Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part (Civ3)! Part 2

[MrBaggins]

Just out of curiousity, Rogan do you have any response to:

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Interestingly, if you removed all short and long term memory capacity, then a human would cease to be able to reason or have knowledge of true self-awareness, hence sentience. They would however, die in short order because they would not 'remember' to breathe. An effect that can be duplicated by some narcotics, I once read.

and

Originally posted by MrBaggins
'Right' and 'wrong' are just knowledge concepts based on reasoning formulated by groups of sentient beings ultimately for the survival of the whole. A self built natural selection defense.

Furthermore

'Morality' can be seen in non-sentient nature... like not all mothers eating young, just because they are edible.

If sentience and freewill can be cut out of a human with a knife, doesn't that imply that they are simple physical attributes?

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
If sentience and freewill can be cut out of a human with a knife, doesn't that imply that they are simple physical attributes?

Yes, I think that makes sense, but it is by no means clear. there are certainly parts of our body which we cannot do without, at present levels of technology. But then again, if 100 years ago you had removed someone's heart they would die as surely. I am sure you would not support the idea that our free-will originates from there.

I don't pretend to have any answers about where free will comes from, and I don't know how it works.

Indeed, I think it consistent to believe that there is no outside influence and our sense of self is coming entirely from very complex interactions in our brain, but I do not believe that this mechanism could lead to 'free will' because the movements of the particles in our brain would be determined entirely by the laws of physics (irrespective of what our nursery grade amateur physicist would have you believe). In this context, with no free will, there can be no morality, other than as an artificial mechanism designed to futher the procreation of the human species.

I am not willing to believe this, because I think I am (and you are) more than this. There needs to be some other explanation. Now, whether that explanation comes from some bizarre new phenomena we do not yet know of or from God, I cannot say, but I think believe the latter to be more likely. I am not going to replace that conviction with a theory which we do not yet have.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
The problem is that you are asserting that this is fact without a shred of evidence. Hardly credible....

Like you would know what credible is.

You are right I don't have a shred. I have tons. Megatons. The Bible is wrong on many things. Thats my proof.

temper temper! Are you asserting that one can be sentient without free will or have free will without being sentient?

Its irrelevant. It wasn't the question and YOU were the one that asked.

If only you new....

If only you could remember the questions you asked you wouldn't be down to using smileys instead of reason or facts.

Believe me, you do not want to start a pissing contest. We have had enough of your **** already.

You mean you don't like losing. I am never bothered by a pissing contest. I don't lose them.

Speak for yourself. YOU have had enough of me telling the truth.

Seriously though, have you ever studied any physics?

Apparently more than you but I could of course be wrong. You may just be one of those people that learns without understanding.

The only limitation is that one cannot have infinite precision in a computer (ie transendental numbers). But one can predict up to any accuracy one desires.

Increase the accuracy and you get a different result. Increase it some more and it is different yet and it will not tend towards a limit.

That is chaos.

Oh rubbish. Quantum field theories are still predictive. The fields all obey field equations, and are nicely behaved, perfectly under the control of the physical laws.

Yet you still don't know both the velocity and position of an electron at the same time. Or any other paired property. That is is not perfectly controlled in the sense you are using.

Are you sure you took a physics class?

Are you high priest of this 'Golden Rule' then?

Are you the high priest of smileys instead of proof?

I can almost hear the thunder

You do have delusions there is no denying that.

I didn't check because it is completely irrelevant what the statistics say. There have been plenty of bad people in the world who claimed to be christians, just like any other segment of society.

You didn't check because you don't want to know. You are much happier in ignorance.

Well, it certainly seems that most of what goes on in your head is irrelevant to reality.....

Yes this is typical. Insults instead of evidence. Very typical.

Lets see you have

Not one bit of evidence to support a single thing you said.

You have no skill at vitriol and depend on graphics that other people created.

You have not disproven a thing I said.

Very good its par for the course. Go off on a tangent and hope no one notices.

The Bible is wrong so there is no reason at all to believe in your god. It is sad that anyone would be so desperate to retain their ignorance like you are doing but their it is. Creationism is damaging to the brain apparently.

[loinburger]

Ethelred: Rogan's got a Ph.D in physics, IIRC.

[MrBaggins]

Rogan>

Now to elaborate on the principal; I was being very course in the neural areas that I was discussing...

What if I cut out everything except that which is necessary for breathing and heart beat, and use artificial nutrition. Or examine a patient with identical symptoms induced by trauma...

Does that being have free-will. Can they form strategies? No

Yet they are alive.

Incidentally... Quantum theory, including quantum field theory has (through quantum computing implementation) as much proof as it is possible to get, or there abouts. A Los Alamos employee calculated that if printed, the proof through implementation of QM & QFT effects in QC calculations would fill the known universe.

Thats a lot of evidence. Awfully hard to debunk proof of law like that...


Also, your arguments all seem to tend to rely towards your prefering one explanation... that there is a god. Thats just arbitrary. It might be nice to think that we are special beings on a rock in the middle of no where, but that is far from explanation.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by loinburger
Ethelred: Rogan's got a Ph.D in physics, IIRC.

Thats fine. He should learn to use it. If true he knows better.

Our thinking is as dependent on electrons as a computer and the parts are smaller making the results less certain.

He thinks he has free will yet cannot explain it. He even evaded my question of how does he know he has free will. Yet he insists he has it.

I think he has lost his balance in his anger towards me.

[SlowwHand]

"At the end of our last episode, the creationists have seemingly decided to sulk and go away, rather than actually answer the rebuttals layed out to them."


Because you pick a topic that is unwinnable by either Scientists or Creationists.
You're either of faith or you're not. Who wants to waste time?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
"At the end of our last episode, the creationists have seemingly decided to sulk and go away, rather than actually answer the rebuttals layed out to them."


Because you pick a topic that is unwinnable by either Scientists or Creationists.
You're either of faith or you're not. Who wants to waste time?

One side has positive arguments. The other has rebuttal arguments against those positive arguments.

The scientists cannot disprove Santa, yet can put forward a valid hypothesis, and if that stands... then the scientists 'win'.

Of course, creationists can always say that Santa did it, but its not a good argument, since it can't be proven. The positive arguments for a rational universe however can, and do make good topics for arguments.

[Draco aka Se7eN]

You evolutionists are pathetic.

Number one i didnt leave because you prooved anything to me. Rather i left because your all nit pickers who judge a persons intelligence on grammer and spelling. Come on cut a guy some slack. There are plenty of smart people who dont have perfect grammer and spelling like all you 250 iq genious scientists who have access to labratories and a mountain of information. LOL

I didnt respond to your "Facts" or "theory's" because I already know them. Believing them is denile. Evolution is a Fairy tail.

One side has positive arguments. The other has rebuttal arguments against those positive arguments.

The Creationists cannot prove that God exists, yet can put forward a valid hypothesis, and if that stands... then the creationists 'win'.

Of course, Evolutionists can always say that mathmatically impossible odds of chance did it, but its not a good argument, since it can't be proven that something was created from nothing. The positive arguments for a rational universe however can, and do make good topics for arguments.


Creationists follow Science too, just not the false "theorys"

[Draco aka Se7eN]

OH and dont worry, Evolution wont be around much longer, it shouldnt be more than 15 years till it is finnaly disproved. Ofcourse there will still be evolutionists

[Spiffor]

I was not sure of anythin until I read some creationist literature on the web.
It was so ridiculous I supposed it was caricatural... doesn't seem so though.
Since I read some creationism, I'm sure it is utterly absurd. To consider biblical bigotry as a valid basis for secular science, while even the pope acknowledges the Bible is metaphorical ! Ludicrous.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
You evolutionists are pathetic.

A cunning argument, and one that shall take me all of 1.5 seconds to discount as meaningless! I salute you, sir!

Number one i didnt leave because you prooved anything to me.

Of course not, you are obtuse. It is fundamentally impossible to prove anything to you.

Rather i left because your all nit pickers who judge a persons intelligence on grammer and spelling.

Say that to Ethelred, who is not Apolyton's premiere speller or gammaticist, yet who is not dismissed from debates (typically) as a result. You were dismissed because us "nitpickers" demanded things like evidence or justification which you were incapable of providing.

Come on cut a guy some slack.

Seeing as how your ignorant troll has spawned several intermediate debates, I'd say that you were cut all of the slack that you deserved and then some.

LOL

LOL! Another cunning argument, and one which is again useless like your previous cunning argument, you ignorant troll.

I didnt respond to your "Facts" or "theory's" because I already know them.

Obviously not, Mr. "I've read 22 physics books yet still don't understand the meaning of E = MC^2."

Believing them is denile. Evolution is a Fairy tail.

You are full of cunning arguments tonight. Fortunately for me, you have come lacking in evidence once again, so your "cunning arguments" amount to nothing more than "lies."

One side has positive arguments. The other has rebuttal arguments against those positive arguments.

One side has baseless assertions (or, in your case, "lies"). The other side has empirical evidence.

The Creationists cannot prove that God exists, yet can put forward a valid hypothesis

Oh, you mean "valid," as in "based on the irrational presupposition that there is a God"? If you're prone to believing in fairy tales, or if you want easy answers to life's most fundamental questions, then yes, I suppose these baseless presuppositions could be called "valid." If, on the other hand, you are more prone to skepticism, or rather "not believing every damn lie that is fed to you," then I would hardly call these hypotheses "valid."

and if that stands... then the creationists 'win'.

What a shallow victory indeed. "We are correct because we assert that it is so, and are so goddamn stubborn that we will not even consider any opposing argument! We win!"

Of course, Evolutionists can always say that mathmatically impossible odds of chance did it, but its not a good argument, since it can't be proven that something was created from nothing.

Prove to me that God exists. If you cannot, then shut the hell up.

The positive arguments for a rational universe however can, and do make good topics for arguments.

See my last statement.

Creationists follow Science too, just not the false "theorys"

Rather, they follow "assumptions based on absolutely no evidence." What wonderful science you preach, Draco.

[MrBaggins]

Draco aka Se7en is just evolution at work. Sadly, society has support structures that mean that less effective beings still survive

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
OH and dont worry, Evolution wont be around much longer, it shouldnt be more than 15 years till it is finnaly disproved. Ofcourse there will still be evolutionists

There are still Creationists, after all, and the evidence has been mounting against them for centuries!

Your nebulous claims to proof are always comical, Draco. At least, they're comical the first few times around. They grow mighty tiresome after six pages of your ignorant trolling...

If you feel that you have something to contribute, then by all means, please do so! If you just want to spam the Off-Topic forum with your asinine comments, then please be courteous and go back to the Civ III forum where trolls are better received (or rather, not recognized until it is too late), because here, a troll is a troll is a troll regardless of how obtuse the troller may be.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
What if I cut out everything except that which is necessary for breathing and heart beat, and use artificial nutrition. Or examine a patient with identical symptoms induced by trauma...

Does that being have free-will. Can they form strategies? No

Yet they are alive.

I am not sure what this is supposed to prove. Obviously there must be a physical dependence on brain function to have higher thinking ability. You can see this by just going down the pub and having a drink - you don't need brain surgery. But dependence on one component to function does not imply that the component is the entire mechanism.

Incidentally... Quantum theory, including quantum field theory has (through quantum computing implementation) as much proof as it is possible to get, or there abouts. A Los Alamos employee calculated that if printed, the proof through implementation of QM & QFT effects in QC calculations would fill the known universe.

With minor technical caveats which are far too geeky even for this thread, I have no problem with QFT (although QM itself of course is just a toy model of the real thing). Indeed I use it everyday in my work. QFT at no point, however, even makes mention of the idea of free-will. The idea that Quantum mechanics leads to free-will has absolutely no proof what-so-ever.

And yes, I do have a PhD in physics - in fact I work as a theoretical particle physicist, so I am the one who is supposed to come up with these theories of how the universe works. Currently I have been working on some supersymmetric theories and worrying about solving the problems with axions in the early universe. That was why I laughed at Ethel's Feynman diagram comment - I actually have the distinction of having calculated the hardest one-loop Feynman diagram system ever calculated (it took me about 2 years....). So I am sick of the bloody things. (I make a point of saying one-loop since harder two-loop diagrams have now been calculated.)

Also, your arguments all seem to tend to rely towards your prefering one explanation

If you look at the particle physics theories which people come up with to explain the universe, they also favour one explanation for multiple effects whenever possible. Of course, I am not saying that God is a scientific explanation, but I do think there are some questions which science will never be able to answer. I think the origins of free-will is one of them.