|
Members in Shoutbox
None.
Shoutbox Search
Shoutbox Commands
/w [name] > Whisper
/r > Reply to last whisper /me > Marks as action Shoutbox Information
Moderators may delete any and all shouts at will.
|
Global Shoutbox
Please log in to shout.
[2018-10-26. : 7:22 am]  O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- NudeRaiderNudeRaider shouted: also explain creativity something like making connections between unrelated past experiences. It's not random, it's more like "because A has X and B has Y, I present C with aspects from X and Y"[2018-10-26. : 7:18 am]  NudeRaider -- right. And all I've said about that so far is that it makes it plausible, that quantum states of your neurons have influence for decisions that are (close to) 50:50[2018-10-26. : 7:17 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- the most amount of randomness I can imagine would be from like imperfect memory recall and decay[2018-10-26. : 7:16 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- I still doubt very much that people have like a quantum RNG lobe in their brain to give a certain randomness to whatever choices or whatever[2018-10-26. : 7:13 am] NudeRaider -- it's enough to accept that at the quantum level the mechanics are random, which is all you need to know for the sake of our argument[2018-10-26. : 7:12 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- NudeRaiderNudeRaider shouted: FaRTy1billion basically the quantum world (everything smaller than atoms) does not behave like classical physics. The particles (e.g. electrons) change their state at random times and/or are at a random place. Radioactive decay is a well known example. You can't predict when a radioactive atom will split and emit a radiation burst. I know that much, but that's a very basic understanding to base any sort of philosophies and stuff on[2018-10-26. : 7:11 am] NudeRaider -- FaRTy1billionFaRTy1billion shouted: NudeRaider I can't use quantum mechanics as an argument because I don't know anything about it or like chaos theory and stuff XD basically the quantum world (everything smaller than atoms) does not behave like classical physics. The particles (e.g. electrons) change their state at random times and/or are at a random place. Radioactive decay is a well known example. You can't predict when a radioactive atom will split and emit a radiation burst.[2018-10-26. : 7:10 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- also I can tell an anecdote of not being random XD Several days after having been under anesthesia my mom asked if I wanted a popsicle and was shocked when I said I didn't know we had any, saying I had personally chosen them and some flavors of ice cream while we were waiting for prescriptions at the store on our way home from the surgery. When she showed me what I had apparently chosen I thought to myself about what I liked about them. Then, without me having said anything, she told me the exact things that, as far as I could tell, I had just thought of for the very first time[2018-10-26. : 6:52 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- NudeRaiderNudeRaider shouted: unless you're serious and that's supposed to be your justiification to dismiss randomness altogether. Like it wouldn't exist at all? Then I'm afraid I'm just gonna have to withdraw. I can't use quantum mechanics as an argument because I don't know anything about it or like chaos theory and stuff XD[2018-10-26. : 6:47 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- ("atom-for-atom" meaning a perfect clone, which can't actually exist .. but for the sake of the hypothetical)[2018-10-26. : 6:46 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- If you could like atom-for-atom save a copy of yourself in a specific instant and then continually create a clone of that instance and immediately ask a specific question, I believe that the clone would always answer in the exact same way[2018-10-26. : 6:42 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- NudeRaiderNudeRaider shouted: Farty, when faced with a choice, are you feeling "something" that pushes you towards a certain option? As in is that the reason for your stance? Or is it more of a rational thing: "How could it possibly be random? I'm ME and hence my thought process is always the same for me so when faced with a choice, following the thought process I must always reach the same conclusion"? you don't necessarily always make the same choice .. if it's a repeated situation, your previous choice will influence your next choice. Otherwise, your choices can be influenced by things you have heard or read or thought about recently ... sort of like if you were to take a political stance quiz and then watch something that is heavily biased, you would likely get a different score if you immediately took it again[2018-10-26. : 6:00 am] NudeRaider -- NudeRaiderNudeRaider shouted: NudeRaider while we're there: More about randomness than free will: Explain why none of your signatures are looking exactly alike. inb4 you blame the pen, paper or the air, lets tighten the setting: let the user type any sequence of buttons on the keyboard and register the timing. Even when taking into account measuring tolerance you'll notice that the timing will be slightly different each time.[2018-10-26. : 5:55 am] NudeRaider -- NudeRaiderNudeRaider shouted: also explain creativity while we're there: More about randomness than free will: Explain why none of your signatures are looking exactly alike.[2018-10-26. : 5:48 am] NudeRaider -- Farty, when faced with a choice, are you feeling "something" that pushes you towards a certain option? As in is that the reason for your stance? Or is it more of a rational thing: "How could it possibly be random? I'm ME and hence my thought process is always the same for me so when faced with a choice, following the thought process I must always reach the same conclusion"?[2018-10-26. : 5:42 am] NudeRaider -- jjf28jjf28 shouted: quantum indeterminacy is potentially a strong argument against someone pushing a sort of flat determinism, but it's not an argument for free will, more an argument for some RNG in the system (or an argument that "neither side knows and either could be true"); adding RNG doesn't get us to free will without hidden assumptions; what does get us closer is https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ ya, I was wording that badly at first. It's not proof but it is what makes it plausible/possible. (Hence the rephrase NudeRaiderNudeRaider shouted: NudeRaider actually, let me reword that. Quantum mechanics makes the - what I feel is the - much more natural explanation possible )[2018-10-26. : 5:38 am] NudeRaider -- unless you're serious and that's supposed to be your justiification to dismiss randomness altogether. Like it wouldn't exist at all? Then I'm afraid I'm just gonna have to withdraw.[2018-10-26. : 5:37 am] NudeRaider -- I mean, after all we're debating "deterministic vs. random" which are defined with these facts in mind.[2018-10-26. : 5:36 am] NudeRaider -- "just because" lets stick to what seems rational and what is accepted truth, okay?[2018-10-26. : 5:35 am] NudeRaider -- FaRTy1billionFaRTy1billion shouted: then you get in to like random quantum events or w/e, but maybe those aren't random at all either and we just haven't figured out their pattern 🤷 lets not get into philosophical territory where you question everyhting[2018-10-26. : 5:32 am] NudeRaider -- but let me say "name a tool, color animal, or something like that is a bad example to prove randomness of thought. It's a psychology thing that we tend to name something that is quite common to us.[2018-10-26. : 5:30 am] NudeRaider -- Oh_ManOh_Man shouted: Nude free will doesnt exist and quantum mechanics doesnt save you I'm excited to hear why.[2018-10-26. : 4:58 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- jjf28jjf28 shouted: is it a thing in philosophy to push feminine pronouns? or was that author just aggressively using them? militant feminism?[2018-10-26. : 4:17 am] jjf28 -- is it a thing in philosophy to push feminine pronouns? or was that author just aggressively using them?[2018-10-26. : 4:03 am] jjf28 -- quantum indeterminacy is potentially a strong argument against someone pushing a sort of flat determinism, but it's not an argument for free will, more an argument for some RNG in the system (or an argument that "neither side knows and either could be true"); adding RNG doesn't get us to free will without hidden assumptions; what does get us closer is https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/[2018-10-26. : 3:32 am]  Oh_Man -- To prove my point type an animal into chat. The "choice" is yours...[2018-10-25. : 10:09 pm] Moose -- Pr0nogoPr0nogo shouted: this is my new favorite u wholesome Pr0nogo  [2018-10-25. : 4:58 pm] Wing Zero -- VraelVrael shouted: not " eight hundred and fifty five sextillion nine hundred and forty three quintillion six hundred and fifty five quadrillion three hundred and ninety six trillion seven hundred and twenty nine billion six hundred and thirty eight million two hundred and fifty one thousand nine hundred and two." I would stop after 3 words.[2018-10-25. : 1:46 pm] Vrael -- not " eight hundred and fifty five sextillion nine hundred and forty three quintillion six hundred and fifty five quadrillion three hundred and ninety six trillion seven hundred and twenty nine billion six hundred and thirty eight million two hundred and fifty one thousand nine hundred and two."[2018-10-25. : 1:42 pm] Vrael -- humans, when asked to generate a random number, also will not generate numbers above some maximum limit typically[2018-10-25. : 6:48 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- then you get in to like random quantum events or w/e, but maybe those aren't random at all either and we just haven't figured out their pattern 🤷[2018-10-25. : 6:46 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- like the net movement sure looks random, but if you follow just one it's not very random at all[2018-10-25. : 6:45 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- NudeRaiderNudeRaider shouted: FaRTy1billion You really think freedom of choice is an illusion? I don't. So I doubt we'll ever reach an agreement on the "humans are random" matter. I don't think it's as glorified as like "everything you will ever say and do, every person you will ever meet is 100% predetermined and unchangeable", but think of it more like gas particles moving around ... each one is on it's set path until another one or something else happens to come along and knock it in a different direction[2018-10-25. : 6:33 am] NudeRaider -- Natural, because I just never felt like an outside force is guiding my actions, or that I would never truly have a choice.[2018-10-25. : 6:27 am] NudeRaider -- NudeRaiderNudeRaider shouted: crazy concept imo. Also I thought quantum mechanics stripped it of all base in logic. actually, let me reword that. Quantum mechanics makes the - what I feel is the - much more natural explanation possible[2018-10-25. : 6:25 am] NudeRaider -- Voyager7456Voyager7456 shouted: Don't worry about it though, we never had any choice in whether we would reach an agreement or not   [2018-10-25. : 6:25 am] NudeRaider -- crazy concept imo. Also I thought quantum mechanics stripped it of all base in logic.[2018-10-25. : 6:17 am] Voyager7456 -- Don't worry about it though, we never had any choice in whether we would reach an agreement or not [2018-10-25. : 6:17 am] Voyager7456 -- NudeRaiderNudeRaider shouted: FaRTy1billion You really think freedom of choice is an illusion? I don't. So I doubt we'll ever reach an agreement on the "humans are random" matter. I do[2018-10-25. : 6:13 am] NudeRaider -- FaRTy1billionFaRTy1billion shouted: NudeRaider I feel like fate or predestiny or w/e is too glorified and romanticized of a concept, but ya. it is probably an illusion You really think freedom of choice is an illusion? I don't. So I doubt we'll ever reach an agreement on the "humans are random" matter.[2018-10-25. : 6:05 am] NudeRaider -- FaRTy1billionFaRTy1billion shouted: NudeRaider except I'll probably remember (at least partially) the first list and intentionally choose different numbers XD I admit that would make the experiment invalid. Maybe it's still possible to not remember the 2-nth number. Any ideas for a better experiment?[2018-10-25. : 6:00 am] NudeRaider -- But I should note, that it obviously only works if you actually try to generate random numbers. Of course any human is capable to write down non-random numbers. Which introduces another bias: Humans are less likely to write down the same number twice in a set or, even next to each other, than random chance.[2018-10-25. : 5:57 am] NudeRaider -- see? SO many options. You don't even know yourself what you gonna do. Random.[2018-10-25. : 3:25 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- or that I chose only random numbers that are contained within the set of single-digit base-1 numbers[2018-10-25. : 3:24 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- or I'll just pick all 1's and say that they are truly random, this was just an extremely unlikely outcome |
Members Online: storuswhes, Roy
Roy