Critical thinking, Why? Because apparently I am rubbish at it.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Not at the moment, Sorry but before you charge me with hypocrisy I never claimed to be able to or claimed that I had unlike my friend Stranger.

I read Stranger's post(s) with his step by step logic - he linked to them as well repeatedly - his explanation made sense to me and seems straight forward and not rocket science. Which bit of the logic are you disputing?

I also read AB's posts that Stranger linked to and also remember AB's posts from before where AB said he can't explain how his version of free will works i.e. where choices are made that neither reference a prior input nor are random. 

[Gonnagle]

I am an atheist and it doesn't surpass my thinking. That said maybe making lazy generalisations is the epitome of being human

Dear Pal

Lazy Cheers ya big person that you are

And anyway I said bypass not surpass

Yours affectionately,

Gonzo.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Pal

Lazy Cheers ya big person that you are

And anyway I said bypass not surpass

Yours affectionately,

Gonzo.

The point is surely that this sort of tribalism is neither useful nor in keeping with your lauding of human virtues?

[Gonnagle]

The point is surely that this sort of tribalism is neither useful nor in keeping with your lauding of human virtues?

Dear Sane,

No the point is and don't call me surely, human failings.

As for tribalism, Gordon, Vlad and Stranger, which tribe are they.

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Sane,

No the point is and don't call me surely, human failings.

As for tribalism, Gordon, Vlad and Stranger, which tribe are they.

Gonnagle.

You were the one using the concept of atheist thinking. I don't think that tgat sort of tribalism is useful. You seem to.

[Free Willy]

I read Stranger's post(s) with his step by step logic - he linked to them as well repeatedly - his explanation made sense to me and seems straight forward and not rocket science. Which bit of the logic are you disputing?

I also read AB's posts that Stranger linked to and also remember AB's posts from before where AB said he can't explain how his version of free will works i.e. where choices are made that neither reference a prior input nor are random.

Then I must have missed the steps between everything being merely the arrangement of matter and will and morality.
May I ask you to give an outline of what these were, perhaps?

[Gonnagle]

You were the one using the concept of atheist thinking. I don't think that tgat sort of tribalism is useful. You seem to.

Dear Sane,

Ah right! sorry, yes no one on this forum has actually accused me of Christian thinking. The great atheist get out clause, " look Gonnagle it simply means I do not believe in any God or gods" end of, stop the bus, that's it

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

My comment was referring to the subjective beliefs of theists about a true for everyone god. Since we have no method to test for objective 'existence' of a god, 'existence' is not really much of a discussion. So my comments were about humans evolving to hold subjective beliefs about god based on nature/ nurture.

I think you may be misconstruing the nature of the claim and what the claim refers to.

So a belief in an objective claim - i.e. I believe that god objectively exists (i.e. I believe it is true for everyone)

and

A belief in a subjective claim - i.e. god exists for me if I believe (i.e. I belief that it is true for me but not necessarily true for everyone).

To an extent both are subjective beliefs but the former refers to an objective claim, while the latter refers to a subjective claim.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Sane,

Ah right! sorry, yes no one on this forum has actually accused me of Christian thinking. The great atheist get out clause, " look Gonnagle it simply means I do not believe in any God or gods" end of, stop the bus, that's it

Gonnagle.

But that's what it means  it's not a get out clause, and people have taken tind and effort to reply to you when you have asked why. You are using a double standard, and indulging I the idea that you can generalise about atheists beyond that definition. There are good and bad atheists, clever stupid, prick and non prick, just as apply to theists.

[Free Willy]

I read Stranger's post(s) with his step by step logic - he linked to them as well repeatedly - his explanation made sense to me and seems straight forward and not rocket science. Which bit of the logic are you disputing?

Lets take a look then.

Not really, no. We can do it as a purely logical or mathematical exercise.

Let's say the state of something ('system' in the broadest sense, we don't care what it is exactly) that changes over time is St at some time t. Let's say its environment (anything external that can affect it) at that time is Et. How consider some small time later t+dt at which the system has state St+dt. We can consider the limit as dt approaches zero (as in calculus), or take it to be the Planck time or some representation of how fast the system can possibly change or react.

Now, we don't care what S is or what rules apply to it, we don't care if it's a physical system or operates under entirely different rules that we just made up or under rules that we have no idea about. In any case, we can ask a simple question, namely, given St and Et is there always only one possible St+dt?

This is a question that will always have a yes/no answer (whether we know the answer or not) for any system that changes its state over time, regardless of the complexity or of the rules that it operates under.

If the answer is yes, then we have a deterministic system, if it is no, then there must be some randomness in how the system is changing.

Not sure why this has to be randomness rather than what I thought would be more properly referred to as ''undetermined''

[Stranger]

Lets take a look then.Not sure why this has to be randomness rather than what I thought would be more properly referred to as ''undetermined''

*sigh*

What do you even mean by 'undetermined' as an alternative in this context?

The reason it's random is because S_t + E_t represent all the possible reasons why S_t+dt should be what it is. If there is more than one possible S_t+dt, then there is no reason for one rather than another. Something that happens for no reason is random.

[Free Willy]

*sigh*

What do you even mean by 'undetermined' as an alternative in this context?

The reason it's random is because S_t + E_t represent all the possible reasons why S_t+dt should be what it is. If there is more than one possible S_t+dt, then there is no reason for one rather than another. Something that happens for no reason is random.

You mean by determined, determined by external reason. This is a familiar trope with your good self. But when a nucleus decays it's reasons for doing so are internal or intrinsic That is what certain nuclei do because of their instability.
I think we should be careful when we talk of intrinsic and extrinsic reason.

In complex systems I think we should be prepared for something intrinsic to emerge. Something independent of externalities.

I think what you and the accountant are getting at is that we should count the processes of the brain as external influences controlling the will.

[Gonnagle]

But that's what it means  it's not a get out clause, and people have taken tind and effort to reply to you when you have asked why. You are using a double standard, and indulging I the idea that you can generalise about atheists beyond that definition. There are good and bad atheists, clever stupid, prick and non prick, just as apply to theists.

Dear Sane,

Well glad you said that, and you could very well be right ( could! ) but given we are mean seeking creatures ( the scientists, are they wrong ) and given that we agree on nature/nurture, maybe I am asking the wrong question, not why but how, no that's wrong, back to the why, wait, no wait, have I got it, Atheist thinking, shit happens I am a fucking genius, the riddle of the Atheists has now been solved, forget the science, forget all those worthless philosophers, pack up yer Holy books, you want to do what, give your child the best education possible, why, shit happens man

Dear Mods,

Pack yer bags, last man to leave the forum get the lights.

Gonnagle, the Genius.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Sane,

Well glad you said that, and you could very well be right ( could! ) but given we are mean seeking creatures ( the scientists, are they wrong ) and given that we agree on nature/nurture, maybe I am asking the wrong question, not why but how, no that's wrong, back to the why, wait, no wait, have I got it, Atheist thinking, shit happens I am a fucking genius, the riddle of the Atheists has now been solved, forget the science, forget all those worthless philosophers, pack up yer Holy books, you want to do what, give your child the best education possible, why, shit happens man

Dear Mods,

Pack yer bags, last man to leave the forum get the lights.

Gonnagle, the Genius.

There are atheists who think shit happens and atheists who don't. Thete are theists who think shit happens and theists who don't

[Stranger]

You mean by determined, determined by external reason.

No, I don't. Read it again and pay some attention!

But when a nucleus decays it's reasons for doing so are internal or intrinsic That is what certain nuclei do because of their instability.

According to the standard formalism, there is no reason, internal or external.

In complex systems I think we should be prepared for something intrinsic to emerge. Something independent of externalities.

I think what you and the accountant are getting at is that we should count the processes of the brain as external influences controlling the will.

Are you really struggling as much as you seem to be? The state of the system (S_t) is its internal state. What else would the 'state of the system' be when everything external to it was something else (E_t)?

[Free Willy]

No, I don't. Read it again and pay some attention!

According to the standard formalism, there is no reason, internal or external.

Are you really struggling as much as you seem to be? The state of the system (S_t) is its internal state. What else would the 'state of the system' be when everything external to it was something else (E_t)?

What do you mean by it's internal state? Describe if you will an internal moral state.

[Nearly Sane]

What do you mean by it's internal state? Describe if you will an internal moral state.

Green ideas sleep furiously

[Gonnagle]

There are atheists who think shit happens and atheists who don't. Thete are theists who think shit happens and theists who don't

Dear Sane,

Fair enough, I have solved the riddle, no need to thank me, sorry for doing you out of your mod job, but hey! shit happens, onwards and sideways, stiff upper lip old boy, are Atheist lips more stiffer than Theists

Gonnagle/Gonzo/Gonners the Genius.

[Stranger]

What do you mean by it's internal state?

Jeez, what's the matter with you? This isn't complicated, FFS! It's really, really simple.

It's everything that is within the boundary of the system under consideration. In the case of a mind, it would be everything about your mental state, including all your experience, abilities, education, likes, dislikes, emotions, emotional baggage, hopes, fears, sense of right and wrong... everything that you as a person are at that moment in time.

Describe if you will an internal moral state.

The fact that you're trying to focus on a particular aspect just shows that the reasoning is going way, way over your head.   

[Free Willy]

It's everything that is within the boundary of the system under consideration. In the case of a mind, it would be everything about your mental state, including all your experience, abilities, education, likes, dislikes, emotions, emotional baggage, hopes, fears, sense of right and wrong... everything that you as a person are at that moment in time.

Sorry, you have both lost me and gone out of your way to insult me, so I'm going to have to give the contract of explaining how and why determinism has been unquestionably proved to another determinist.

[Free Willy]

It's everything that is within the boundary of the system under consideration. In the case of a mind, it would be everything about your mental state, including all your experience, abilities, education, likes, dislikes, emotions, emotional baggage, hopes, fears, sense of right and wrong... everything that you as a person are at that moment in time.

You seem to be excluding E.....or including E within S.

[Gordon]

Dear Sane,

Fair enough, I have solved the riddle, no need to thank me, sorry for doing you out of your mod job, but hey! shit happens, onwards and sideways, stiff upper lip old boy, are Atheist lips more stiffer than Theists

Gonnagle/Gonzo/Gonners the Genius.

All atheism is not holding beliefs about the existence of 'Gods' - and that is just about it really. It requires no effort beyond thinking.

So I don't think it compares to theism at all: theism has it's various branches and the plethora of rituals and routines, dogma, tribalism, holy books, special songs and words, priestly classes and copious traditions. It seems to me that, for some at least, theism involves activities and effort - which for some may feel intrinsically worthwhile and reinforces their faith.

[Stranger]

Sorry, you have both lost me and gone out of your way to insult me, so I'm going to have to give the contract of explaining how and why determinism has been unquestionably proved to another determinist.

I've never once said that "determinism has been unquestionably proved". Not once in my entire life, and certainly not here on this forum.

You seem to be excluding E.....or including E within S.

What!!!???

S is the system state (internal) and E is the environment (external). I don't understand why you seem unable to grasp this...

[Gordon]

You seem to be excluding E.....or including E within S.

Vlad

Here's a hint - stop digging.

[Free Willy]

All atheism is not holding beliefs about the existence of 'Gods' - and that is just about it really. It requires no effort beyond thinking.

And it doesn't even involve thinking since we can assume that concrete slabs don't hold beliefs about the existence of 'Gods'.