Consciousness and free will.

[The Inglorious One]

Yes. Our notions of locality can only to be applied to phenomena and are thus purely observer-defined constructs, but I can't see how this conclusion leads to your assumption of transcendent cause. Perhaps you could flesh out the logic steps which lead you there.

Referring to a "transcendent cause" when nothing of the like was said or implied is typical of the mental contortions necessary in order to avoid the full implications of non-locality. There is only one, undivided act and recent experiments have reduced the number of possible "hidden variables" to one.

If mind exists locally, then it exists non-locally. It's that simple. The observer-defined constructs are the perceived average of individual minds linked by a spacetime-transcending "overmind." This explains why an "objective" reality exists at all. It's this, or solipism. Your choice.

[Obvious Leo]

Fair enough mate. Alpha reckons he' s a mindless automaton and you reckon you're a figment of an uber-mind. It takes all sorts to make a world and since you're both consenting adults I wish you joy of your convictions. However in the interests of the greater good of society at large I reckon young children deserve to be protected from such views until they have learned to develop their own capacities for critical thinking.

[henry quirk]

Alpha sez the way reality works negates the possibility of self-direction.

I say my whole, on-going experience is of apprehending, assessing, choosing, doing (self-directing).

His logic is impeccable; my experience is undenable.

So: as I've said before, sumthin' is missing from the conversation, some bit of information about how the world works, how I-ness works, is missing.

We're stalemated by *ignorance.









*and I don't think sheltering within 'overmind' is the solution to the problem

[Obvious Leo]

Alpha. I realise that science is not your gig and it is not my intention to mock you on this point because I don't claim that science has all the answers to all of our questions. However it has the answer to this particular question because anybody with a basic high school education knows that the speed of light is finite. What you're essentially claiming is that IF it were possible to know all of the causal variables in advance THEN it would be possible to predict the outcome of any physical process. This is a logically true statement based on a false premise because a finite speed of light means that it is physically impossible to know all the causal variables in advance. That which is physically impossible is also logically impossible.

[Obvious Leo]

A gene mutation can occur in a chromosome when it is affected by a cosmic ray burst. Careless language leads to sloppy thinking and even scientists are often guilty of calling such an event a "random" gene mutation. However it is no such thing because cosmic rays bursts are completely deterministic and can be caused by a range of different cosmological events, such as a supernova. Therefore a gene mutation can be caused by an event that occurred a thousand years ago but we can know nothing of this event until the information about it has reached us. Therefore in this case the gene mutation cannot be predicted, even in principle, and yet it had a perfectly ordinary physical cause.

[The Inglorious One]

Sorry, guys, but I don't see a logical alternative. I have no idea how Leo can at once affirm non-locality and deny the logical consequences.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I'm beginning to lose patience with you.

i'm shaking in my boots.

"It is theoretically IMPOSSIBLE to know all the variables." Epistemologically you simply cannot know what you do not know.

To test your claimed expertise in Logic I state the quote as True - now show me why you think it is logically false.

it is false because it contradicts this rule:

Logical Possibility is built upon the law of non-contradiction. Any proposition whose opposite does not imply a contradiction is logically possible. Any description of a state of affairs that does not contain and implicit or explicit logical contradiction is logically possible. That is, if the sentence does not include a contradiction like, "Mike is a married bachelor." then the state of affairs that the sentence describes is logically possible. So it is logically possible that Mike is a bachelor. And it is logically possible that he is married. And it is logically possible that Mike (an unaided human) could fly. But it is not logically possible that 2 + 2 = 5, or that circles have sides, or that the Pythagorean Theorem is wrong, etc. Philosophers sometimes talk about logical possibilities in terms of possible worlds; there is a possible world where Arnold Schwarzenegger is the president of the United States. There is a possible world where you have super powers and can run faster than the speed of light. There are no colorless red balls, however, and no presidents who hold no political office, and no four sided triangles.

https://sites.google.com/site/mccormick ... l-thinking

who's stupid now?


I did not call you stupid. But since you mention it. ANY moron can cut and paste a passage from the Internet, but few are bright enough to be able to apply another persons work. YOU HAVE FAILED to show how this can be applied to the argument at hand TRY again.

There are good examples
here all possible data is available, yet the outcomes are unknown. In materials science you can know exactly the molecular structure of new materials but are unable to exactly predict the properties of the material. And since a single example refutes your position this fact shows you are wrong.

another highly ignorant statement that contradicts this fact:

Natural Possibility The laws of nature confine the behavior of matter in our world to a subset of the logically possible worlds. The laws of nature such as the universal law of gravitation, F = MA, and e=mc2 determine the range of what states of affairs are naturally possible. So it is not naturally possible for an unaided human body to fly—the musculature, bone structure, and other physiological traits prevent it. But it is naturally possible (we think) to cure cancer. The laws of nature, which are different from the laws of logic, could have been different without logical contradiction. All natural possibilities are a subset of logical possibilities. That is, anything that is naturally possible is also logically possible, but not everything that is logically possible is naturally possible. Being able to move objects with your thoughts alone through telekinesis is ruled out by physics and not naturally possible, but there is no logical contradiction in the scenario.

https://sites.google.com/site/mccormick ... l-thinking

PLONK!!

Second point.

" determinism literally (pun intended) entails predictability (at least in principle)" Yes, but ONLY in principle if all possible factors could be know, but they cannot. SO you have no leg to stand on

again, a stupid statement because it contradicts the rules i quoted.

and predictable is not the same as determinable.

in essence they are the same thing. absolute predictability can only come from absolute determinism, and something absolutely deterministic is absolutely predictable in principle. don't force me to make you look even more foolish.

As for 'sticking to science" and letting you deal with Logic- fuck that you have shown again and again a woeful ignorance of basic logic.

i stand by my statement; so don't make me take off my gloves.

You've descended into the stupidity that you claim I accused you of..

[Obvious Leo]

Sorry, guys, but I don't see a logical alternative. I have no idea how Leo can at once affirm non-locality and deny the logical consequences.

Since you have yet to elaborate on the logical consequences you refer to there's little here for me to respond to. How do you get from non-locality to the overmind in a sequence of logical steps?

[alpha]

I did not call you stupid. But since you mention it. ANY moron can cut and paste a passage from the Internet, but few are bright enough to be able to apply another persons work. YOU HAVE FAILED to show how this can be applied to the argument at hand TRY again.

it takes a special kind of moron to miss how my argument invalidates yours. i'll explain it to you very slowly: my statement that absolute prediction of absolutely deterministic systems is possible in principle implies no contradictions, making it logically possible, and making your statement "It is theoretically IMPOSSIBLE to know all the variables." necessarily false, because it contradicts my true statement.

PLONK!!

a whole new level of stupid. this is biological devolution at its finest.

You've descended into the stupidity that you claim I accused you of..

no, you've descended to a level of stupidity even beyond what i accused you of.

[alpha]

Fair enough mate. Alpha reckons he' s a mindless automaton and you reckon you're a figment of an uber-mind. It takes all sorts to make a world and since you're both consenting adults I wish you joy of your convictions. However in the interests of the greater good of society at large I reckon young children deserve to be protected from such views until they have learned to develop their own capacities for critical thinking.

or critical driveling.

[alpha]

Alpha. I realise that science is not your gig and it is not my intention to mock you on this point because I don't claim that science has all the answers to all of our questions. However it has the answer to this particular question because anybody with a basic high school education knows that the speed of light is finite. What you're essentially claiming is that IF it were possible to know all of the causal variables in advance THEN it would be possible to predict the outcome of any physical process. This is a logically true statement based on a false premise because a finite speed of light means that it is physically impossible to know all the causal variables in advance. That which is physically impossible is also logically impossible.

seriously, leo (and hobbes), where do you come up with this nonsense? was it part of your "basic high school education"? read this, slowly:

Natural Possibility The laws of nature confine the behavior of matter in our world to a subset of the logically possible worlds. The laws of nature such as the universal law of gravitation, F = MA, and e=mc2 determine the range of what states of affairs are naturally possible. So it is not naturally possible for an unaided human body to fly—the musculature, bone structure, and other physiological traits prevent it. But it is naturally possible (we think) to cure cancer. The laws of nature, which are different from the laws of logic, could have been different without logical contradiction. All natural possibilities are a subset of logical possibilities. That is, anything that is naturally possible is also logically possible, but not everything that is logically possible is naturally possible. Being able to move objects with your thoughts alone through telekinesis is ruled out by physics and not naturally possible, but there is no logical contradiction in the scenario.

https://sites.google.com/site/mccormick ... l-thinking

you've got it backwards, my primitive friend; that which is logically impossible is physically impossible, and not the other way around.

[alpha]

hey henry. long time no see.

Alpha sez the way reality works negates the possibility of self-direction.

you're twisting my words. i don't dispute "self-direction" per se; i dispute the fact that our "self-directing" is uncaused/indeterminate/unpredictable in principle. if it's predictable in principle, then any true freewill goes out the window.

I say my whole, on-going experience is of apprehending, assessing, choosing, doing (self-directing).

yes, we all apprehend (well, excluding leo, hobbes and the like), assess, choose, etc., but in a completely predetermined manner (predictable in principle).

[Obvious Leo]

Hobbes. I'm hoisting the white flag of surrender. The lights are on but there's nobody home.

[alpha]

Hobbes. I'm hoisting the white flag of surrender. The lights are on but there's nobody home.

the first step is admitting you have a problem... only 9999999999 steps to go. you can do it!

[The Inglorious One]

Sorry, guys, but I don't see a logical alternative. I have no idea how Leo can at once affirm non-locality and deny the logical consequences.

Since you have yet to elaborate on the logical consequences you refer to there's little here for me to respond to. How do you get from non-locality to the overmind in a sequence of logical steps?

I did, Leo. The fact that you can't follow the dots or add 2+2 isn't my problem.

Is non-locality intrinsic to reality itself? Yes.

Do minds exist locally? Yes.

Do local minds exist independently of non-local reality? No.

Does it follow that all minds are somehow intertwined? Yes.