Comments by J Mac

401. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232277 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 10:14 pm

Once again rephrasing:

Science is:
Observation->Hypothesis->Predictions->Testing.
-not-
Off the wall idea->justifications for off the wall idea->asking critics what might make good evidence for off the wall idea->making up something that matches what the critics wanted.

You don't follow conclusions to evidence, you follow evidence to conclusions.

402. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232274 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 10:11 pm

You have proved to be an irrational fool who is misquoting and insulting me so I have no interest in playing your games about "what would be evidence for my crazy proposition." You come up with your own damn evidence.

403. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232271 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 10:06 pm

Probability fumble? I never talked of probability except to say that one was as unlikely as the other.

404. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232267 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 10:03 pm

Are you fucking blind?

I never in any way implied that it was a choice of deist creator or panspermia. Those ideas are completely unrelated. I was comparing how worthwhile it was to discuss them.

Discussion a deistic creator is pointless, even though we cannot PROVE that there wasn't one. There is no evidence for it, so we should not take the proposition seriously.

Discussion of panspermia is pointless, even though we cannot PROVE that it couldn't happen. There is no evidence for it, so we should not take the proposition seriously.

Its a fucking comparison not a choice.

405. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232262 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 9:55 pm

Mitchell please reread my original post that you are quoting.

Clearly we disagree on alleged evidence for panspermia which I will come to in a moment, but if there were no evidence then:

Panspermia: no evidence: probability = X
where x may very well be unknown or undeterminable

Similarly
Deistic creator: no evidence: probability = X

Panspermia is no more or less likely than a deistic creator unless/until evidence is provided for one or the other.

I didn't make a claim on how likely or unlikely either of those propositions were in that statement (though I did elsewhere). That statement was quite simply that whatever that probability is it is shared by both propositions because they are both in an identical state of evidentiary support (or lack-thereof).

Now the "Evidence":

Evidence and proof are quite different. Imagine a murder trial, the prosecution presents NOTHING. The defense presents an alibi, then the prosecution proves the alibi was flawed. This is certainly not proof of guilt, but neither is it even a shred of evidence. The prosecution must make their own case, not solely refute the defense's alibi.

Panspermia came up as an idea. Some people challenged it saying it was not possible (alibi). The defenders of panspermia demonstrated that the claim of impossibility was false (disproved the alibi). That leaves us back at the beginning, no evidence for or against.

406. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232257 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 9:46 pm

"it was not inherently absurd"

Well it depends on you definition of absurd. I would not call the idea itself absurd, but any scientists working under that idea I would call absurd.

Science is:
Observation->Hypothesis->Predictions->Testing.
-not-
Off the wall idea->justifications for off the wall idea->seeking data to fit off the wall idea

407. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232253 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 9:42 pm

Oh, and I neglected to mention panspermia doesn't get us out of the abiogenesis problem anyways.

Rather than having to explain abiogenesis we then have to explain abiogenesis AND interstellar travel of living material. Certainly the latter isn't impossible, but it doesn't make the process easier.

408. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232249 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 9:36 pm

"Probability does not work like that. If we have two possibilities, and are unaware of the probability of either,"

I didn't say we knew the probabilities of either panspermia or a deistic creator. I said they were equal to each other because of the fact that they are both in that position of no evidence.

"Though pan-spermia does have evidence..."

What follows is not evidence for it, it is simply pointing out that it is not impossible, it is the deflation of the argument against it.

If you start with no evidence, then someone says "hey thats impossible, heres why..." then you counter their reason why showing it was flawed logic you are still left at zero evidence, not positive evidence.

And we have witnessed all the steps in abiogenesis.

409. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #232246 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 9:29 pm

he claims that "everyone has access to health care" in Canada. He means, if they don't die first.

Well there wouldn't be much point in providing health care to a dead person now would there?

Sorry, couldn't resist... just being a smart-ass.

410. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #232242 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 9:27 pm

Free-will, consciousness, and life are all things that are less physical qualities than they are abstract constructs we humans use in our discussions.

411. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #232241 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 9:26 pm

"I suspect there is a graduation of consciousness between complex life forms. "

Certainly. But much in the same sense as there is a graduation of what can even be called life. There are things that are clearly alive, and things that are clearly not. Then there are many things along the continuum. To me consciousness is much like that.

412. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232240 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 9:24 pm

A professor with a knack for freudian slips once called it Spam-permia. I can't help but think of that every time it comes up.

Just for fun: He was also the professor who didn't realize when he used the adjective form of alleles A and a. "What is the selective advantage of big a-ness? And little a-ness?"

I was in the back of the room trying not to fall out of my chair while he was completely oblivious. Luckily he didn't get into talking about alleles p and P!

413. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #232232 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 9:14 pm

Yes, by many such definitions we do have it. It is the quasi-magical quality of consciousness that we lack. That quality that some like to site as the difference between us and animals.

We do not have any such quality that is lacked in animals and perhaps even plants. Plants respond to their environment through taking in information and reacting appropriately.

I even heard a biologist claim that fungi were sentient. While he was being some what poetic, he was also being some what serious.

There is no quality of consciousness around which we can draw a line and say we are inside the circle and others are outside.

414. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #232229 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 9:10 pm

Hence, if the universe is not Deterministic, then Free Will exists.

Quite plainly that is a non-sequitur. If the universe is deterministic it would be much harder to argue for free will, but the fact that it is not deterministic does not imply necessarily that there is free will.

415. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232226 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 9:07 pm

"emotively"?

Where do you get that? My every word was my signal. I do add noise on occasion when talking to foolish people on here. But you do not (or have not yet) struck me as foolish.

You asked a question about whether panspermia should be taken seriously, and I answered you that it should not. It can not be rejected, but there is no evidence what so ever in its favor, so there is no reason to give it any consideration.

416. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #232223 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 9:01 pm

"How are you defining consciousness"

I'm not, and that was my point. "Consciousness" has no more meaning than "free will." We believe we have them both. They are both illusions.

Of course we can define them in such terms that they are real and we do have them, but in their most common usage definitions they are very similar.

417. Unintelligent Design

Comment #232220 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 8:57 pm

"Natural selection can quite easily produce IC systems." I don't think RD would agree with you. I think he admits that Mount Improbable cannot be scaled from the face side, only from the gradient side.

Are you having fun with your semantic games? They were using two different definitions of IC as I have described above.

Respond to argument please, don't quote-mine.

418. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232215 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 8:50 pm

Thanks for misquoting me, the line you drew that from clearly had nothing to do with you. You should not take it out of context.

419. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #232212 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 8:44 pm

Such selective medicine is just a passive form of genocide.

420. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #232210 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 8:43 pm

"If people voluntarily choose "religious-based" health care, provided by people who voluntarily choose to practice it, and they don't expect anyone else to pay for it -- what business is that of yours?? "

Were not talking about "religious-based" health care payed for by the church. If that were the case it would be slightly less disturbing (but still troublesome.)

Say a church did that, the church made a faith-hospital and only treated people of their faith with methods their faith approved of. Sure, I suppose I would not have a problem. But the "doctors" there would have no grounds to desire a license from the state. Also they could have no complaints when I opened an atheist only hospital and refused to treat theists.

421. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232207 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 8:39 pm

"And I'm quite certain they wouldn't care for the reasons you give."

Ah yes their just out spending billions of dollars shooting rockets into the air willy nilly.

There are MANY other reasons to ensure sterility of the equipment sent out. NASA absolutely does care, the fact that Mitchell didn't enumerate all of them does not mean they don't exist.

422. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232206 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 8:36 pm

Panspermia is no more or no less likely than a deistic creator of the universe. There is not even the slightest shred of evidence for either one, so while rational scientists should not flat out reject the possibility we should flat out reject the discussion of such nonsense.

423. Unintelligent Design

Comment #232203 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 8:26 pm

37.
I suspect he means in the simplistic meaning usually employed by creationists. Neither half a mouse trap no flagella are useful so they cannot be reduced to a half.

But that whole formulation of IC displays blatant ignorance on the part of the creationist of development and the role of genes.

Half a flagella didn't have to precede a whole one.

424. Unintelligent Design

Comment #232198 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 8:22 pm

If you find something that appears to be irreducibly complex it more aptly proves orgel's second rule than it does god.

425. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #232193 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 8:14 pm

Ha!

Don't forget Battleship... loves his Jihads,
And Monopoly... no gods before him,
Risk... global domination, nuff said,

Hell he plays everything BUT dice.

426. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #232192 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 8:13 pm

I suspect there are evolutionary advantages to being likable by complete strangers

This is addressed thoroughly in evolutionary psychology. Though it is not direct reciprocal altruism it is a result. Such "displays" can show that you are a good reciprocator (read as "good neighbor"), people who see such behaviors will be more likely/willing to initiate an altruistic behavior towards the first person.

And if you are talking about being altruistic towards a complete stranger after which they will "like" you or allow you to live then that IS reciprocal altruism. It need not be like-goods for like-goods. If I give you an apple today you don't need to give back an apple tomorrow, your cute daughter would do just fine.

427. A flea we missed?

Comment #232190 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 8:07 pm

I wish Hitchens could get off the moral-results ledger sheets. Who cares? Even IF theists behave no worse, even if they behave better than atheists, that doesn't make their proposition RIGHT. Although I suppose it is what Christopher can argue well, he knows his history far better than his biology... which is another frustration:

D'Souza's challenge about saving the drowning person in the river has a perfectly reasonable "darwinian" explanation. I'd like to send D'Souza a book on evolutionary psychology, though I doubt he'd read it.

It frustrates me that these foolish challenges about human behavior are left hanging, and many in the audience may be persuaded by them.

428. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #232189 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 8:03 pm

For me the term free will implies a concious choice of some kind.

Oooh, now were gonna open a whole new can of worms.

But they can be addressed similarly, since though they are a different can, they are the exact same flavor.

A particle has as much free will as a person. A particle has as much consciousness as a person.

429. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #232154 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 5:46 pm

"I imagine the jazz musician would say it was based on the sum total of ..."

It doesn't matter what follows there, that statement is carries the implicit recognition that the improvisation was caused by something that could be measured, something that could be 'summed to a total', nothing of pure will.

430. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #232153 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 5:43 pm

I would say a non-physical mechanism grants no more free will than a physical mechanism.

I am in complete agreement here, but playing devils advocate - or should I say souls advocate - I know dualists who would claim that the mind/soul does not need mechanisms, because it is free.

Yes that is foolish drivel, we have free will because our mind is free, but it is foolish drivel that many people take seriously.

I must say your point of infinite regress is a wonderfully simple refutation to ideas of free will. I will certainly reuse it.
--------
To follow up on the jazz question: the improvisation is not specified by the sheet music, but that does not mean it is not specified. Yes the musician chooses what to play; but why do they choose what they do? They choose whatever they "feel like" playing. But what they "feel like" is a function of the state of their neurons (and hormones, and ... and ...). It is extremely difficult in some cases to pinpoint precisely what all the variables in the function are, but it is a function none the less.

431. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #232125 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 4:13 pm

Bravo!

432. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #232112 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 3:52 pm

"I think even allowing for mind/body dualism doesn't allow for libertarian free will."

Thats an interesting point I hadn't considered, though I don't think I could state it that strongly.

First of all let me make no doubt that I agree that dualism is just theism in hiding - or in other words its a load of crap.

But if we were to allow for a dualist perspective I think it would open up a lot more weasel room for free will. Dualism doesn't guarantee free will, but at least some formulations of dualism would allow for free will, more so than monism(naturalistic) does.

433. A flea we missed?

Comment #232107 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 3:44 pm

Well I'm all for that, but that's going on on other threads. Have more than a dozen of the 391 posts on this thread been in regards to anything productive?

434. A flea we missed?

Comment #232102 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 3:40 pm

I do enjoy a good hyperbole, but that statement hardly qualifies considering a majority of the posts in this thread are devoted to the topic.

435. A flea we missed?

Comment #232097 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 3:33 pm

Ok in fact I can think that. Not by sheer character counts no, but by the amount of thought and effort put into it. Some people are actually asking serious questions about whether the cricket bat is worth it.

It has never been used as a serious debating point. It's a fucking joke.

And as for people being afraid to say something for fear of whacking from an IMAGINARY device. Well I'll be damned if that isn't the same trick religion pulled. How foolish must one be to Actually have their behavior influenced by an imaginary item that is used in jest?

436. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #232094 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 3:26 pm

And there in spacepenguin's post is the link to the mind-body "problem."

Truly it is a philosophical issue more than scientific, but our science has reached a level where it can begin to shed some light on these philosophical issues.

437. A flea we missed?

Comment #232093 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Well it all depends on how you define "encourage". Surely KKelly when someone tells you what a dipshit you are for making your crude remarks it only serves to encourage you.

That is what I find as so humorous here. The cricket bat is going the same way you did, everyone hates it and thinks its so childish, yet they incessantly dwell on it even when the wielder of the bat is long gone on vacation.

438. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #232090 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 3:18 pm

" I guess my difficulty is withe the definition of " free will." What is it? "

Clearly you will get many answers to that as that IS the question.

In regard to your genetic make up that is not the only thing that influences your behavior. It is not a situation of being genetic or free. Things you learned are not genetic, but the process of learning changed your behavior. A head injury is not genetic, but it too influences your behavior and choices. Free will comes up as the issue when we question whether or not the sum of all these influences (genes, environment/learning, physiology, etc) if fully understood could fully predict behavior.

Does nature behave in a deterministic manner? If so it is not likely that we can have free will - I say this carefully as I have not yet read Dennett's book on this subject, and as I understand he seems to claim that we can have free will despite physical determinism. But that position in itself needs explanation: if all the mechanical workings are deterministic how is it that we can claim to be free?

439. A flea we missed?

Comment #232087 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 3:12 pm

*gets some popcorn... this drama is unfolding nicely. Pretty soon someone will get voted off the website*

440. A flea we missed?

Comment #232080 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Oh this is entertaining.

I agree the cricket bat is a worn out joke, but it became a trademark. Whatever you think about that it is damn near impossible to miss the irony in the fact that you all spend much more time complaining about the cricket bat and its use then TWP has every spent using it.

441. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #232078 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 3:02 pm

"Unfortunately, i've noticed..."

I agree with everything after that. Though I wouldn't say it is unfortunate. Our society, our world, will face some growing pains no doubt, but I think in facing this schism head on we will grow and rational thought will have an opportunity to thrive... either that or we'll all die at the hands of rabid religiots. Either way there will be no more having to hide in the shadows.

442. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #232075 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 2:56 pm

And I, with an evolved hominid brain? I don't have free will? I can't do as I please?

You certainly can do as you please. But whatever it is that is what you please, why that? In other words, why does that please you and not something else? Do you have will to choose what pleases you?

Is there any value added to real world science by these free will debates?

It is exploration. That is what science is. If you mean will such discussions provide renewable energy, feed the hungry, or cure a disease... well probably not, not any time soon anyways. So if you do not get anything from just understanding the way things work then feel free to move along. Personally I derive a great deal of satisfaction for learning about the world around me whether or not the learning provides immediate tangible products.

443. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #232065 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 2:45 pm

AllanW-

"Patients directing their own treatment? Only if you want to cause anarchy. "

I think that goes a little beyond hyperbole into the realm of bullshit. Patients absolutely should have a say, that does not cause anarchy. You make it sound as if all treatments should be mandated, government can decide if someone is ugly enough to warrant cosmetic surgery, but the patient has no say. Someone will knock on your door and say "You're ugly, you will have to come in for treatment." If the patients in your idea of a hospital have no rights then you are a sick person indeed and I will go no where near such places.

Apathy-
Of your 3 items I suspect #3 is closest although the other two are certainly factors. Society is becoming polarized: the religious and the secular, each side is fighting for their way.

444. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #232024 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 1:14 pm

"A claim was made that a doctor should always perform according to the patient's wishes"

I agree that that claim was to simple, but it started right.

Could it be amended to state: A doctor should always perform according to the patients wishes to the extent allowable by law.

I suspect this version would be countered with the fact that laws are imperfect, but that is a reason to improve the laws, not a reason to allow doctors to do whatever they wish.

445. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #232020 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 1:11 pm

I took a deep breath, and now I can clarify. There is a big difference between not being able to predict or calculate something in practice versus in principle.

If/when anyone says that something is unpredictable in practice or appears random therefore it is also unpredictable in principle... well thats when I pick up the largest blunt object within reach and throw it at them.

446. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #232018 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 1:08 pm

I should note that you may not have been using those ideas in that way. But just hearing it reminds me of all the stupid crap people pull out of it.

447. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #232017 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 1:06 pm

"Free will seems intuitively obvious."

I hope you don't mean that as a defense of free will. MANY things seem intuitively obvious, yet are completely false.

"I don't think quantum effects have much impact at the relevant scale for neuronal processes."

Nor do I. Human decision making is not really the aspect of "free will" that I am considering in such discussions, but rather it is a determinism issue.

As far as the "butterfly effect" deal, that crap just pisses me off. I rarely hear that used but to to escape complicated questions. Even if a small influence from a butterflies wing is the needed bit to start a hurricane on the other side of the world it does not imply that anything is "random," it may imply that it is far to complex for us to understand, but not random. If we could trace every molecule of air that left the butterfly's wings.... if we could trace every bit of data, we COULD predict if/when such butterflies would cause hurricanes. My blood raises a few degrees when people use chaos theory to argue for randomness or indeterminism. The mathematics involved in chaos theory, fractals for example, are completely deterministic, it can be very odd and at times surprising, but deterministic none-the-less.

448. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #231984 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 11:42 am

Damn, I had my hopes up for a minute. Now I'm lost again.

I see I yet have much more to educate myself on regarding this topic.

But for now I'm off. Have fun, and play nice.

449. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #231976 by J Mac on August 17, 2008 at 11:35 am