Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The Dreadnote wrote:They were right before, you are a drama queen.

Tee-hee

The meaning of the word drama queen means so much to me now I really couldn't care less if I was one or not. If expressing my opinions on someone make me a drama queen so be it.

whatwhat:

No, but I did know a lot of professors, graduate students, post-docs, and other academics who did indeed talk like dogma writes. And I know a guy who publicly keeps track of the number of times that he's been wrong, who happens to be a professor of logic, under whom I studied the problem of determinism vs free will.

dogma's doing pretty good for a guy that's just reading what he finds on the 'net, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Nurglitch wrote:whatwhat:

No, but I did know a lot of professors, graduate students, post-docs, and other academics who did indeed talk like dogma writes. And I know a guy who publicly keeps track of the number of times that he's been wrong, who happens to be a professor of logic, under whom I studied the problem of determinism vs free will.

dogma's doing pretty good for a guy that's just reading what he finds on the 'net, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I think your overestimating how hard hunting out information on the net is, if my brain was the internet I'd be a fairly knowledgable person. I don't doubt dogma is a high acedemic achiever, but there's no way hes such the expert he seems on dakkadakka.com. Knowledgeable professors may well exist but they are usually only an expert in their own field.

The fact I've never seen him be humble on this site or show any humility at all for that matter doesn't help his case either where my views are concerned.

whatwhat:

Okay, let me put it this way: he displays knowledge and behaviour consistent with that of a logician. They seem like know-it-alls because they are familiar with the logical underpinnings of science, it's not arrogance, they are simply trained to think better than the average joe on the street.

Nurglitch wrote:whatwhat:

Okay, let me put it this way: he displays knowledge and behaviour consistent with that of a logician. They seem like know-it-alls because they are familiar with the logical underpinnings of science, it's not arrogance, they are simply trained to think better than the average joe on the street.

Let me put it this way. Dogma isn't presenting us with any theories or ideas of his own he's just pointing out flaws in others. The later is far easier. Especially when all the knowledge on the internet is at your disposal. Yes you have to have a grasp of logic when your doing that, that's obvious. Your seemed belief that their level of logic is so far above everyone elses is wrong though.

“It is easier to be critical than correct.”

And arrogance or not a lack of humility doesn't do much to suggest other wise.

whatwhat:

dogma shouldn't be trying to pass of his homebrew thoughts. The problem of determinism and free will is such an ancient (non)problem precisely because there aren't any new solutions that can't be recognized as the same old failures. The ground is mapped out to a sufficient extent that you would actually be a genius for coming up with something original to add. He doesn't need humility if he's not claiming to be a genius.

And yes, the level of logic required for being able to adequately consider problems like free will and determinism does take a graduate level background in mathematics and philosophy. That's something I always find curious: people don't feel offended when they're told they don't understand the math needed to handle relativity, quantum mechanics, the Universal Turing Machine, evolution, architecture, or finance.

People that don't understand relativity believe it has implications for the truth of moral theories (that it implies relativism), people that don't understand quantum mechanics don't get that it has nothing to do with the mind or soul, people that don't get the UTM think it has something to do with the possibility of artificial intelligence, people that don't understand evolution think natural selection is the whole of it, people that don't get architecture design buildings that fall down, and people that don't understand finance usually don't believe in insurance.

Yet people need to be offended when they find out that their notions of logic and philosophy are inadequate and ill-formed. Personally I think it's a reaction to being deprived of the happy brain chemicals that we get when we're right. The other part of the problem is philosophy sticks to talking about concepts using words, when more productive fields have moved onto using topic-neutral languages. Mind you, after Kripke everyone is too embarrassed.

Nurglitch wrote:whatwhat:

dogma shouldn't be trying to pass of his homebrew thoughts. The problem of determinism and free will is such an ancient (non)problem precisely because there aren't any new solutions that can't be recognized as the same old failures. The ground is mapped out to a sufficient extent that you would actually be a genius for coming up with something original to add.

I didn't mean that in the context of this discussion. I was referring more the the way his posting is 9 times out of 10 him criticising someone else rather than making a statement himself.

Nurglitch wrote:And yes, the level of logic required for being able to adequately consider problems like free will and determinism does take a graduate level background in mathematics and philosophy. That's something I always find curious: people don't feel offended when they're told they don't understand the math needed to handle relativity, quantum mechanics, the Universal Turing Machine, evolution, architecture, or finance.

You're presuming the background of others here.

Nurglitch wrote: The other part of the problem is philosophy sticks to talking about concepts using words, when more productive fields have moved onto using topic-neutral languages..

Which was the problem in this thread. There was no dispute on a mathematical or physical level beneath the definitions of terms used.

Nurglitch wrote:He doesn't need humility if he's not claiming to be a genius.

No he doesn't. He does if he doesn't want to look arrogant when doing so, that's the point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
At the end of the day the idea that dogma is supposed to be revered as some fountain of all knowledge on this forum is lost on me. I've seen him prove nothing other than his ability to criticise others with ivy league logic and an internet search engine. The fact is he does get stuff wrong and the idea that I shouldn't challenge him on anything is absurd. I know for a fact he was clueless on a issue about betting he raised me up on the other day for example, I'm sure he would find argument with me on that statement though - another sign of his arrogance. Sorry but in that respect I judge people based on their own work not how they critique others.

whatwhat:

Firstly, who gives a rat-rear-end if anyone comes off as 'arrogant' on the internet? Everyone does.

Secondly, as mentioned, there's no point in putting in his own two cents: after all, who cares about some random's opinion. So he does something more constructive, which is point out that they're wrong.

Third, there is in fact a mathematical level at which the concepts designated by the terms being used in the free will vs determinism discussion. Take 'infinity' for example. You used that term wrongly. Don't take it personally though, as people have always had problems with it, and it was only recently that a mathematically adequate description was possible.

And no, I'm presuming my background here. Okay, I never got as far as expert-level, but I take some pride in knowing the secret handshake.

Nurglitch wrote:Secondly, as mentioned, there's no point in putting in his own two cents: after all, who cares about some random's opinion.

Call me naive but I thought this was the point of forums.

Nurglitch wrote:whatwhat:

Firstly, who gives a rat-rear-end if anyone comes off as 'arrogant' on the internet? Everyone does.

Well going by a series of pms myself and dogma had discussing that issue, he himself does. Perhaps full of himself is more what I'm getting at though.

Nurglitch wrote:Secondly, as mentioned, there's no point in putting in his own two cents: after all, who cares about some random's opinion. So he does something more constructive, which is point out that they're wrong.

Third, there is in fact a mathematical level at which the concepts designated by the terms being used in the free will vs determinism discussion. Take 'infinity' for example. You used that term wrongly. Don't take it personally though, as people have always had problems with it, and it was only recently that a mathematically adequate description was possible.

And no, I'm presuming my background here. Okay, I never got as far as expert-level, but I take some pride in knowing the secret handshake.

If no one made any statements on this site he would have nothing to rebut.

Where did I use the term infinity wrongly? I'm fairly confident of all my logic in this thread. If the terms I have used are wrong it makes little difference to me, understanding is not based on language.

And it's my background you're presuming here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Dreadnote wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Secondly, as mentioned, there's no point in putting in his own two cents: after all, who cares about some random's opinion.

Call me naive but I thought this was the point of forums.

Yep, it's certainly more important than...

Nurglitch wrote:So he does something more constructive, which is point out that they're wrong.

Again, it is easier to be critical than correct. Plus what your describing is only contructive if he also pointed out where someone is correct, which he never does because he's purely for himself when he rebuts someone. It's as if the only reason he posts on this forum is for the thrill of mentioning and proving others are wrong, and therefore in a foolish way that he is right. He certainly doesn't come here for anything to do with wargaming as far as I can tell.

whatwhat:

I think the best thing I was ever told in school was that the course I was in was not a writing course because I had nothing useful or interesting to add to the material.

It's funny, because five years later I was given the task of subbing for a friend on a lecture about 3rd way abortion issues, with my allotted task being that she didn't have to read thirty fatuous, garbled, and triumphant papers heralding the possibility of a third option in the abortion argument.

My point? A particularly good philosopher named Margaret Boden once noted the difference between historical creativity and personal creativity. Her point is the same as mine: While you may regard your opinion as unique and valuable, it is not unique, and often not valuable either. If it was any good someone probably wrote it down hundreds of years ago, and if it wasn't any good, there's probably a nice latin phrase describing why it isn't very good.

I mean imagine if you happened on a thread where people consistently made inane comments like "1+1=3" and saying that other the people pointing out it was wrong never made any contribution of their own. Would you be arrogant for pointing out people being wrong about basic arithmetic?

Ok for one I never said he was arrogant on the basis that he points people out on their wrongs. I said his lack of humility suggests arrogance when he poses to ba an expert on every subject.

What's more I never said that pointing out something was wrong, is wrong.

Somewhere you've jumped to a completely different page.

My point? A particularly good philosopher named Margaret Boden once noted the difference between historical creativity and personal creativity. Her point is the same as mine: While you may regard your opinion as unique and valuable, it is not unique, and often not valuable either. If it was any good someone probably wrote it down hundreds of years ago, and if it wasn't any good, there's probably a nice latin phrase describing why it isn't very good.

So therefore there is not point expressing your own opinions? Like Dreadnote was saying, that's what a forum is for. Why are you here? Or are you like dogma and feed off pointing out the fallacies of others?

Interesting to see some personal view points, upsetting to see some of the ignorance, which of course is a display of my ignorance from my preconceived mind set.I like the way people have statements based off of so many unsaid things; as i will do right now!

It is possible to fully predict someones actions and that does not mean that person does not have free will. They are not a slave to fulfilling the prediction, the prediction is merely an observation on such person. (Possibly done from the ability to transcend the normal passage of time, or is done by something not physically bound to area and therefore is free from time).

I think we have free will, because we even have the choice to choose if god exists or not. I mean there is no proof he is or is not, and therefore is a reflection of how our creation around is not intended to oppose our free will. And of course i am speaking with reflection on the nature of mans rebellion against god.

(Now for something completely off topic, have a conversation with a non religious person from a christian view point, and in that conversation every point about free will and choosing your own path ect they will mention is symbolized in the garden of Eden in mans natural rebellion.)

Just my 2cents.

kaidsin:

Actually that's not off topic. Determinism was predestination before the gods were swept out of the equation. Same old same old, with newer marketing.

I/You Believe we have free will. Is that not enough? You ask a question that can only be answered by uncaring gods who taunt us from the abyss with their inaction...

Free will is getting out of Bed in the morning.

Free, as in leaving the sheets.

Will, because I really don't want to.

whatwhat wrote:
You're presuming the background of others here.

That isn't terribly far off from presuming that I don't do anything beyond mine the internet for information in order argue with people. I do, admittedly, use Google to refresh my memory regarding topics I haven't considered in a while, but why should that be a reason to criticize me?

Shouldn't we all check our own reasoning when we feel we're in doubt?

whatwhat wrote:
The fact is he does get stuff wrong and the idea that I shouldn't challenge him on anything is absurd.

No one has said that you shouldn't challenge me. Rather it seems people are taking issue with your seeming inability to hold yourself back from frustration when I don't agree with you.

whatwhat wrote:
I know for a fact he was clueless on a issue about betting he raised me up on the other day for example, I'm sure he would find argument with me on that statement though - another sign of his arrogance.

Why is it arrogant for me to question you when I believe that you're wrong (and I still do with regard to bookmaking, by the way), but seemingly not when you do the same to me?

That seems like an unfair standard of behavior. Something which, oddly enough, tends to indicate arrogance.

whatwhat wrote:
Sorry but in that respect I judge people based on their own work not how they critique others.

Criticism is work. In fact, its basically the heart of the academy. You have to first show why something is an inadequate explanation in order to create an adequate one, which is often done by the person that's being criticized.

As Nurglitch said earlier, you have the option of accepting my criticism and using it to reformulate your position. Unfortunately you almost always choose to become defensive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:
Where did I use the term infinity wrongly? I'm fairly confident of all my logic in this thread.

Every time you stated that an infinite series must have a cause.

whatwhat wrote:
If the terms I have used are wrong it makes little difference to me, understanding is not based on language.

There are a great many eminent philosophers who disagree with you. I'm willing to acknowledge that a great deal of understanding is not predicated on language in the sense that "language" is used colloquially. However, to the extent that out ability to formulate and communicate ideas is dependent upon symbolism, it really is dependent upon language in the sense that the word is meaningful philosophically.

It just so happens that this particular format feature the English language, and while you may understand what you're talking about any inability to communicate effectively is going to make people treat you as if you don't.

whatwhat wrote:
Plus what your describing is only contructive if he also pointed out where someone is correct, which he never does because he's purely for himself when he rebuts someone.

There is a phrase often used in high school education called "constructive criticism". Its a fairly apt explanation of what I'm usually trying to do.

After all, it isn't really useful to point out where people are correct. That's not how you improve ideas. If something isn't criticized, then its fair to assume that the critic in question finds it to be correct or acceptable.

whatwhat wrote:
He certainly doesn't come here for anything to do with wargaming as far as I can tell.

I rarely post in the other segments of the board because there honestly isn't much that I'm interested in discussing. After roughly 10 years here I've seen nearly every topic in Dakka Discussions at least a dozen times. I hang around now for news, rumors, and the modeling forums.

whatwhat wrote:

WarOne wrote:

Frazzled wrote:One could put him on ignore WhatWhat.

And if he is on ignore, does he exist?

But in all regards, there are those who have a great wealth of information and a vast pool of knowledge wherein you simply cannot walk up to them and begin discussing any random topic that merits serious debate.

dogma and sebster represent a higher pinnacle comparable to your average poster in terms of how they treat logic, how they argue through logic, and how to dissect an argument that has a flawed premise. I am sure there is more than that involved, but my level of intellect is probably not high enough to go much further along this line of reasoning.

It is better to ask questions that help expand your knowledge and increase the ability to grasp where dogma and sebster are coming from.

Hence I don't argue with them. More or less I ask questions to gauge their stance on an issue and to probe the depths of their brains for a better understanding of where they are coming from.

Do you actually believe dogma knows all of the gak he comes out with on this forum? No you have the wrong idea of things. Most posters don't air their thoughts on a topic unless they have something to say about it, usually going on what they believe to be right from knowledge they have gained in the past. The likes of Dogma look around for any moment someone expresses what could be a wrong opinion then researches it with google before ragging the gak out of what you got wrong. Your idea that they are the fountain of all knowledge and you can't challenge what they say does more to suggest your own self esteem than theirs. I'd be prepared to put a bet down on the fact that dogma knew less about determinism before this topic was posted than he does now, and not because he learnt anything in this thread. When your challenging dogma your challenging what he's just learnt five minutes beforehand. But yeh, that's not something you really want to compete with I guess. The idea that dogma has a "vast pool of knowledge" is false. Obviously he's not dim but he's not fricking heredotus neither.

Alright. I'll go along with this.

I don't believe that dogma knows all. I do know that he has a higher educational background than me. I also know that his capacity for logic is higher. He's not an omnipotent machine capable of running your life to the thousandth-millonth decimal place because he is better in debate than others.

I ask questions because then it allows me to gauge where their level of knowledge and determine whether I agree or not. I don't argue because what do I have to argue with if they honestly have a broader knowledge base than I do.

Assumptions are fun. In fact, I encourage general ignorance for practical applications (i.e. I don't want to stand around attempt to understand why someone said "Hi." to me or do a thorough investigation into what that meant when I can assume it was a greeting with no other intention behind it).

When it comes to things like:

Person A: George W. Bush is an idiot.

Person B: How do you base that off of?

PA: My opinion.

PB: Where are the facts?/facts to the contrary.

PA: You should not contradict me/straw man argument/your stupid/ignorant.

PB: What do you base that off of?

PA: I'm right. Your wrong.

Or something along the lines of an argument that goes south of the border when one side fails to appreciate the environment from which the other side hails from. You have to be the Devil's Advocate at times in order to enhance and continue a debate. Assuming knowledge is correct is not how it should work.

Now if I seem to be unable to detach my emotional state from the argument, I just close up shop and accept they are right/don't argue further because what point is there to continue a fight when I won't be able to rationalize at the level my opponent will be at.

Someone may have more knowledge than you, so you gain that knowledge rather than reject it. Learn what they know before making a decision to oppose their ideas.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
Plus what your describing is only contructive if he also pointed out where someone is correct, which he never does because he's purely for himself when he rebuts someone.

There is a phrase often used in high school education called "constructive criticism". Its a fairly apt explanation of what I'm usually trying to do.

After all, it isn't really useful to point out where people are correct. That's not how you improve ideas. If something isn't criticized, then its fair to assume that the critic in question finds it to be correct or acceptable.

If your idea of constructive criticism is picking out all the negatives and noting none of the positives then you've just reasured my opinion of you.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
He certainly doesn't come here for anything to do with wargaming as far as I can tell.

I rarely post in the other segments of the board because there honestly isn't much that I'm interested in discussing. After roughly 10 years here I've seen nearly every topic in Dakka Discussions at least a dozen times. I hang around now for news, rumors, and the modeling forums.

bs. You hang around here so you can be condescending to a bunch of people you believe to be less intelligent than you.

It doesn't take belief in predetermination to see this kind of gak coming...

Don't worry I'm finished.

As for my opinion on the subject (which I haven't actually gave yet, I've just been putting ideas forward) the universe exists for billions upon billions of years we each exist for, what? about 80 of them. In billions of years time when humans are extinct who or what is going to give a dam about you? Whether we have free will or not it really doesn't make the slightest bit of difference, as your insignificant life is probably going to be exactly the same in either case: forgotten.

whatwhat wrote:
If your idea of constructive criticism is picking out all the negatives and noting none of the positives then you've just reasured my opinion of you.

Again, if I don't critique something, then it was probably alright.

I'm not in the business of reassuring people.

whatwhat wrote:
bs. You hang around here so you can be condescending to a bunch of people you believe to be less intelligent than you.

You can believe whatever you want, I don't really care; especially given that you've never met me.

Should I assume that you're a useless "train spotting" yob because you have an art degree? Because I can totally do that, it just doesn't end well for either of us.

whatwhat wrote:
As for my opinion on the subject (which I haven't actually gave yet, I've just been putting ideas forward)...

Well played. It takes a significant set to criticize another for not advancing their opinion while also withholding theirs.

My, its almost as if you were creating a double standard. But no, that could never be the case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:....as your insignificant life is probably going to be exactly the same in either case: forgotten.

Well duh, no need to be snippy about it.

Well ,unless you're drug addled.

I have a feeling I've already posted words to this effect, but really we don't need to refer to physics when attempting to assess the free will of human beings. Our 'belief structures (i.e. the way in which we 'read' the world) determine the ways in which we interact with our peers and the world at large. These impact upon other people, as theirs impact on ours - meaning that our 'will' can never be truly 'free'. It has borders.


That's one reading of it anyway. There are contrary positions.

Kilkrazy wrote:Is Brownian Motion random?

I missed this yesterday, but its a good question.

In the Newtonian sense Brownian Motion is random. However, part of what made Einstein Einstein was his discovery that Brownian Motion can be described, and predicted, via probability.

It is honestly an even more elegant equation than the one that describes special relativity.

So, no, Brownian Motion is not random.

dogma wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Is Brownian Motion random?

I missed this yesterday, but its a good question.

In the Newtonian sense Brownian Motion is random. However, part of what made Einstein Einstein was his discovery that Brownian Motion can be described, and predicted, via probability.

It is honestly an even more elegant equation than the one that describes special relativity.

So, no, Brownian Motion is not random.

Well, you learn something new every day!

As to whether free will exists I'm going to take a hard stand and say maybe.

Gitzbitah wrote:The brain's chemical levels and neural pathways changes every second. to call it a system and compare it to a computer is a false analogy. The brain is self-altering, and the hardware switches as rapidly as the software. If your own body will be different every time you are faced with a choice, then one entity could choose both ways at different points in their life- how can that be anything but free will?

The changes you talk about come from the brain adapating to the outside world, which is a mechanistic reaction.

To identify free will you would have to argue for the presence of an element outside of the natural world having an influence on decision making.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Just because you don't realize that something affects you does not indicate that the universe is not initially conditioned.

Knowledge has almost nothing to do with reality.

I was referring to the possiblity of things outside of the natural realm, such as a soul.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:To me though, the uncertainty principle's logical conclusion is that nothing is deterministic because there's no way to predict what will happen given that at any given time there's a non-zero chance of anything happening anywhere.

Deterministic and predictable are related, but you can have one without the other.

I could drop a tennis ball into a box full of table tennis balls. Those table tennis balls will bounce all over the place, and the complexity of those interactions will be far too great to ever properly predict - the slightest change in the speed of the ball drop, or the placement of a single table tennis ball will produce wildly different results.

But despite being incredibly complex, each interaction remains entirely deterministic, just cause and effect.

sebster:

I thought I might point out that Aristotelians regard the soul as part of the natural world, rather than a super-natural addendum.

But while we're noting that cause and effect (or 'constant conjunction' if we want to follow Hume is sticking with what can be logically inferred) can be applied to the natural world to overlay a deterministic logic over phenomena, we should also note the complementary move that some abstract nonsense (read: layman's quantum mechanics, etc) might imply indeterminacy.

However, indeterminacy is the Scylla to determinism's sucking Charybdis, in that agency no more follows from a magic universe than a block-iron one.