SoAMadDeathWish

But, if your choice is not non deterministic, then your choice to ignore what is actually going on was deterministic. But, that implies that the appearance of non determinism was deterministic which implies that things really are non deterministic (or "indeterministic").

What is the third way between deterministic and non deterministic (or "indeterministic")?

Darrell

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises.

Reality, being neither deterministic nor indeterministic, is not in a "third way" between the two. It just doesn't make any sense to ask whether reality is determinstic or not and to what degree, just as it doesn't make any sense to ask how furiously a colorless green idea sleeps.

Part 6 is finally up. The reason it took so long is because a) I've been busy, and b) it took me quite a while to think of an approach that would explain the core concepts of SR while sidestepping all of the rather unnecessary usual algebraic baggage.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/z035cgg5iscwkpx/Part_6_Special_Relativity.pdf

There is no such thing as "indeterminacy" in reality. Things are only ever "indeterministic" to the extent that we choose to ignore what is actually going on.

Doesn't that statement contradict itself?

If it is possible to ignore what is actually going on, then choice is possible. But if choice is possible, then things are non deterministic.

Darrell

That depends on how you define "choice". For me, there is no conflict whatsoever between the possibility of choice and determinism, as long as by "choice" we mean a decision arising from the beliefs, preferences, values, and deliberations of an individual.

Michael is right.

It is true that explanations are (typically) deterministic, because only deterministic aspects of reality can be explained (and predicted). But, that doesn't mean that reality is deterministic.

If you're only arguing about explanations and not reality, then you're being rationalistic. You're not looking outward at reality. You're only looking inward at explanations of reality.

Darrell

Reality in and of itself is neither deterministic nor indeterministic. I think I've said that already.

Rationalism, in the O'ist sense, is when you try to figure out the facts of reality from a priori reasoning alone. However, such reasoning is not by itself rationalism. For example, mathematics is entirely a priori reasoning, but it does not make any claims about the real world, so it's not rationalism.

I thought he was on your ignore list.

I have to wonder, if a man is urinating blood and is near death, why would he continue to wait for a primary care appointment at a healthcare facility that clearly could not accomodate him? Why wouldn't he go to another facility?

I'm not trying to beat up on veterans. Perhaps I don't understand the VA healthcare system. Does it preclude veterans from getting care at non-VA facilities?

Veteran's benefits don't cover treatment at non-VA facilities, so the reason they don't go anywhere else is that they can't afford to.

Curious that congressmen never have this issue.

Specifically, which issue?

Not getting or waiting long time for medical care from the government.

Curious that congressmen never have this issue.

Hmmm.... gets you thinkin'....

Determinism is not an explanation of how things work. Like I said before, it's a property of explanations.

This is rationalism, i.e., what is in the mind trumps observed reality.

This is not law of identity, which weds observation to what is in the mind.

Rationalism is a form of dogma.

Michael

No it isn't.

Then what is it?

--Brant

I don't know. Rand and Peikoff like to call it "Objectivism".

The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act; a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature . . . . The law of identity does not permit you to have your cake and eat it, too. The law of causality does not permit you to eat your cake before you have it. -Rand

To grasp the axiom that existence exists, means to grasp the fact that nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, it is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the law of identity. All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe—from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life—are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved. -Rand

Since things are what they are, since everything that exists possesses a specific identity, nothing in reality can occur causelessly or by chance. -Peikoff

Choice . . . is not chance. Volition is not an exception to the Law of Causality; it is a type of causation. -Peikoff

Determinism is not an explanation of how things work. Like I said before, it's a property of explanations.

This is rationalism, i.e., what is in the mind trumps observed reality.

This is not law of identity, which weds observation to what is in the mind.

Rationalism is a form of dogma.

Michael

No it isn't.

Nothing for you. You made that bed. You made the house you live in. I'm sorry you're so determined helpless, but what skunk made you pass it around?

Your explanation of how things work is so general and reductive to be worthless--of no utility whatsoever--not even pre-science.

--Brant

Determinism is not an explanation of how things work. Like I said before, it's a property of explanations.

A is A is always accused of being a tautology.

People who do that generally have little regard for the law of identity.

What are you talking about? "A is A" is a tautology.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19673_6-insane-but-convincing-theories-childrens-pop-culture_p2.html

There is no such thing as "indeterminacy" in reality. Things are only ever "indeterministic" to the extent that we choose to ignore what is actually going on.

This is about as close to a perfect example of a tautology as I can imagine.

Michael

Just to clarify, since it is like a trap (which I believe makes it close to perfect), according to this way of arguing, if you observe indeterminacy, like parts of free will, and call them that, you are ignoring "what is actually going on," i.e., determinacy.

But if you can't observe the determinacy in the indeterminate part, and can only observe the indeterminacy, you are still wrong if you call it indeterminate because you are "ignoring the determinacy." The determinacy is always valid because it is determinate. It does not need to be observed and can't be in many cases. So why then is it determinate? Because it is not indeterminate. And why cannot it be indeterminate? Because it is determinate.

Tautology. Hidden, but still tautology.

This happens when rationalization--meaning here the rationale divorced from observation--is used as the fundamental standard of truth.

Michael

Is the tautologous fact that one can never observe a contradiction (that A is A) also a rationalization?

"Indeterminacy" is not the opposite of determinacy, but only a catchall for what is left over when determinacy is cut out.

So... nothing?

Reducing consciousness is the problem for that kills it. Whatcha doing that for?

--Brant

Do stars cease to shine when you've explained how they work?

You seem to ignore a whole raft of consequences of a living, acting human being. Of a human conscious being having been determined bio-chemically, nature and maybe even nurture, in turn determines using indeterminacy. Hitler wasn't inevitable--or if he was, how could anyone prove it? With a non-falsifiable theory one can only prevail axiomatically. It's all looking backwards saying nothing could have been different, but try turning that around and successfully predict the near particular future.

There is no such thing as "indeterminacy" in reality. Things are only ever "indeterministic" to the extent that we choose to ignore what is actually going on. In principle, it is possible to predict completely the near particular future, so in that sense, Hitler was inevitable.

Determinism is not a theory about how things are. It is a property of certain explanations. It cannot be said to be falsifiable or unfalsifiable.

When someone is exposed to an influence, a great deal of the effect of that influence is determined by how conciousness evaluates the experience. Determined isn't the same as necessarily determined.

--Brant

Consciousness is reducible to nothing more than physical processes in the brain. It is not something that acts "above" those processes. It is those processes.

Let's see now. A dead person and a live person--no difference, just a bunch of chemicals.

--Brant

me and Hitler--never woulda thought; he coulda been my Daddy!--sob!

No difference, other than how they are put together.

"Now who will check my premises?"

What the hell? No Vagician!?

And, strictly speaking, choice is an illusion, since all thoughts are the outcome of purely deterministic physical laws.

At least yours are--we can start from there (and build?).

How did you deterministically determine this? You didn't of course; those damn "laws" did. What I can't determine is how you determined--how you are the passive voice of truth. Couldn't those laws have made you into a liar? No--for if you can lie you can tell the truth and know the difference. Enter, moral agency. Exit you--that's your choice, right?

The outcome of the deterministic laws that govern one's brain do not come in and supersede on a pre-existing "free will". There is no "me" that makes choices independently of my brain and the laws of reality. Rather, the outcome of those deterministic processes is one's "free will" to choose. People are nothing more and nothing less than atoms put together a certain way.

Oh, BTW, how do you know "physical laws" are "purely deterministic"? And might you be confusing/conflating "thoughts" with thought content?

Because they aren't arbitrary.

It's a small interesting piece of work

Rubbish. Subjects were free to glance left or right after stimulus. They could have used dogs or mice and got the same results.

Off you go, in disgrace, to the Ignore list.

Dun. Dun. Dun. Another one bites the dust.

Dun. Dun. Dun. Another one bites the dust.

Clods at UC-Davis used a blank screen and a dot to "prove" that choice is random, a result of noisy static in the brain, like an AM radio receiver listening to nothing between two weak signals. They ought to give an award for this, Best Bullshit Science Grant of The Year.

Drudge links to The Independent

What the scientists actually said:

“[Though] purposeful intentions, desires and goals drive our decisions in a linear cause-and-effect kind of way, our finding shows that our decisions are also influenced by neural noise within any given moment."

Not sure how you managed to get the title of this thread from this.

And, strictly speaking, choice is an illusion, since all thoughts are the outcome of purely deterministic physical laws.

I'm just gonna leave this here:

http://www.ncai.org/resources/ncai-publications/Ending_the_Legacy_of_Racism.pdf

I asked two questions recently to someone who wants the name to change (and got a begrudging ummmmm mrrrlgghm).

1. What damage is being done to any American Indian when the Redskins play a football game? What damage is being done to any individual Indian by the football team being called that? Are any Indians being denied jobs, voting rights, bank loans, admission to schools, etc.? Are they being put in a lesser position because of the name used in football games?

Is there any kind of causal connection here?

If there is no causal connection, if nothing bad is happening right now that anyone can point to that the name is causing, then why do folks want to prohibit the trademark and make others stop using it?

If the US decided to put a swastika on its flag, would you find that acceptable? After all, what damage would be done to any Jew when people wave a swastika around, or salute a swastika, or send their kids to schools where they pledge allegiance to a swastika, or go to a football game where the mascot of the team they cheer for is a racist caricature of Jews?

If the name of a football team was offensive to any other racial or ethnic group, you wouldn't be caught dead making this argument. Why? Because:

2. Whenever Redskins fans cheer for the team, they are obviously not thinking about American Indians. They are thinking about the players on the field and winning the goddam game. When they go to buy a ticket to the games, or tune in on TV, they look for "Redskins," but they are not thinking about some Indian tribe or how to look down their noses on Indians. Who the hell does that? They are thinking about football.

Which is exactly the problem. In the schools and the media, the history of racism and genocide against Native Americans is either whitewashed or ignored. Ignorance of history then leads to people thinking that using terms like "redskin" or portraying Native Americans as savages is no big deal. Then when the ugly truth comes to light, even otherwise intelligent people like Rand start rationalizing the worst possible horrors, because anti-native attitudes and beliefs have been instilled in them their whole lives.

So my question was (and is), if the do-gooders are truly interested in eliminating bigotry, isn't that something to be celebrated? All the poison has been drained from that term in the mainstream use. There is no bigotry in the minds of the people who use the term for football. Hell, there is no Indian at all in their minds. So shouldn't that be celebrated instead of condemned? Hasn't the culture progressed according to the very standards the do-gooders preach?

How about we just forget that slavery and the holocaust ever happened, too? That way white people can use the word "nigger" and wave swastikas around without feeling uncomfortable. Would you call that progress?

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Martin Luther King, Jr.

When you call someone a "redskin", you're effectively saying that the things that their ancestors suffered through were insignificant or justified or both...

I don't know of a single person who uses the term in this manner or who even believes this.

Michael

That's because they're ignorant about a lot of American history. They don't know what the term represents, and have never been faced with such discrimination, so to them "redskin" is "just a word". If they did understand what the term "redskin" meant to Native Americans, only the really crazy ones would continue to use it.

There are many people in other countries who depict black people by having actors dress up in blackface. They don't know anything about the history of racism in America that that represents, so they see nothing wrong with it and continue to do it.

Would you ever appear on American television dressed up in blackface? If not, then you understand why the Washington Redskins should change their name.

I also don't think that the enjoyment that Redskins fans derive from watching football justifies anything at all. The fans of any other team enjoy football just as much without having a racist mascot.

What's so difficult about that is that every single thing you say or do will be offensive to someone somewhere. If you're going to cease and desist actions and behaviors based on the fact that there might be one offended person, then you're going to have to live the rest of your life having absolutely no interaction of any kind with anyone.

I didn't claim that blowjobs and jokes were people. I claimed that you offended me by making reference to them. Then it follows that you must agree that you will never again make such a reference or laugh at such a joke.

Oh yeah, I'm also offended by math so you'll happily agree to cut that out, too, I'm sure.

The point of not being a racist is not to avoid giving offense to anybody, it's about treating people with human dignity and respect. The reason that the term "redskin" is so offensive is because it is a dehumanizing term that represents a bloody history of genocide and racism. When you call someone a "redskin", you're effectively saying that the things that their ancestors suffered through were insignificant or justified or both because only humans can have rights, not "redskins" or "niggers" or "untermenschen".

Before you start thinking that these terms have no relevance to the modern day because those injustices are "in the past", here is Ayn Rand spewing the usual bigotry about how Native Americans have no rights because they are "savages":

Now, I don't care to discuss the alleged complaints American Indians have against this country. I believe, with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man. They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages. The white man did not conquer this country. And you're a racist if you object, because it means you believe that certain men are entitled to something because of their race. You believe that if someone is born in a magnificent country and doesn't know what to do with it, he still has a property right to it. He does not. Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights--they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures"--they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using. It's wrong to attack a country that respects (or even tries to respect) individual rights. If you do, you're an aggressor and are morally wrong. But if a "country" does not protect rights--if a group of tribesmen are the slaves of their tribal chief--why should you respect the "rights" that they don't have or respect? The same is true for a dictatorship. The citizens in it have individual rights, but the country has no rights and so anyone has the right to invade it, because rights are not recognized in that country; and no individual or country can have its cake and eat it too--that is, you can't claim one should respect the "rights" of Indians, when they had no concept of rights and no respect for rights. But let's suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages--which they certainly were not. What were they fighting for, in opposing the white man on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existnece; for their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched--to keep everybody out so they could live like animals or cavemen. Any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it's great that some of them did. The racist Indians today--those who condemn America--do not respect individual rights.