It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Nyte Angel
reply to post by Syntax123
What makes you believe there is no science involved in what I posted?
Originally posted by blupblup
Originally posted by Syntax123
Originally posted by theendisnear69
haha did you watch that movie Waking Life? Because I swear they say almost exactly the same thing in that movie.
Heh, never heard of it. Is it worth watching?
It is a great film.
Watch it here "waking life"
Originally posted by Nyte Angel
We can safely assume that free will doesn't exist, right?
Originally posted by Nyte Angel
We can safely assume that free will doesn't exist, right?
[edit on 6-10-2008 by Nyte Angel]
Originally posted by Syntax123
Originally posted by Nyte Angel
reply to post by Syntax123
What makes you believe there is no science involved in what I posted?
It contains pseudoscience. I am going to go more in depth with Astynaxas's post and see if it has real science, but a quick skim only shows more pseudoscience. It's an interesting concept, but that's as much credit as I'm willing to give to it at this point.
Well, alright then. I'll let you people believe in your philosophy if it makes you feel better. If I have time, I'll look through the other links you posted and see if there's any science (my big interest) involved. I have only come across pseudoscience when it comes to philosophy, but we'll see, I guess.
Let's commence with causality. Evidence for it hardly demands scientific citation; causality is all around us. In fact - and this may surprise a layperson who has dined not wisely but too well on the cargo-cult offerings* of 'quantum physics' - events in the macroscopic world always show a classical-relativistic, not quantum, character, and are, as far as we can tell, implacably deterministic.
Nevertheless, all events are the outcome of wave function collapses. This poses a bit of a problem for quantum theorists. The simplest explanation for it lies, as I have argued elsewhere on ATS, in the incompleteness of quantum mechanics, which in its current form is incompatible with general relativity.
IN THE late 1990s a previously blameless American began collecting child pornography and propositioning children. On the day before he was due to be sentenced to prison for his crimes, he had his brain scanned. He had a tumour. When it had been removed, his paedophilic tendencies went away. When it started growing back, they returned. When the regrowth was removed, they vanished again. Who then was the child abuser? His case dramatically illustrates the challenge that modern neuroscience is beginning to pose to the idea of free will...
The typical conservative's response to this sort of thing - fear and revulsion - is exemplified by this essay by Tom Wolfe However, some people aren't quite so fearful or unimaginative. We call ourselves naturalists. We believe that it is possible to live a happy, moral and productive life without the benefit of free will or even the concept of a self.
how does one determine morality without free will? (it's a sincere question - not a jab)
do you guys have a handshake?
So we are left with two incompatible models of reality, both of which have been proved to hold true in real life.
String theory is a great way of explaining everything - and nothing.
...About 'wave-function collapse': Richard Feynman, whom I quoted in my earlier post, used to say that if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't...
As to your final comment: unfortunately, the 'space for free will' vanishes with the collapse of the wave function and the universe goes back to being the cruelly deterministic thing it always was.
I would argue that human morality evolved from there, growing more complex along with human society and culture as it responded to the increasing size and inclusiveness of 'in' groups and the increasing fineness and subtlety of distinctions between in and out groups.
Basic morality is built into us at an instinctive level. Mirror neurons in our brains fire when we see someone else doing something, mimicking the neural pattern in the doer's brain. Perhaps this helps explain empathy.
A sense of fair play seems to be built into us too. I would provide links, but I'm afraid Syntax123 will read them and penetrate my pseudoscientific disguise.
do you guys have a handshake? No, we rub noses. And other parts too, but only in private.
accusing Astyanax of resorting to the use of pseudoscience is, well...
interesting
confusing
amusing
mostly amusing
we know you like the word pseudoscience
I'm actually wondering if you understand what the word philosophy means...
how about pseudo-philosophy?
you use the word science as if it has FDA approval
or maybe the Good Housekeeping Seal of approval?
someone's approval - a guarantee is guaranteed?
I have to point out, at some point - because I just can't seem to help myself - nothing is for sure...
all ideas are valid up to a point - and that point is where an idea becomes research - or doesn't
but, the idea can still outlive being discarded - because, it's an idea
and I'll let you believe in your science - if that makes you feel better
let me know what you find out - about philosophy
this should be interesting
[edit on 10/11/2008 by Spiramirabilis]
"do what thou wilt is the whole of the law" seems to work just fine if it doesn't matter what I do
I've always felt very uneasy with this line of reasoning
I see us (the monkeys) as some twisted mix of natural and unnatural
When a philosophy attempts to justify itself using pseudoscience, I call out its use of pseudoscience. Pretty simple concept, I'd say.
'Do what thou must' is in truth the whole of the law. And that's a line of reasoning that makes some people uneasier still.