The $%*! frustration thread

[x_XTacTX_x]

Am I the only one who didn't do "Down B", "AB Mash", or "AB Down" when catching a Pokemon?

Instead, I clench my right hand into a fist, glare at the screen intently, and snap my fingers if the catch is successful. I have been doing this since I received Pokemon Red at the age of five.

[ZeaLitY]

Edit:

They weren't even praying to God, ferchrissakes.

"he survived a severe head injury last year in part because his family and hundreds of friends successfully prayed thousands of prayers to the soul of Father Emil Kapaun, a U.S. Army chaplain from Pilsen, Kan., who died a hero in the Korean War."

So Catholics can pray to whatever dead guy's soul they want to? Even though their god let the guy die in a prison camp? It's weird stuff.

I also loved this:

"Chase's neurosurgeon, Raymond Grundmeyer...said in a brief e-mail last week that he considers Chase's survival a miracle."

I wonder which dead guy was prayed to in the equally miraculous case of Phineas Gage.

[Lord J Esq]

Almost as bad is when all that praying doesn't work and the person croaks. Then, instead of chants of "Miracle!", it's a somber bow of the head and solemn words about "The Lord's Plan" or some such. So...they'll sing their god's praises when things turn out well, and they'll marvel at his ineffable wisdom when things go bad. These people are so indoctrinated that it's embarrassing to watch them humiliate themselves like this.

But, yeah, as far as frustration goes, it's pretty frustrating to watch these religious types blame everything we do poorly on ourselves, while giving their god credit for everything we do well. Christianity in particular is terrible about that. In their belief system, the only good person is a broken and humiliated one, one who believes and accepts that the whole human species is nothing but flawed sinners who can do nothing decent on their own.

Blargh. Gets my hairs standing on end just thinking about it.

[Daniel Krispin]

At the same time, you cannot outright deny the existence of something supernatural, or at least extra-empirical. I'm rather the skeptic on the subject as well, but at the same time, it is not philosophically inconceivable that there are things which lie outside of the empircal framework. Unfortunately, the nature of any knowledge system is such that it attempts to set a framework over events and things, and as such anything that fits outside of the scheme is rendered either invisible or else cruedly fit into it. We must understand the fact that empiricism is itself a framework. It might work well in very many of the scientific situations we encounter, but we must also accept the possibility that not everything may fit into such a framework of knowledge.

It's a similar crisis such as faced, say, Archaeologists a few decades back. The frameworks into which they set their finds was challenged, and a great debate began with the influx of philosophy into the field. The meaning of evidence began to shift and change to the extent that to this day there has been no solid conclusion, but various fields of thought.

My frustration, then? Over-reliance on empiricism. Virtuous though it may be, it's not the end all and be all of reason. As scientists we must be skeptical... including the very framework into which we set our findings. And this is probably the least questioned of all the finds... but it is no less important. It's a good question, really. What happens, as an example, if people were to find that something like, say, remote viewing, can work. If such a theoretical thing could be, what then? Well, one might say 'it must have an explanation', but that's a very unscientific way of going about things... that's assuming there must be a conclusion to fit within our pre-determined framework... as though we certainly have our framework correct from the get-go and that it cannot be wrong, and that whatever we discover must fit into this. I must admit this would be my own first inclination, but it must be guarded against. I should hope we are open-minded enough to perceive when our own frameworks need alteration. After all, if you're sorting coins, and come across a button, is it prudent to merely say 'it's the size of a nickel, so it must fit in here.' Sometimes, we have to open a new category that defies the old explanations. Otherwise we become too dogmatic.

See, over two thousand years ago the Epicureans were atomists. Read a bit of Lucretius, and you here some amazing little bits that are actually very coherent with our modern understanding of the physical world. But Aristotle, too, had his theories, of the elements and what not, and in the end, his camp won the day. For two thousand years it was the standard view of the world, and was that adopted as the right one by the Church, moreoever. Oh, it was logically consistent INTERNALLY to itself, assuming certain premises and what not. But in the end, it just wasn't right, and eventually, the Epicureans had their vindication. But it's a good lesson from history. Even though what we take for true in science might be logically consistent internally, sometimes the problems can like in the pre-suppositions, and who knows... maybe in a thousand years people will look back at us, just as those who thought themselves entirely rational in holding to the theories of Aristotle, and wonder how we could ever believe such things...

Ah, now I'm musing. But it's a thought to be remembered. And, of course, this is why we keep seeking new things in heavens and on the earth.

[x_XTacTX_x]

I couldn't have said it better myself, Daniel.

As an atheist, I'll always zealously defend evolutionism as it is what I believe to be true, because there is enough evidence to support it  as fact, but I'll always keep an open mind. And by open mind, I mean that if someone can prove to me that theism and intelligent design are more credible than my own beliefs, I would embrace them with open arms, because it would bring me that much closer to discovering the truth behind the origin of this beautiful world we live in.

I just wish more people could do the same.

[Daniel Krispin]

I couldn't have said it better myself, Daniel.

As an atheist, I'll always zealously defend evolutionism as it is what I believe to be true, because there is enough evidence to support it  as fact, but I'll always keep an open mind. And by open mind, I mean that if someone can prove to me that theism and intelligent design are more credible than my own beliefs, I would embrace them with open arms, because it would bring me that much closer to discovering the truth behind the origin of this beautiful world we live in.

I just wish more people could do the same.

Well, heh, actually, I'm pretty much convinced by evolution, depite being a theist. I'm not exactly sure how you can get around it, even philosophically. I mean, there are those dinosaur bones and all of that... *sigh*... I don't think Ockham's Razor is applied often enough. I know there are those that maintain that God created things as such several thousand years ago, yet this asks the question... why? I mean, isn't that unneccesarially complex for a god to create things with deception in mind?

And heavens, then there's the added problem of... what if we meet other intelligent races in the universe? This is not unlikely, or so the current trend in scientific thought tells us. What if they have a recorded history going back, say, twenty thousand years? Several million years? What if they have even recorded the process of evolution - something we are incapable of, but that an older civilization might have recorded knowledge of?

There are a myriad of problems in all of that.

However, just thinking of the nature of being and intelligence, I came across this very interesting little theory of intelligence the other day, a formula by which this guy quantified intelligence, or at least the ability of a system to compute. It has a lower bound of -50, and an upper of 75 or so. Humans are a 9 on the scale. Animals near to that. Anyway, the number is found by taking the number of computations per second, dividing by the mass of the system, and taking the base-ten logarithm. A -50 system would be something that in the entire lifetime of the universe has made one calculation, and whose mass is the entire mass of the universe. Heh. A human neron does something like 3000 bits/second, and dividing by the mass, and taking log10 of that, one gets about 9. Cool, eh?

[x_XTacTX_x]

Hah, that is pretty cool I must say. And they always say you can't define everything with numbers.

[Lord J Esq]

Krispaelion:

When you talk about questioning the framework of "empiricism," essentially you are suggesting that we should be skeptical of the scientific method. That's not really a legitimate conclusion. This is because we can legitimately question the framework of a structural organization of knowledge like taxonomy, and we can legitimately question the framework of a theoretical explanation of physical phenomena like gravity, because in these instances the word "framework" refers to concepts we create. We can and should be skeptical of the concepts by which we interpret the world. The validity of systems of organization is dependent upon the factual information they contain, and they must always therefore be treated subordinately to their underlying facts. Meanwhile, scientific theories are explanatory, and explanations imply an assertion of truth--truth which is justified on the basis of the underlying facts. Theories also must be treated subordinately to the facts they explain, because if the facts are not accounted for then the theories concerning them become incomplete, or even false.

Why are facts--specifically, the facts describing physical phenomena--superior to systems of organization and theories of explanation? Philosophically this is pretty heady stuff, which you can appreciate, but on the lay level it's very simple: Facts matter in a way that concepts don't. Nobody ever died by being classified in the animal kingdom, but many an animal has died in the history of the world. Similarly, nobody ever got killed by the theory of gravity, but the fact of it has claimed many a life over the eons. Now, we don't have to use words like "animals" and "gravity." The labels are arbitrary. What isn't arbitrary is the relatedness of separate instances. The reason we have the concept of "animals" is because there are enough things out there which share enough physical characteristics and behaviors in common that we find it useful to talk about a group: animals. Likewise, there's something pretty consistent about the direction of motion that objects will travel in (at least on the Earth's surface) if the ground beneath them is removed. That came to be called gravity.

These advances in human thought did not come easily. They are both recent developments in the tale of a species whose civilization extends millennia into the past. And we have no guarantee that future advances in human thought will not greatly alter or even entirely overturn these concepts of animals and gravity. Skepticism is due.

Science itself, however, is not built out of a conceptual framework. Its framework is procedural, and indeed the scientific method does not need to be understood conceptually at all in order to be applied. It emerges, unbidden, from the fact that the universe behaves in predictable ways:

1. Make an observation.
2. Ask a question.
3. Form a hypothesis.
4. Run an experiment.
5. Evaluate the hypothesis.
6. Draw a conclusion.
7. Verify the conclusion.

At each step in the scientific method, we must commit to an action which is in some way falsifiable. Our observations may be faulty. Our question may be irrelevant. Our hypothesis may be incorrect. Our experiment may be flawed. Our evaluation may be illogical. Our conclusion may be false. Our verification may be atypical. These are some of the perils of ignorance. What is not falsifiable is the method itself: If our observations are accurate; if our question is pertinent; if our hypothesis is correct; if our experiment is sound; if our evaluation is valid; if our conclusion is true; and if our verification is representative; if all of these things are so--and we do not know that they are so (Sam I am)--but if they are so, then we will have achieved some specific understanding of the phenomenon at issue. It cannot not be so, because the only way it could not not be so would be if the universe did not behave predictably. Because it does behave predictably, the scientific method is valid inherently.

Now, perhaps you would argue that we cannot prove that the universe is predictable. Perhaps the universe only appears predictable. That is, logically, a point I must concede. However, just because this "grand cosmic lie" theory is not impossible does not mean it is in any way plausible. Surely you understand the implausibility of the statement "The universe that we experience is a lie." Moreover, such a claim could no more be proved decisively than could the claim that the universe is what it appears to be, and therefore the two sides would be at a stalemate for eternity. However, one side would have the benefit of continual circumstantial evidence in their favor, while the other side would never have any evidence in theirs. For this reason, even if metaphysical certainty is unattainable, the descriptions of science favor--decisively--the claim that the universe is indeed predictable.

In the same vein, you might claim that our own senses cannot be proved to be reliable. The exact same argument unfolds, and the exact same conclusion emerges: Metaphysical certainty is not attainable, but science supports the possibility that our senses are not some "grand personal lie." This is because we as individuals can begin without knowledge of an external phenomenon--i.e., one outside our consciousness--and can, via the accumulation of data, move from our initial position of ignorance to a point of making accurate predictions about the phenomenon. In scientific terms, that's very compelling.

Your scientific open-mindedness has evolved over the years, and I congratulate you for coming as far as you do today. For some time now you have developed this holdout idea that the scientific method itself has overstepped its bounds. You said:

(I)t is not philosophically inconceivable that there are things which lie outside of the empircal framework.

Now, you're right about that. It is not philosophically inconceivable. However, for you to defeat science and actually hold in your mind the premise that the supernatural is real, you would have to renounce the natural: You would necessarily have to adopt one of two very unsavory philosophical positions: ether solipsism ("The universe is a lie.") or nihilism ("Everything is a lie."). Why? Because nature precludes the supernatural. The supernatural is not predictable. It is not observable. It is not decisively knowable. The existence of even one supernatural speck would render the entire universe suspect, because who is to say what are the properties of a supernatural speck?

I don't know if you've properly grappled with the implications of your assault on objective reality vis-a-vis the scientific method vis-a-vis empiricism, but, even if you have, I think you have yet to realize that your faith-based knowledge of god is not immune from all of these same metaphysical uncertainties which have comprised the backbone of your criticisms. Truthfully, you don't really know that your knowledge is true; you only think it is. Thus, you are in the same boat as me when I say I "believe" the sun is going to rise in the morning. My knowledge is fact-based; yours is faith-based, but both are knowledge.

Ironically, my position is going to be affirmed in about two hours whereas your position is majestically untenable: See, right now you're in a terrible limbo, occupying a space wherein your views are inherently self-contradictory. What you really need to do is choose a direction. You have two options: You would be better-justified in asserting the validity of your knowledge of god by abandoning your insistence upon the supernatural. Unfortunately, that would preclude the object of your faith altogether. On the other hand, if you were to embrace the supernatural, you would be unable to validate your knowledge at all, because I could come along and say that you're just plugged into some fancy matrix that has manipulated your consciousness, and you wouldn't be able to prove me wrong.

Damned if you do...damned if you don't. If you ever realize this, you will have no choice but to abandon either your faith or your sanity, and I do feel some sympathy for you, because I think on some level you already suspect that your position is unwinnable.

Most religious people retreat into a shell of ignorance; they never try to do what you are trying to do, which is to reconcile nature with divinity. I despise them; you I can applaud, because it would seem that my earlier accusation of your intellectual incuriosity was at least partially incorrect. However, I can only pity the brick wall you're headed toward. Yours is a road with no turns. I find it wryly intriguing that believers so often pity unbelievers for the supposed emptiness of a godless existence, when in fact their ideal existence is even emptier: When it comes to substance, Nature beats God every time.

I suppose this has digressed unacceptably from the topic of frustration, and I expect the good V_Translanka will ship our posts off to Siberia, but before that happens, O Krispy One, let me take the opportunity to say something that has been bubbling in the back of my mind for some time: In our five-and-counting years of knowing each other, I have alternatively detested and grudgingly admired you. I think, finally, I am ready to say with some finality that you are an admirable guy. We'll probably never agree on this whole god thing, but, and it'll always grate on me that you think I'm wrong (just as I'm sure it grates on you that I think you're wrong), but, outside of this unending contention, and the prejudices of sexism and more which come with your austere Lutheran background, I'm putting away the enmity for good.

It's interesting...

Folks at the Compendium rarely get to see my satisfied side, because usually my role here is to confront or contend or control...all of which require feisty antagonism. Sometimes I get the impression that people here think of me as a grouch, and I wouldn't blame them, because it's the more obvious conclusion. The truth could not be farther away, though. I don't know how clearly my tone has come through in the words, but this was a very satisfying post to write...one of the first times it has ever been satisfying to argue with you. Sure, I know you'll disagree with me. I don't really care anymore. You're a decent fellow and I'm having a good time--and I thought I'd let you know that.

Ten years ago I could have befriended you without any problem. Why? Well, we do have a lot in common. I can tell by the way you write and the words themselves. More importantly, though, I could have befriended you then because it was much easier for me to make friends with ideological (and theological and philosophical) opponents in those days, because I wasn't as aware of myself as I am today, or as developed in my own worldview as I am today, and therefore there was less of a contradiction present in befriending an enemy, and, even when it was present, the contradiction was not as thoroughly noticed.

Then there were the years when I was figuring this stuff out. I've been essentially the same person for this past decade--no huge shifts in personality or worldview. But mine was an emptier slate then than it is now, and my awareness was more primitive, and I had more work that needed to be done in establishing my identity. You will remember how very emphatically we did not become friends during the entire time we have known each other. More than your religion, it was because I perceived you as a sexist in particular and a closed-minded bigot in general, and I couldn't stand that. But over time I have watched your ideas mature, and, more and more, it seems as though your sexist past has subsided along with your closed-mindedness generally. You never address it directly, but I infer it from your other comments and your style generally that you no longer hold the views you once did, and are no longer as constrained in your speculations as you once were. I first noticed when you were taking that religious philosophy class.

Oh, perhaps I am mistaken and you have merely learned prudence, prudence to conceal your bigotry, in which case I'll submit myself to being made a fool of in front of all these uninterested bystanders. But I'd like to think that I'm right, and that you understand the power of individual exceptions to undermine group-based social roles.

Nowadays, I think I've gotten to the point where I can finally both define and understand a fundamental disagreement with someone, and still befriend that person at the other end of it if they are in possession of appealing qualities. You certainly are! So, if I am correct in my assumption that you no longer hold those sexist views, then your religion itself is no longer an obstacle to me, because, much as I will reaffirm virtually everything I have ever said about religion, I have come to regard you as an honorable person despite your faith, and in my book that's the last word.

[Thought]

Even though what we take for true in science might be logically consistent internally, sometimes the problems can like in the pre-suppositions, and who knows... maybe in a thousand years people will look back at us, just as those who thought themselves entirely rational in holding to the theories of Aristotle, and wonder how we could ever believe such things...

Oh I don't think you have to wait a thousand years. String Theory is a rather nasty one, but hardly the only one that is commonly believed by many individuals.

Diabetes is another area where numerous supposedly objective and knowledgeable individuals believe in a false system. Ask most doctors how many types of diabetes there are and they'll give you a laughablely incorrect answer: two. Present them with a case of LADA (Latent autoimmune diabetes in adults) and they'll be stumped. But that isn’t the end; there are well over a hundred different forms of diabetes.

However, it isn't that the science was wrong, but that the conceptual frameworks resulting from scientific research were wrong.

Science's main advantage isn't just in empiricism but rather in its willingness to radically change when presented with new evidence. Science doesn't just tell us how the universe works, it tells us how to change our perspective so that we can tell how the universe works. It is self-correcting, essentially.

We can apply evolutionary ideas to, well, ideas. That which survives is that which is best adapted to its environment. Science is amazing at adapting to changing environments, and so it will survive. This isn't to say that Science is definitely "Truth," no more than it is to say that humans as a species are "Truth." It is, however, useful. Indeed, Josh's entire argument for science seems to be essentially that it is pragmatic to assume that the universe is predictable and that science can cash in on that predictability.

From a metaphysical standpoint, we don't know what is real. However, if our goal is to try to find out, then we can't remain indecisive either. So, we might as well use what appears to be a real (even if it isn't) tool until we have reason to believe otherwise (even if it is). It is pragmatic.

But this leads into Tact's comments:

As an atheist, I'll always zealously defend evolutionism... if someone can prove to me that theism and intelligent design are more credible than my own beliefs...

That is a False Dilemma. Belief in Evolution does not bar theism, nor does theism exclude belief in Evolution. Francis Collins (surely some people are tired of me mentioning him by now) is a living example of this. He was the head of the Human Genome project, he was part of the transition team for President Obama, he is the author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, and he is the founder of the BioLogos Foundation (an organization dedicated to reducing strife between religion and science).

To tie this back into my comments to Krispin, science and empiricism are not opposed to theistic or Christian beliefs. However, a hardline adherence to empiricism as the only source of knowledge is opposed to religious beliefs (and a hardline adherence to specific interpretations of religious dogma is opposed to scientific beliefs). It is a tool that can be quite useful, but tools can be misused as well. And, tools are always used for an end; they're rather pointless as an end to themselves.

(I)t is not philosophically inconceivable that there are things which lie outside of the empircal framework.

Now, you're right about that. It is not philosophically inconceivable. However, for you to defeat science...

Why did Aethelbert of Kent marry Bertha, daughter of Charibert? That he married her is based on empirical evidence, insofar as we can observe physical records attesting to this event. But that only attests to the "what," not the "why." Unfortunately history is a rather sloppy science experiment. There are no controls, the lab notes are fragmented and biased, and we've yet to figure out how to re-run the experiment.

Or consider the Harry Potter series. That it is a financial success can be confirmed empirically through examination of sales receipts and shipment records. Why it appealed to individuals to such a degree as to cause them to wait in lines for hours, dressed in ridiculous outfits, just to get a new book at a midnight release is... well, outside the realm of strict empiricism. They did it because they liked the books, but why did they like the books?

There is a great realm of knowledge and understanding outside of science and empiricism. This is not just philosophically conceivable, this is a certain reality. We tend to call this realm "The Humanities."

If History, Art, Literature, Music, etc can be important subjects worthy of study, belief, and acceptance, then we must admit that Science does not have a stranglehold on reality and truth. Such things can be found outside its control. If real, valuable information can be found in Literature, then it becomes a much shorter leap to postulate that real, valuable information could be found in religion and the supernatural. It isn’t necessitated; there is still a logical leap, but there is less distance to cross.

When it comes to substance, Nature beats God every time.

Ah, my dear Josh, you are confusing substance for sustenance. If you give me food and water, then I won’t die. But if you give me books, then I'll live.

Such a statement is, admittedly, philosophical backwash; however, let us apply it to your early sunrise supposition.

You claim that the sun will rise in two hours, I claim that Pride and Prejudice is a good book. You wait two hours and behold!, the sun rises on your body. I read for two hours, and the sun rises on my mind. You can point to the sun in the sky as proof that you were right, where as I have nothing to prove my case. But I would still argue that I was the one who benefited most from those two hours and that my claim was more affirmed than yours.

Now yes, you were comparing science to religion, not science to literature, but that is an irrelevant distinction. If you are correct and religion is bunk, then there is no significant difference between it and a work of fiction. Neither is real. Of course, if you are wrong then I have indeed put forward an improper comparison

[MsBlack]

Truthfully, you don't really know that your knowledge is true…yours is faith-based, but both are knowledge.

I object to your usage of ‘knowledge’ here to lump together any belief or conviction. By definition, that which is known is knowledge, and vice versa. I don’t consider belief to be knowledge, because it is not sufficiently substantiated to be rational to believe—again by definition. If one has faith that the Sun will rise, that’s not knowledge, even if it’s true. Knowledge is decided by how a position is reached, not what the position is or its veracity.

Of course, that makes the acceptance of knowledge qua knowledge arbitrary, because everything is technically based on faith (or so I believe), and thus nothing could ever be knowledge. But that’s another matter.

Diabetes is another area where numerous supposedly objective and knowledgeable individuals believe in a false system. Ask most doctors how many types of diabetes there are and they'll give you a laughablely incorrect answer: two. Present them with a case of LADA (Latent autoimmune diabetes in adults) and they'll be stumped. But that isn’t the end; there are well over a hundred different forms of diabetes.

However, it isn't that the science was wrong, but that the conceptual frameworks resulting from scientific research were wrong.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, but that doesn’t indicate a fault in the scientific method or even a specific failing in its results in the field of medicine, but simply ignorance on the part of someone within the field. That’s not even an error in execution.

Why did Aethelbert of Kent marry Bertha, daughter of Charibert? That he married her is based on empirical evidence, insofar as we can observe physical records attesting to this event.

The records’ claims are not empirical evidence in that they are not results generated using an empirical approach.

But that only attests to the "what," not the "why." Unfortunately history is a rather sloppy science experiment. There are no controls, the lab notes are fragmented and biased, and we've yet to figure out how to re-run the experiment.

Or consider the Harry Potter series. That it is a financial success can be confirmed empirically through examination of sales receipts and shipment records. Why it appealed to individuals to such a degree as to cause them to wait in lines for hours, dressed in ridiculous outfits, just to get a new book at a midnight release is... well, outside the realm of strict empiricism. They did it because they liked the books, but why did they like the books?

There is a great realm of knowledge and understanding outside of science and empiricism. This is not just philosophically conceivable, this is a certain reality. We tend to call this realm "The Humanities."

If History, Art, Literature, Music, etc can be important subjects worthy of study, belief, and acceptance, then we must admit that Science does not have a stranglehold on reality and truth. Such things can be found outside its control. If real, valuable information can be found in Literature, then it becomes a much shorter leap to postulate that real, valuable information could be found in religion and the supernatural. It isn’t necessitated; there is still a logical leap, but there is less distance to cross.

If I pointed out that the scientific method and empirical approaches have failed to fully explain human behaviour (or more specifically, why our brains ‘tell us' to do what we do), that doesn’t indicate that the scientific method is one too weak to explain our behaviour. It would be possible to predict a brain’s behaviour and thus a human’s behaviour if one were to analyse it at a low enough level and with enough understanding of the underlying structures.

The thing is that you’re the trees for the forest. The accepted knowledge of sociology, history, art, music, literature and the rest are (or should be) rooted in approaches that are at least pseudo-empirical. If I know that people respond well to certain colours or other aesthetics, it’s because of evidence (data) that says so. If I make a general statement about the way and the why people behave and it becomes a prominent sociological principle, it’s because (or so one would hope) I’ve made an observation about behaviour, formed an explanation and used an approach that is empirical in its basics.

The reason that science might seem to fail is that you’re dealing with equivocal ideas like the ‘why’ of sociology or the ‘taste’ of art that aren’t being used rigorously or are not being looked at from the right perspective, which is causing a breakdown that you’re attributing to a breakdown of empirical approach as opposed to your input being unsuitable. It’s like how maths seems to break down if we casually treat infinity as a number. While even in something as exact as physics we can get away with that, we can’t do so within the scope of mathematics, even though mathematics can very much address infinity—just not as a number.
 

You claim that the sun will rise in two hours, I claim that Pride and Prejudice is a good book. You wait two hours and behold!, the sun rises on your body. I read for two hours, and the sun rises on my mind. You can point to the sun in the sky as proof that you were right, where as I have nothing to prove my case. But I would still argue that I was the one who benefited most from those two hours and that my claim was more affirmed than yours.

This is a good example of what I meant. If you were to give an explanation of what it means to ‘benefit’ from your activities and give a way to quantify that benefit based on preference, one could settle the argument.

[Edited for quote tag corrections, minor sentence change.]

[Thought]

It would be possible to predict a brain’s behaviour and thus a human’s behaviour if one were to analyse it at a low enough level and with enough understanding of the underlying structures.

Are you are making the claim that free will doesn't exist? If so, that is very interesting, and I certainly didn't expect it.

Consider the following. If we do not have free will and all our actions can be predicted with the same certainty that an object on earth can be predicted to fall at a rate of roughly 10 meters per second squared, then what is the significance of your post?

All the thought processes behind your post were predetermined. You couldn't have posted differently than you did and you couldn't have thought anything differently than you did. Let us apply this to a wider scope. James Watson discovered the structure of DNA. But if his behaviors could have been predicted ahead of time, then discovering the structure of DNA is no more impressive than an object falling towards a center of gravity when all opposing forces have been removed.

You might have realized by now that I am making little more than an appeal to emotion logical fallacy. Alas, if you are correct, I didn't have a choice in the matter. It could have been predicted before I had written it; what was I to do?

But can we know if you are correct and that humans lack free will? If we lack free will, then all of our potential arguments could be predicted ahead of time, just as our reactions to those arguments. While what you say could influence my mind, it couldn't really "change" it, at least not in the sense of the phrase. If we lack free will, then our belief in it or rejection of it isn't up to "us." But if we do possess free will, then arguments can change our minds, in the proper sense of the phrase, so that we can believe that we don't have it, or that we do.

If we have free will or not, our responses will be the same, either because we choose our response or because we can't avoid our response. Like Josh' analysis of the universe, we can't know for certain that we have free will or not. But if I assume I have free will, then I assume I am free to grow and develop in a manner of my choosing. I can't tell you for certain if we have free will or not, but I can tell you that free will appears to be more useful, so a pragmatic approach would indicate that we should accept it.

And if we accept free will, then while science can comment greatly on the humanities, it can't write the definitive work on them.

But I suppose I am being rather unfair. I am saying that, if we have free will, science can't know everything. That is rather nonsensical because I am defining free will as something science can't know. Of course if there is something that science can't know, it can't know everything.


EDIT: Edited to remove comments that I realized were irrelevant
EDIT #2: Edited again, this time to remove the phrase "thought experiment" since what followed wasn't really a thought experiment.

[MsBlack]

Correct. However, please do note that I never stated that the claims contained in those records were empirical. Anyone (well, any historian with the proper connections) can see these records. And one can then claim that the records claim that Aethelbert married Bertha. That can be easily verified by anyone reading the records. That the records claim something is empirical. The verasity of those claims, not so much.

Yes, you’re right here; it was hypocritical of me to pick on that like I did, given the rest of my post.

[I know you edited this out, but I wanted to make this concession.]

On free will…

The question of free will is one of those ones that is often treated as unanswerable and of utmost and unwavering importance when it is actually easily resolved and of little ongoing importance. (So, naturally, now I’m about to address the question I’ve just bashed.)

Free will is never satisfactorily defined. If I were to define it as the ability to consciously make our own choices, that wouldn’t get us very far, because our choices being conscious and our own doesn’t tell us anything we don’t know and still doesn’t preclude determinability, which goes against the spirit of its intention. If I were to define free will as defying determinability, then radiation would have free will for being random. If I were to define it as the ability to make choices that ‘could go either way’, it would be outright false because a reducing approach will tell us that we our simply the sum of the interaction of our parts, the behaviour of which can in turn be predicted.

But! I’m sure you see what I did there. I just applied contingent, scientific knowledge to the problem in implying that the reducing approach is valid. That’s where there’s some room for people to jump in with, ‘But how do you know? You’re assuming that science is correct…but you don’t know that!’ The problem here is that such people imply that even the most basic and indisputable scientific knowledge goes halfway or all of the way out of the window as soon as they go into philosophy mode. This approach is only useful within the limited scope of metaphysics and whatnot, because for discussion of things as they contingently are, the evidence we have is good enough to say that the Universe is macroscopically determinable, even if it’s not provable or necessarily necessary.

To punch another hole in the concept, free will is one of those questions that is treated overly…sapio-centric, if you like. (And I know you will like, because you like –centrics.) What I mean by that is that our human tendency to forget that we are of the same stuff as the Universe clouds our ability to answer the free will question. To look at the question from a higher perspective still, we realise that the question is only raised because our advanced sapience affords us the opportunity to ask such a question about ourselves. Free will revolves around ‘consciousness’, but consciousness is simply a convenient but by no means absolute quality that simply clouds the free will issue. From a Universal perspective, consciousness is nothing special, and thus doesn’t make us warrant the question of free will any more than my water bottle does.

That all aside, even if we accept free will as being a valid concept (for it does hold some meaning to some people, even if doing so is doublethink or the definition is outright invalid), it still doesn’t make any difference. There is no practical difference between a state of free will and a state of not having free will—as I think you touched upon. The fact is that we live assuming our decisions make any difference, which would be the case whether or not we had free will…and that’s reasonable, given that the alternative is to try to ‘do nothing’ (which is still a choice, and so wouldn’t work anyway).

A richer question is what the practical and contingent extents of determinability are.

[Romana]

Am I the only one who didn't do "Down B", "AB Mash", or "AB Down" when catching a Pokemon?

Guess what? Turns out that does work after all, but on a level of rapid button pressing humans can't perform without an emulator. Speedrunners make use of it apparently. In other words, it doesn't work, but pressing it at an insane turbo speed with an emulator at the right moment causes it to actually affect stuff. Applies to holding A for extra battle damage too. I think this is first-generation (R/G/B/Y) only though. Similar to how emulator users can do the backwards long jump glitch in Mario 64 without stairs.

[Thought]

Free will is never satisfactorily defined.

Can I define it then?

"Free will" being here defined as an individual’s ability to make decisions that cannot be definitively predicted ahead of time, even if an individual were to have perfect knowledge of the starting state of the system, and yet still conforming to a conscious-and-internally-perceived-as-reasonable process of thought.

Free will could, thus, essentially be defined as a supernatural phenomenon. Which is why it really was unfair of me to say that if it exists, science can't know everything. And, indeed, is rather bold of me, as I am in turn claiming that the humanities, even where religion is absent, is fundamentally based in the supernatural. It is all very circularly-logical, I hope I fully conveyed that point.

(And I know you will like, because you like –centrics.)

You know me so well, which is particularly amusing given the current topic.

There is no practical difference between a state of free will and a state of not having free will—as I think you touched upon. The fact is that we live assuming our decisions make any difference, which would be the case whether or not we had free will…and that’s reasonable, given that the alternative is to try to ‘do nothing’ (which is still a choice, and so wouldn’t work anyway).

That was actually (more or less) my main point. There is no difference between the states. I just find it useful to believe one over the other, not because it is right, but because it lets me get on with life. But this choice offers an distasteful element of the supernatural to the world, so as long as I believe I have a choice, I am, to use (or possibly misuse) Josh' words, letting a speck in, making everything else suspect. It is the basic assumption that either allows science the possibility of dominating the humanities or forbids it.

It is a poor question, but, well, people only give me pennies, so I can't provide richer answers.

[ZaichikArky]

This is all your fault, Z! How dare you turn the whining thread yet AGAIN into the philosophical discussion thread. I demand they be separate!

Here is my vain attempt to yet again turn this back to the whining thread.

The following is whining about girl things, so I know how some guys don't like to read about this, so that's why I'm putting it under a "spoiler". If you are squeamish, don't read it! Also , for some reason, this BBS has no spoiler tag? Sorry, not my fault... if it exists, it's not on the menu... Maybe I'll look for it a little more...


[spoiler]

I hate getting my period when I'm not prepared for it. I guess I should have been, since it's on time, but most of the time, it happens overnight, so there isn't some huge surprise. Today I was caught off guard, but guys, this is why girls always like to carry their purses with them. They like to be prepared for any and all events XD. I didn't have any tampons cause a while ago I switched to the sponge, and I didn't have my sponge with me, so I used some random crap in my purse XD. At least I had my anti-period meds in there. I never leave home without them cause you know, YOUR PERIOD CAN WRECK YOUR LIFE.

My only PMS symptoms are depression and cramps, which is nice, I suppose. Supposedly,when I have a child, I won't even have the cramps any more, and the depression isn't a symptom always, but it explains why I haven't been able to sleep well the last few days. It really annoys me when men think that a woman is bitchy around her period due to PMS. That's a myth. Some are, depending on what their symptoms are, but no woman I know is bitchy, including me. I'm actually slightly less bitchy because occationally I get depressed. Which really intensifies if my period is late... I HATE it when it's late, which is why I'm looking into cooking up some parsley tea next time that happens.

A late period is no good for the woman's body, unless she's on birth control. It's not really terrible, but it is often accompanied by intensified PMS symptoms : (.

[/spoiler]

That pretty much concludes that complaint, another one I have is that my dad is really annoying sometimes. He's the biggest neat freak you'll ever meet and constantly complains about how I'm so trashy and he has no idea where I get it from since I'm supposedly his child.
Every day he has to move my car because we only have one parking spot, and the minute(or less) he's in my car, he likes to "clean up" the car by finding all of its garbage and moving it to my front seat. I keep telling him to stop it and it pisses me off, but he won't stop it. He says he wants the car to be neat, but it's MY car. He's a guest in it. He wouldn't do that with someone else's car, why does he have to do it to mine? He's so annoying... I wish he'd be more messy XD.