6 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterAccording to your line of thought (along the lines of throwing a carburetor into an engine case), if I were to visit an empty display at an auto show; blow my nose and wipe the snot on the display floor; that would increase the probability that a car will be on display there when I revisit the show tomorrow morning. After all, one "possibility" for there being a car there tomorrow is that some collection of atoms just somehow come to this spot and spontaneously self assemble overnight into a functional car; and my wiping my snot on the floor supplies some of these potential atoms at this display position; ergo...
So his motivation is all important here? I saw what he was trying to say all along. Namely , that the probability of an outcome of two events is not raised if only the first one happens. The problem was that he did not say how he could guarantee the second event not happening (because he can't) . As soon as you bring the whole thing into the present t eg prediction) ?
As I said I will re state a reasoned argument until it is refuted.
Whatever, KM. You're missing the point. If some set of conditions are only collectively sufficient for bringing about an effect, then there is no necessary "relationship of dependency" (as stated by Freaky) between the effect and any of the individual conditions. In reponse to Freaky, that post by bbarr was absolutely spot on (either Freaky was confused in the ways that bbarr pointed out; or Freaky was just stating something tautological -- that causal relata are, uhm, related).
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThis is precisely where he is getting stuck. He is confusing additional information which
Of course the odds have changed in both cases. In each, you have gained information about the system in question such that you can distinguish some previously possible states as no longer being possible. Since probabilities sum to 1, this means that all of that probability that was previously distributed among the now impossible states must be redi ...[text shortened]... here, again because probabilities always sum to 1. In any case, they should have used a rubber.
changes the possible remaining outcomes with a constellation of events.
For him the fuse's being lit is like the first child's being born; it's the first of two necessary criteria
for the thing to take place.
You explained your part. With the women in my stable, there are four possible outcomes: first male,
second male; first male, second female; first female, second male; and first female, second female.
Given that males are just as common as females, each of these four possibilities is 25%, totaling 100%.
When the first one is born, our chances of female/male and female/female are both 0%; so the odds
must change for the other two so that we total 100%, and in this case it's 50% for either of the two
remaining cases (this you pointed out very succinctly in your post).
However -- and this is where knightmeister needs to pay attention -- this is very different than
bbarr's scenario. In bbarr's scenario, he is saying that a bomb is highly unlikely to spontaneously to
go off unless both the fuse is connected and the fuse is lit. Merely connecting the unlit
fuse doesn't change the bomb's likelihood of going off -- it's not information like knowing the outcome
of the first child. Similarly, merely lighting an unconnected fuse doesn't change the bomb's likelihood
of going off -- it must be connected to increase it.
Only (knightmeister, ONLY) collectively do they increase the likelihood of the bomb's
exploding, not solely one event's occurring.
In one situation, one has gained information; in another, it's merely one criterion of two which is
required to make event come into being.
Knightmeister: Do you now see the difference? It's because of the careful use of words like 'unless'
or 'only' or 'always' that any discussion can take place. If you are going to ignore such usage and
continue with your haphazard claims, you are going to remain utterly unintelligible. Presumably, you
think that your contributions are valuable and we all want to aid in clarifying them where your
background might make for clumsy expression, but you have to learn from your past misunderstandings
and evolve a little here.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioIt seems like you have a valid concern there...for me to poop on!!
Must you always be so scatological?
😉
It cracked me up that at the same time I read your post I was also watching a Planet Earth episode (the caves installment); and it was showing the floor of a Bornean cave covered in tons and tons of bat guano.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterThe question here isn't complicated. I'm merely asking for an explanation of your putatively free choice to respond to my post. I'm asking because it is entailed by your conception of freedom that your choice didn't have causal antecedents sufficient to bring it about and that it was possible for you to have chosen otherwise. Here is a thought experiment that will hopefully motivate my question:
This is getting far too complicated. There can be reasons why free choices are made and there can be antecedents and deliberations. The causes are not so much the issue as whether the causes determine the choice. So in any given scenario I might have 10 + different options each with their own causes/reasons and influences etc but there still might be ...[text shortened]... oesn't matter what reasons , deliberations , influences are involved a free choice is possible.
Suppose you freely choose to P at time T1. Suppose, subsequently, at T2, God "rewinds" the universe such that at T3 the complete state of the universe is identical in every respect to how it was at T0, just prior to your choice [Except, of course, for some relational properties]. Now, it is an entailment of your conception of freedom that it would be possible for you to choose differently at T4 than how you chose at T1. That is, even though you would have the exact same physical and psychological states at T3 as you did at T0, according to you it would be possible for you to choose differently the "second time around". Now, think about what this means. This means that all your beliefs, desires, deliberations, awareness of reasons, etc. would be exactly the same at T3 as they were at T0. There would be absolutely no phenomenological difference between the course of your deliberations from T0 to your choice at T1 and the subsequent course of your deliberations from T3 to your choice at T4. Yet, despite this, you think it would be possible for you not to choose to P at T4. So, in line with this entailment of your view, suppose that at T4 you choose not to P. Then, there must be some explanation for why you chose differently at T4 then at T1 that makes no reference to either your physical or psychological states (since your physical and psychological states immediately prior to both choices were identical).
My question here is this: Given the above scenario, what could possibly explain your different choice at T4.
EDIT: I have nothing to add regarding the probability tangent. Herr Doctor, Nemesio and LemonJello have very clearly explained my point regarding Freaky's post. I suggest you read carefully LemonJello's recent post (first one on this page) for a clear diagnosis of your continuing misapprehension.
Originally posted by NemesioI didn't know that line comes up on Family Guy, but I'm a big fan of Smigel's Triumph, the insult comic dog. He's definitely a scatological creature.
Funny, given the end of this line, I thought you might have been watching Family Guy.
(see the song lyrics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_to_Europe
Originally posted by bbarrHa ha, you honestly expect an numbskull like Knightmaster to even begin to comprehend all of this?
The question here isn't complicated. I'm merely asking for an explanation of your putatively free choice to respond to my post. I'm asking because it is entailed by your conception of freedom that your choice didn't have causal antecedents sufficient to bring it about and that it was possible for you to have chosen otherwise. Here is a thought experiment th ...[text shortened]... ost (first one on this page) for a clear diagnosis of your continuing misapprehension.
2 edits
Originally posted by howardgee... as if you do.
Ha ha, you honestly expect an numbskull like Knightmaster to even begin to comprehend all of this?
whigga please! very few here will "understand" what bbarr posted and i'm not one of 'em.
PS .. you're not either, numbskull#1
I think I have free will.
Am I wrong or delusional .. both? or neither?
My free will is very much limited; a lot of what I think is free will most likely is no more than instinct.
Please, leave me my last illusion about this thing we call life.
Originally posted by jammerOf course I understand it!
... as if you do.
whigga please! very few here will "understand" what bbarr posted and i'm not one of 'em.
PS .. you're not either, numbskull#1
I think I have free will.
Am I wrong or delusional .. both? or neither?
My free will is very much limited; a lot of what I think is free will most likely is no more than instinct.
Please, leave me my last illusion about this thing we call life.
PS - Kneightmaster is certainly a numbskull, but you make him look like a genius.
PPS - send me a message if you need this explaining.
Originally posted by jammerBut what do you mean by free will? Do you mean that your decision was made with no outside influence but with an internal causal system or that your brain (soul) made the choice randomly?
... as if you do.
whigga please! very few here will "understand" what bbarr posted and i'm not one of 'em.
PS .. you're not either, numbskull#1
I think I have free will.
Am I wrong or delusional .. both? or neither?
My free will is very much limited; a lot of what I think is free will most likely is no more than instinct.
Please, leave me my last illusion about this thing we call life.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI mean that I make decisions all the time. I choose what to do and what not to do.
But what do you mean by free will? Do you mean that your decision was made with no outside influence but with an internal causal system or that your brain (soul) made the choice randomly?
I mean i'm free to choose, indeed, MUST choose.
I mean that I think the choices I make define who I am.
I mean that i'm responsible for those choices and that they have consequences.
I mean that I don't see myself as a victim of circumstance 24/7/365.
I mean that I believe that the free will I exercise will determine the path my life takes.
I mean I believe God made me a "little god" while I walk this Earth .. and free will is what makes it so.
To deny free will IMO is to deny responsibilty for ones actions .. to become another of the victims of life.
To deny free will is to deny our biggest gift IMO.
Originally posted by howardgeeas I said .. whigga please! you're the only one here more lame than the no1moron.
Of course I understand it!
PS - Kneightmaster is certainly a numbskull, but you make him look like a genius.
PPS - send me a message if you need this explaining.
I picture you alone in a room, one hand on the keyboard and the other in your pants .. hoping someone finally pays attention to your feable BS so you can get off.
Originally posted by LemonJelloAccording to your line of thought (along the lines of throwing a carburetor into an engine case), if I were to visit an empty display at an auto show; blow my nose and wipe the snot on the display floor; that would increase the probability that a car will be on display there when I revisit the show tomorrow morning. After all, one "possibility" for there being a car there tomorrow is that some collection of atoms just somehow come to this spot and spontaneously self assemble overnight into a functional car; and my wiping my snot on the floor supplies some of these potential atoms at this display position; ergo... LEMON
According to your line of thought (along the lines of throwing a carburetor into an engine case), if I were to visit an empty display at an auto show; blow my nose and wipe the snot on the display floor; that would increase the probability that a car will be on display there when I revisit the show tomorrow morning. After all, one "possibility" for there ...[text shortened]... or Freaky was just stating something tautological -- that causal relata are, uhm, related).
Yes, however bizarre it may sound . It could infact raise the probability (which would be ludicrously low) that a car might appear tomorrow. it could of course lower it because the person going to fetch the car might slip on your snot break his leg and not get the car. We simply don't know. If we say that your snot is guaranteed to be 0% significant in the production of a car then given a trillion trillion billion universes that premise might have a chance of being shown to be wrong. It's the old give a monkey a trillion years and a typewriter argument. In any case Barr wasn't talking about snot or monkeys but lighting fuses in the proximity of bombs. The relative probability of an explosion would not cause me to run but given a trillion universes?
Originally posted by jammerBut you don't seem to be free to answer the question in full.
I mean that I make decisions all the time. I choose what to do and what not to do.
I mean i'm free to choose, indeed, MUST choose.
I mean that I think the choices I make define who I am.
I mean that i'm responsible for those choices and that they have consequences.
I mean that I don't see myself as a victim of circumstance 24/7/365.
I mean that I believ ...[text shortened]... become another of the victims of life.
To deny free will is to deny our biggest gift IMO.
Do you think that your internal decision making process is causal or random?
You seem to be playing knightmeisters game of putting your choice making machinery inside a black box and refusing to discuss the possible internal workings. (knightmeister insists it works by soul magic and God power and thus is not subject to logic).