affected by causality.
Let me ask you something opti.
Is there any part of what you class as you that you imagine to be separate from causality?
Your thought feeling behaviour. That you love. >>>
The problem is that I tend not to think in the way this question implies. The logical positivists and scientismists that espouse determinism think in a purely mechanical manner, allowing no room for the imagination. My name on a chess site a few years back was Indeterminist. Now I'm called Optimissed, obviously: but Indeterminist describes me pretty well.
Whenever we get an abstract question like the one you asked there, it's fine if we answer yes and no at the same time. So relativity is definitely true and if so then absolutism must be just as true. Yin and Yang.
Yang is Heaven, bright, absolute. Yin is Earth, obscured, relative. Yin and Yang is as simple as that and they're inseperable. Neither is complete in itself. Each depends on the other.
So causality is true and yet it's not true. The Zener brain model explains simply how free will occurs in a deterministic universe. Do you know what a Zener diode does? Well, the brain does something very, very similar.
<<<I believe you see yourself as a god. Along with most other people.>>>
Not at all. And yet maybe I do because again we have a difference of opinion and I didn't do that deliberately, either. There's something in what you say and yet I would only describe it as being aware and mentally focussed, and that awareness is the result of a deliberately chosen path in life. But this isn't the place for such a conversation.
Let me ask you something opti.
Is there any part of what you class as you that you imagine to be separate from causality?
Your thought feeling behaviour. That you love. >>>
The problem is that I tend not to think in the way this question implies. The logical positivists and scientismists that espouse determinism think in a purely mechanical manner, allowing no room for the imagination. My name on a chess site a few years back was Indeterminist. Now I'm called Optimissed, obviously: but Indeterminist describes me pretty well.
Whenever we get an abstract question like the one you asked there, it's fine if we answer yes and no at the same time. So relativity is definitely true and if so then absolutism must be just as true. Yin and Yang.
Yang is Heaven, bright, absolute. Yin is Earth, obscured, relative. Yin and Yang is as simple as that and they're inseperable. Neither is complete in itself. Each depends on the other.
So causality is true and yet it's not true. The Zener brain model explains simply how free will occurs in a deterministic universe. Do you know what a Zener diode does? Well, the brain does something very, very similar.
<<<I believe you see yourself as a god. Along with most other people.>>>
Not at all. And yet maybe I do because again we have a difference of opinion and I didn't do that deliberately, either. There's something in what you say and yet I would only describe it as being aware and mentally focussed, and that awareness is the result of a deliberately chosen path in life. But this isn't the place for such a conversation.
0
#207
Wow you've put a lot of work into that. Thank you. I'm looking forward to reading and replying. Though I believe that neither my wife nor I exist nonetheless I still have to get petrol. It's funny but that's my position. I'll catch up.
Tomtalk wrote:
Opti 208. As I've said hawking states Maxwell's laws apply to biology and chemistry and therefore within the animal everything is determined. That seems entirely reasonable to me.>>
Maybe he doesn't understand Maxwell's Laws. Neither do I but I don't pretend to either. I do think Hawking is a clever fool, like so many are. I'm pretty sure he's wrong and using such a giant generalisation to make his point is the opposite of convincing. H. is a science populariser and not a serious thinker, in that his opinions cannot be trusted.
<<<But we've talked about at the quantum level things are different. Hawking talks about things being different there.>>>
Yes yes yes, and we don't understand quantum phsyics either. We can't as yet be sure how Young's Experiment works and what a waveform collapse really is. Is the waveform statistical or real? Is it in our heads somehow or in the universe? There's a number of dualistically indeterminate questions we can ask.
<<A part of me thinks that Einstein is just about the smartest man that ever existed and I tend to favour his view. I also think why shouldn't causality be King on a quantum level too?>>
No, he wasn't, by far. Look at Hooke, if you want an example of a really clever man. Or Maxwell, or a few Europeans from before and around Einstein's time.
<<But then hawking has access to information Einstein didn't. And is very talented too.
I tend to think that hawking is probably right in that he states Einstein is right that human beings don't have free will but at a quantum level determinism doesn't apply.>>
Is Hawking arguing for a pseudo free will based on chance quantum events? Or does he think our minds affect quantum events? I doubt he would admit to thinking that, though.
<<As for my past. Everyone that thinks free will to be an illusion is trying to escape from themselves?>>
No, many follow the thoughts of others, believing them to be valid and well thought through, because those others appear to have credentials. But there's been a tremendous rise in mental illness throughout the world and at the same time, belief in determinism has grown. Gambling addiction is also growing, it seems. Look at Sam Harris and the number of people who think he's a genius of some kind. He believes in determinsm, it seems.
<<I don't know about that. It's true that I've no strong desire to be the person I am. Maybe you need to feel that way to relinquish the ego.>>
All we can do is modify our reactions. We can't reliquish the ego entirely and we shouldn't wish to. Should we wish to have our arms and legs chopped off?
<<Do we believe what we want to believe?>>
Yes. Why do we want to believe it, though??
Maybe he doesn't understand Maxwell's Laws. Neither do I but I don't pretend to either. I do think Hawking is a clever fool, like so many are. I'm pretty sure he's wrong and using such a giant generalisation to make his point is the opposite of convincing. H. is a science populariser and not a serious thinker, in that his opinions cannot be trusted.
<<<But we've talked about at the quantum level things are different. Hawking talks about things being different there.>>>
Yes yes yes, and we don't understand quantum phsyics either. We can't as yet be sure how Young's Experiment works and what a waveform collapse really is. Is the waveform statistical or real? Is it in our heads somehow or in the universe? There's a number of dualistically indeterminate questions we can ask.
<<A part of me thinks that Einstein is just about the smartest man that ever existed and I tend to favour his view. I also think why shouldn't causality be King on a quantum level too?>>
No, he wasn't, by far. Look at Hooke, if you want an example of a really clever man. Or Maxwell, or a few Europeans from before and around Einstein's time.
<<But then hawking has access to information Einstein didn't. And is very talented too.
I tend to think that hawking is probably right in that he states Einstein is right that human beings don't have free will but at a quantum level determinism doesn't apply.>>
Is Hawking arguing for a pseudo free will based on chance quantum events? Or does he think our minds affect quantum events? I doubt he would admit to thinking that, though.
<<As for my past. Everyone that thinks free will to be an illusion is trying to escape from themselves?>>
No, many follow the thoughts of others, believing them to be valid and well thought through, because those others appear to have credentials. But there's been a tremendous rise in mental illness throughout the world and at the same time, belief in determinism has grown. Gambling addiction is also growing, it seems. Look at Sam Harris and the number of people who think he's a genius of some kind. He believes in determinsm, it seems.
<<I don't know about that. It's true that I've no strong desire to be the person I am. Maybe you need to feel that way to relinquish the ego.>>
All we can do is modify our reactions. We can't reliquish the ego entirely and we shouldn't wish to. Should we wish to have our arms and legs chopped off?
<<Do we believe what we want to believe?>>
Yes. Why do we want to believe it, though??
Where do you live? I'm in Wigan.
0
#210
Opti 226.
Interesting. I've heard the initial matter we came from was once smaller than a full stop. Then came inflation.
But we can look back in time don't you agree as space expanded faster than the speed of light?
We know that the universe is expanding.
Interesting. I've heard the initial matter we came from was once smaller than a full stop. Then came inflation.
But we can look back in time don't you agree as space expanded faster than the speed of light?
We know that the universe is expanding.
Tomtalk wrote:
What's BB?!
rSHpBQcdf!P-(w~~/s-l300/http/fd17735c80.jpg)
0
#214
Opti 228.
That was an interesting read.
I'm not saying you're wrong but to me it seems a bit like you are creating something.
I mean you'd accept I suppose that the human being has evolved naturally without divine intervention.
Is a part of nature.
So how come suddenly this thing you propose that's apart from nature?
Do you believe yourself to be separate from nature?
That was an interesting read.
I'm not saying you're wrong but to me it seems a bit like you are creating something.
I mean you'd accept I suppose that the human being has evolved naturally without divine intervention.
Is a part of nature.
So how come suddenly this thing you propose that's apart from nature?
Do you believe yourself to be separate from nature?
I read somewhere in here that Hawking was in love with himself...That seems to be correct IMO
I got some reading to do in here...
0
#217
It's a poetic idea. That these cells and chemicals suddenly became a self. A bit like a computer being so technical that it suddenly becomes aware of itself.
I can't personally imagine it. When you imagine that freewill became possible could you give me an idea how you believe that happened?
I can't personally imagine it. When you imagine that freewill became possible could you give me an idea how you believe that happened?
It took billions of years to become a self conscious animal like us...It s all in your DNA...yes it is very poetical
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.