User Controls
The mind is a meat radio.
-
2017-02-07 at 4:07 AM UTC
Originally posted by snab_snib first, explain what you think the two things {determinism and the minds radioactive nature} have to do with each other, and second, explain if you're aware that a radio receives and amplifies?
A radio doesn't just randomly work the way we expect it to - it works the way we expect it to because nature is deterministic and predictable, we have studied it and learned about it and built devices like radios based on our understanding of the deterministic way reality works. If the world is not deterministic, things should happen randomly for no reason. That isn't how the world appears to be, so if determinism is an illusion why is the mind a meat radio? Why and how does the world appear to be deterministic if it is as an illusion as you claim? -
2017-02-07 at 4:12 AM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind A radio doesn't just randomly work the way we expect it to - it works the way we expect it to because nature is deterministic and predictable, we have studied it and learned about it and built devices like radios based on our understanding of the deterministic way reality works. If the world is not deterministic, things should happen randomly for no reason. That isn't how the world appears to be, so if determinism is an illusion why is the mind a meat radio? Why and how does the world appear to be deterministic if it is as an illusion as you claim?
wrong, the universe is PROBABILISTIC. it's undecided what it's going to do next. some things are just more reliable than other things. we don't really understand anything, fundamentally; we create nuclear power plants and space ships and radios and computers using rule-of-thumb engineering tricks that were established through trial and error.
your question is null. 'how can x work if the universe isn't perfect clockwork' applies to everything. radios don't require a deterministic universe. free will isn't even negated by a deterministic universe. and in fact, the universe could be deterministic while humans or life is non-deterministic. and if you look and think hard enough, you come up with the same answer that so called scientists have for why gravity works or why the speed of light is so and so.
"that's just how it fucking is"The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-02-07 at 6:05 AM UTCThe world is a vampireThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-02-07 at 11:47 AM UTC
Originally posted by snab_snib wrong, the universe is PROBABILISTIC. it's undecided what it's going to do next. some things are just more reliable than other things. we don't really understand anything, fundamentally; we create nuclear power plants and space ships and radios and computers using rule-of-thumb engineering tricks that were established through trial and error.
your question is null. 'how can x work if the universe isn't perfect clockwork' applies to everything. radios don't require a deterministic universe. free will isn't even negated by a deterministic universe. and in fact, the universe could be deterministic while humans or life is non-deterministic. and if you look and think hard enough, you come up with the same answer that so called scientists have for why gravity works or why the speed of light is so and so.
"that's just how it fucking is"
It's important to point out that probabilism and determinism are not mutually exclusive. A system can be entirely deterministic, yet we might be able to only assess a probability for an event within the deterministic system.
In other words, probabilism does not imply indeterminism, at least for how the terms determinism/indeterminism are used in physics and philosophy. -
2017-02-07 at 4:07 PM UTCThe important thing to understand is that probabilism is about "knowledge" or lack there-of (epistemic) and determinism is about causes "existing" (ontic)...and it's important not to confuse the epistemic as being ontic.
Imagine, if you will, three doors (doors A, B, and C). You know for 100% fact that a gold bar is behind one of the doors and donkeys are behind the other two, you just have no idea which door the gold or donkeys are behind. You have a 1/3 chance of opening the gold bar door if you could only pick one. Sarah, another person, however, knows that door C has a donkey, but she doesn’t know if the gold is behind A or B. Unlike you, she has a 50% chance of picking the gold bar door. Another person, Billy, however, knows that door A and door C have the donkey, so he knows 100% that B has the gold bar (as he knows a gold bar is behind one of the doors that doesn’t have a donkey).
The probabilities differ based not on the probabilities being “actual” but rather the knowledge the person possesses. The assessment of a 1/3rd probability or 50% probability are simply in the heads of the individuals (you and Sarah) who do not have the full knowledge that Billy has.
The probabilities aren’t something that actually “exist” in reality, other than existing as a thought in a brain. The gold bar doesn’t really have a 1/3rd chance of being behind any door, in reality it is 100% behind door B, as Billy happens to know. -
2017-02-07 at 4:31 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind The important thing to understand is that probabilism is about "knowledge" or lack there-of (epistemic) and determinism is about causes "existing" (ontic)…and it's important not to confuse the epistemic as being ontic.
Imagine, if you will, three doors (doors A, B, and C). You know for 100% fact that a gold bar is behind one of the doors and donkeys are behind the other two, you just have no idea which door the gold or donkeys are behind. You have a 1/3 chance of opening the gold bar door if you could only pick one. Sarah, another person, however, knows that door C has a donkey, but she doesn’t know if the gold is behind A or B. Unlike you, she has a 50% chance of picking the gold bar door. Another person, Billy, however, knows that door A and door C have the donkey, so he knows 100% that B has the gold bar (as he knows a gold bar is behind one of the doors that doesn’t have a donkey).
The probabilities differ based not on the probabilities being “actual” but rather the knowledge the person possesses. The assessment of a 1/3rd probability or 50% probability are simply in the heads of the individuals (you and Sarah) who do not have the full knowledge that Billy has.
The probabilities aren’t something that actually “exist” in reality, other than existing as a thought in a brain. The gold bar doesn’t really have a 1/3rd chance of being behind any door, in reality it is 100% behind door B, as Billy happens to know.
You have retardedly mangled the Monty Hall problem into an unrecognisable mess, and your setup does not lead to your conclusion. The probabilities completely exist, but they are a concept meant to quantify your chances of getting the right answer in the absence of information regarding what is behind a given door. -
2017-02-07 at 5:03 PM UTCWhat if the 3 people are blindfolded and the door numbers are switched?
-
2017-02-07 at 5:12 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-02-07 at 5:34 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-02-07 at 6:10 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-02-07 at 7:02 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon You have retardedly mangled the Monty Hall problem into an unrecognisable mess, and your setup does not lead to your conclusion. The probabilities completely exist, but they are a concept meant to quantify your chances of getting the right answer in the absence of information regarding what is behind a given door.
The point is that probabilism doesn’t imply indeterminism. -
2017-02-07 at 7:33 PM UTC
Originally posted by Discount Whore I wrote a an entire book dealing with epistemology and other methods of reasoning to acquire knowledge (srs) and Zanick used it in the correct context. I know nobody will believe that and I'm NOT going to dox myself here, but its really easy to see how its epistemology if you bothered to even google the word.
"I have heard this a fair amount recently. I dont think I agree with it but I see it as a practical metaphor on a number of levels. It first implores one to consider what "frequency they tune themselves to. More importantly after that examination they may then consider methods of tuning that frequency. I think some will be lead to wonder what frequencies are trying to tune into them."
-people believe this
-im going to investigate if this is true
-here is why it might be true
-look a conclusion! (not actually needed for epistemology)
Fallible proof of author-hood: http://imgur.com/a/sbyiw
Intradesting.
I think I'll PM you. Yes. -
2017-02-07 at 7:34 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind The point is that probabilism doesn’t imply indeterminism.
No, you completely missed the mark on what actual physical probabilism is. In the present day, the position that most scientists agree upon is that quantum mechanics are truly random. There are debates to this day about whether or not Bell's theorem actually establishes that (for example superdeterminism), but for the most part, to the best of our knowledge, it simply is. Accept that.
Some people try to argue that the fact that QM is random, doesn't mean that our universe at large is not deterministic, or has random elements. Which is honestly retarded. There are a lot of physics related discussion beyond your level of knowledge right now to explain it but let me give you a simple scenario to illustrate that that argument is facile:
Imagine you are a quantum physicist. You conduct an experiment where a detector observes a truly random quantum event and tells you the outcome. This information, which has been randomly generated, informs your decision to pick A or B on a test. Bam, determinism broken. -
2017-02-07 at 7:34 PM UTCITT: Noobs getting smoked.
-
2017-02-07 at 8:10 PM UTCfree will does not exist, but our actions are not predetermined. the universe is unsure of what it's about to do, and therein lies our opportunity. prescience is more real than memory/history. we can use our mind and energy to change the past in the exact same way that we can change the future. just as there are many possible futures stemming from this point, there are many possible histories that led to this point.
-
2017-02-07 at 8:16 PM UTC
Originally posted by snab_snib free will does not exist, but our actions are not predetermined. the universe is unsure of what it's about to do, and therein lies our opportunity. prescience is more real than memory/history. we can use our mind and energy to change the past in the exact same way that we can change the future. just as there are many possible futures stemming from this point, there are many possible histories that led to this point.
Surprisingly not retarded post. Good job -
2017-02-07 at 9 PM UTC
-
2017-02-07 at 9:05 PM UTC
-
2017-02-07 at 9:08 PM UTC*pushes up spectacles*
elll you see the mind isn't so much a presence as it is of course an abstract illusion producing determined infinite cyclical non-patterns in a deceptive rhythm of unseen pulsating sensory markings designed to enforce what already was. -
2017-02-07 at 9:10 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ *pushes up spectacles*
elll you see the mind isn't so much a presence as it is of course an abstract illusion producing determined infinite cyclical non-patterns in a deceptive rhythm of unseen pulsating sensory markings designed to enforce what already was.
We'll see how much of a deceptive rhythm you think it is when I'm... eh, you can fill in the blanks.
