For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Actually I will both die and not die.
Yes. That's called uncertainty.
So you don't think there's any difference between:
Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:50 pmYes. That's called uncertainty.
No, it is certain. Parts of me will die mentally, emotionally, and physical and other parts will be renewed.
So you don't think there's any difference between:
There is a 1 in 2 chance you will die tomorrow.
AND
There is a 1 in 100000 chance you will die tomorrow?
You tell me, it is still a basic dualism or yes or no.
Till it isn't.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:52 pmLogik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:50 pmYes. That's called uncertainty.
No, it is certain. Parts of me will die mentally, emotionally, and physical and other parts will be renewed.
So you don't think there's any difference between:
There is a 1 in 2 chance you will die tomorrow.
AND
There is a 1 in 100000 chance you will die tomorrow?
You tell me, it is still a basic dualism or yes or no.
Good, than the parrellel postulate of Euclid, with the potentially intersecting lines representing the dualism of "choices" can be proven.Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:57 pmTill it isn't.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:52 pmLogik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:50 pm
Yes. That's called uncertainty.
No, it is certain. Parts of me will die mentally, emotionally, and physical and other parts will be renewed.
So you don't think there's any difference between:
There is a 1 in 2 chance you will die tomorrow.
AND
There is a 1 in 100000 chance you will die tomorrow?
You tell me, it is still a basic dualism or yes or no.
ROFL!!!!! We will see...working on it now. Don't you love how one symbol, in this case a "problem", can represent another symbol, in this case another problem? Isomorphism at it's finest.
And also, you have NO idea where on the timeline the intersection will happen.
If you can tell me where on the timeline the intersection will happen. THEN you will impress me.
It couldn't have been any other way because we cannot undo the past. The present is still an unknown.Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:37 pmThe conflict comes from your hindsight.peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:05 pmYour choice not to throw the ipad on the ground was not done by your free will. If you learned how to control your anger then obviously as angry as you might have been, you chose, in the direction of greater satisfaction, not to act on that impulse. That is called self-control. There's no conflict here.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:51 pm ...but, angry as I am at the failure of this old crapsack Ipad, I choose to simply set it aside instead of slam it down on the concrete.
I can do this (be angry but not act from anger) cuz I'm a free will.
More later (perhaps a replication of the lost post).
If you say “it couldn’t have been any other way”
You are effectively saying that is the only choice you could have made.
If that was true yesterday why isn’t it true today?
You are stating the obvious.peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:28 pmIt couldn't have been any other way because we cannot undo the past. The present is still an unknown.Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:37 pmThe conflict comes from your hindsight.peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:05 pm
Your choice not to throw the ipad on the ground was not done by your free will. If you learned how to control your anger then obviously as angry as you might have been, you chose, in the direction of greater satisfaction, not to act on that impulse. That is called self-control. There's no conflict here.
If you say “it couldn’t have been any other way”
You are effectively saying that is the only choice you could have made.
If that was true yesterday why isn’t it true today?
This is going in a direction that is unnecessarily argumentative. Prediction is not required to bring about this new world other than to know, that under changed environmental conditions (the conditions that I touched on but didn't elaborate) man will be unable to prefer hurting others when not to hurt them becomes the better, or more preferable, choice in the direction of greater satisfaction. Remember, this is the only direction we can go. We cannot move in the direction of dissatisfaction when something better is offered as an alternative.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:29 pmWhy don't you predict something and prove prediction works without relying on probabalism.Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:19 pmSo predict SOMETHING.Anything!Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:16 pm Logik you asked Peacegirl what "greater satisfaction " predicts. Here is the rest of what Peacegirl wrote about greater satisfaction:
The decision involving drama queens I believe was Henry Quirk's .
The reasoning man may defer satisfaction so that there will be greater satisfaction at a later time or place. It's difficult to predict what an individual man will do even when one is aware of his predispositions. The direction of greater satisfaction is easier to predict when the individual is emotionally reactive than when the individual is reflective.
It's impossible to predict what large groups of people will do in the long term because of the chaos of possibilities. It's comparatively easy for a naturalist to predict what large groups of other animals will do because other animals especially wild animals behave mostly instinctively, and any cultural transmission from mother to offspring will be a lot slower than the sometimes lightning-fast cultural shifts of men.
Currently all that is being said is that "people will choose that which brings upon maximum satisfaction".
What is THE satisfaction that majority of people desire? You would expect that to maximise through the system.
That is nothing more than a re-wording of the selection principle. That which is being selected FOR will maximise through the system.
Natural selection selects for survival. Therefore there are more surviving species and less extinct species to be observed (DUH!)
This is (literally) survivorship bias.
That is how positive feedback loops work.
But you can't tell me WHICH species will survive and which will be extinct 1000 years from now.
You know so much about prediction, so define it.