Note also that natural selection is not innovative. All it can do is to select for and thereby preserve current (or improved) existing function. So where do the improvements and innovations come from? Random mutations. This means that UNTIL such innovations can be generated from RANDOM mutations, then natural selection is incapable of guiding evolution TOWARDS functional innovation that doesn't yet exist. This isn't controversial, but like the Monte Hall dilemma, it's usually overlooked.
@tubewatch59 Wow, you sure have rambled on about nothing.By the way Doug Axe's published papers had nothing to do with evolution. Lets see, the theorum of evolution is the most proven theorum in all of science. More then 250,000 published, peer reviewed, verified papers have been written on it, in 150 years. Yet you say you can disprove it, please post the published (main stream media), peer reviewed, verified paper that does this.
Doug Axe's published papers seem to do the job nicely enough. But do read Axe's latest article: "The case against a Darwinian origin of protein folds" if you want the details on why this work concerns evolution. I didn't ramble on about nothing, I rambled about something that seems to have you on the defensive, a challenge to the "most proven theorem in all of science". Can you can site a published (main stream media), peer reviewed, verified paper that refutes this challenge?
@tubewatch59 By the way, a great copy and paste job. But I would like to see the paper that will rock all of science. And in case you di not know, Axle works for the Discovery Institute.
(By the way, if you really want to check if my ramble was a copy and paste job, just pick out some sentences from it, and do a google search. If I have copied and pasted my comments, you'll easily be able to find out where I got them from.)
@tubewatch59 Even though it was published, it has yet to be peer reviewed. As I understand it, this particular paper was not published. His published works have nothing to do with it. Both of us will have to wait and see where it goes. I stand corrected, it was an original ramble.
Axe's published papers have "nothing to do with it"? Axe (their author) disagrees. But he explains why people say that. If he'd openly written that proteins likely cannot evolve, and thus their origin may even require design, then I'd bet that his estimated odds for protein origin by evolution, would have seemed positively likely in comparison to the probability of gettting those papers published! :-) To be published in this climate, you CANNOT even hint you may support ID.
But you are quite correct, this work is somewhat new although I recall that other scientists have come up with similar results in the past to Axe's. I think many people on both sides of the discussion are waiting to see what happens in this area.
@tubewatch59 It seems it was published in a second rate journal, at best. It has already been disproved.
To summarize, the claims that have been and will be made by ID proponents regarding protein evolution are not supported by Axe’s work. As I show, it is not appropriate to use the numbers Axe obtains to make inferences about the evolution of proteins and enzymes. Cont.
@tubewatch59 Cont. Thus, this study does not support the conclusion that functional sequences are extremely isolated in sequence space, or that the evolution of new protein function is an impossibility that is beyond the capacity of random mutation and natural selection. This is only one of many papers that disprove this. The paper you quote is very old, wanna try again?
"This is only one of many papers that disprove this."
This comes I believe from Art Hunt's blog entry in the Panda's Thumb about Axe's 2004 papers. I know that Axe responded to that. There has been some to and froing on this work. I'll look up both of them and comment tomorrow. I have to go right now.
@tubewatch59 Actually the original paper is 2004. There have been many papers written on it. All criticize his not using scientific methods to conduct the experiment. He purposely mutated the protein then changed the temperature, so the result would come out the way it did. That is why it was not published in main stream media. It seems most other creationists have let this one go as being totally not supportive of the cause.
The Hunt article criticized Axe's experimental procedure in using a TEM enzyme with a starting functionality considerably less than the wild type, because Hunt assumed that this approach would produce a lesser than normal resistance to mutations, thus Hunt summized that the resistance to mutations on the wild type "robust" TEM enzyme would show results far more favourable to evolution than Axe's 10^-77 results. ie. A much larger functional to nonfunctional ratio than 1 in 10^-77.
Hunt put it this way in his Panda's thumb article:
"Because Axe measured mutational sensitivity from a weakly functional starting sequence rather than the fully functional natural enzyme, the mutants he generated were inappropriately disadvantaged, and this is why he arrived at such a low value for the prevalence of functional sequences."
But Hunt didn't design the experiment and could be excused for getting the wrong idea about the effect of the less robust start sequence...
Axe points out that contrary to what seems obvious to Hunt (and the rest of us for that matter!), it's actually the case that if the robust wild type TEM enzyme were to be used as the starting sequence, then evaluations of the tolerance to mutations on this robustness of TEM function (which must be made to a comparable standard of functionality in order for any estimates to be meaningful) turn out to be far less tolerated, than in the more weakly functional version that Axe used!
In other words, Axe's estimates turn out to be MORE favourable than they would otherwise have been if he had used the typical highly functional TEM protein as his starting point. In the short term of course, that would have produced ratios far smaller than even 1 in 10^77 which would seem even better for our side - that is until a clever scientist figures out that in order to properly evaluate this kind of a question, a weakly functional (rather than a robust) initial protein should be used.
You'll be wanting to read why yourself of course as my explanation wasn't even close to being detailed enough to explain what Axe was trying to say. So look up in a search engine the article entitled: "Correcting Four Misconceptions about my 2004 Article in JMB — May 4th, 2011 by Douglas Axe".
As to your evaluation that we creationists are backing away from Axe's 2004 paper - thinking it not supportive of our cause - well, no we aren't. Why did you think that we were backing away from it?
In addition, another point in the Hunt paper worthy of mention is his comment on backwards versus forwards protein functional pathways. He claims that in a backwards calculation we see a rare result because we are testing just one function, rather than the many more that can take place in a forwards calculation. But forwards experiments while generating many more simple / crude protein functions that have some function, cannot generate the functions neccessary to perform specific tasks.
For example, I can do a backwards calculation, that estimates that there are ~ 40 graduate students that might be suitable to be employed in a particular research group that are working on advanced propulsion systems.
Now, a forwards calculation may find that starting with preschoolers, we can expect to see ~ 80000 students will perform well enough to be employable in SOME kind of job.
Yes, but of those ~ 80000 employable students, only 40 (not 80000) could be well employed in propulsion.
The point is that while we do see that most people going to school can get jobs, we also find that those capable of carrying out complex sophisticated research for example, are fairly rare.
Axe's estimates of the prevalence of protein function (along with similar function estimates from other scientists) are showing that these kinds of protein functions (to say nothing of the far more sophisticated multi-protein machines) are well beyond the capabilities of the Darwinian process to deliver.
@tubewatch59 Just like all the other creationists, you write a lot, but say nothing. At the bottom of the pandas thumb article you will find an appendix of published(main stream), peer reviewed, verified papers that prove this is a non scientific experiment. It has been dis-proven so much most creationists are giving it a wide berth. So you still have not posted the paper you said you could. The published(main stream media), peer reviewed paper that disproved evolution.
Axe answered Hunt's objection. You don't have anything to say about that, so you're resorting to the argument from authority. Peer pressure isn't science. So what about Axe's response? I doubt it would matter what Axe said, as long as he is suggesting that evolution as we now understand it cannot explain the origin of proteins, you'd oppose what he was saying. You should try to comprehend what Axe is saying in response to Hunt. Did you understand what Hunt was saying?
@tubewatch59 The science was sloppy, the conclusions were wrong, it is a pitiful piece of work. The only one I see praising it is Axe. He has to or he would be berried in criticism.
On the contrary, Axe's paper is one of an increasing number that support the same conclusions. Evolutionists must agree that a given protein function is rare. There isn't really anyway around that. What they're trying to argue now is that it isn't isolated in sequence space. In other words many of the very rare sequences in configuration space are clustered near to each other, thus (they hope) being reachable via gradual evolutionary steps. Art Hunt discusses this point...
By the way, the fact that evolution ISN'T LOOKING TO FIND ANYTHING does not resolve any of these problems. I mention that rather obvious fact because quite often when I mention that the likelihood that evolution could manage to come across the various functional (and very rare) protein sequences in use in the cell, people will often point out that since evolution wasn't looking for these sequences in the first place, then that somehow explains the problem. (That doesn't make too much sense.)
Doug Axe's article entitled "The case against a Darwinian origin of protein folds" reviews work showing that functional sequences do not occur often enough in protein sequence space for evolution to be able to find them often enough in the time available (hundreds of millions to billions of years).
We then infer that ID provides the capability to find such rare entities via the use of cognitive function, rather than mere trial and error folding of all selection criteria into overall fitness.
Evolution is mindless, thus can't directly generate meaningful sequences, it can (sometimes) recognize meaning in sequences when such appears via random mutations (equivalent to a random search through sequence space) and sometimes these will be automatically flagged by natural selection due to the fitness they can sometimes improve (better adaption (by chance) to the environment).
So is the density of meaningful sequences in sequence space high enough for evolution to find them often enough?
The relevance to evolution is that intelligences know how to write meaningful text, but mindless automatons don't (unless they have been programmed to do so by intelligences) know how to write meaningful text. Evolution however is an automaton that is often (but not always, perhaps not often) capable of recognizing meaning (in the form of organismal fitness). But evolution is not an automaton capable of directly generating meaningful sequences (such as proteins or paragraphs) like we can...
But what if many people were picking up many needles from a haystack? In that case, it is more likely that we don't just have a stack of hay, but that we have a stack of hay and needles all mixed together.
But with functional proteins, science is telling us of late that such kinds of entities are rare, in a similar way that meaningful written paragraphs of a story are rare. There are many ways to write some meaningful paragraph, but there many many more ways to churn out meaningless text.
So being able to find needles in a haystack is quite different than picking out a piece of hay from a haystack. The difference is clear. We would in that case be finding something that is truly rare, not speciously assuming that we have worked some miracle by picking up something mundane and believeing it to be extraordinary. If you find a needle in a haystack, you really have just experienced something like a miracle, because you likely won't ever experience such a thing again.
So if WE are looking to obtain a functional protein (EVOLUTION isn't looking to do anthing of the sort, but put that fact aside for the moment) we can only do so by successfully picking one of the relatively very few (few compared to the number of nonfunctional sequences) amino acid sequences that can code for biologically functional proteins. So functional proteins become the small scattering of needles in a vast haystack. That they're functional proteins, gives them a pre-specification...
You make some very good points. However there are cases where such probability arguments are justified. The main example I have come across is the difficulties related to protein evolution. Unlike the examples of picking up a sandgrain from a beach, and retrospectively claiming such a (mundane) choice to be astronomically improbable, in the cases of proteins, it appears to be the case that functional proteins form a very very small subset of potential proteins that are nonfunctional...
I like a lot your videos and the reasoning behind them. Its indeed a good thing to clear unfundamented arguments. However, attacking others beliefs often leads to reinforcing them, since believes are usually based on values, not specificly on logic. Therefore, your videos may have the opposite effect you are looking for; as Daniel Dennet stated in a video about the evolution of religion, "it might be easier to tolerate it to death" (he was talking on a possibility of how religion could disappear
fantastic video. very smart and well put. I'm a christian and I really appreciate keeping any bias out of the video. I learned something new today. :3
@Fluffitra People commonly smoke after having sex. In movies and TV shows (generally for commedy) it is an easy way to show that two people have just done the nasty.
@Fluffitra It was for commedic effect, how the baby comes into existance right after conception. Plus the baby was animated. I'm pretty sure this video isn't condoning smoking around new born babies.
If there are 2 doors and 1 has a car behind it, your chances of guessing which door is 50/50. Period. The disclosure of the wrong door is completely irrelevant to the odds remaining. If you roll a die 100 times and don't get a 6, the chances of a 6 on the next roll are still 1/6, the previous rolls are irrelevant. Sorry Qualia, you seem smart, but you are wrong on this one.
@540merlin Google "Monty Hall Problem" and look at any of the links. Better yet, write down every possible situation that can occur (there should be 18 total) and count the number of times you win if you stay vs. if you switch. Also rolling a die is a completely different situation because it's a "replacement" condition (as you described). The door being opened is "without replacement" because once it's done, it sticks forever (kind of like a working gene).
To help explain the Monty Hall Dilemma, think about it this way. When you choose one of three doors you have a 1/3 chance of choosing the car which is behind one of the doors. Now one wrong door is revealed. You have the option of choosing to switch or not. The odds of winning if you don't switch remain 1/3, the odds of winning if you do switch? There remain only two options, switch or not. Well what's the remainder of 1 - 1/3? Your chance of winning just jumped to 2/3 for switching!
@BaileysBeads Of course! Otherwise it wouldn't be very interesting. As a game show contestant, if you always switch when it's offered, the only way to lose is if you pick the car on your first try (1/3 chance). So you have a 1/3 chance of losing, which requires you to have a 2/3 chance of winning.
@vtjakiela Is this what society has come to? stupid dumfucks making the most idiotic responses instead of having a normal 1 on 1 conversations, well no my mom aint got no worms out her pussy but you should cherck yourself, you idiotic piece of raped saggin' pussy shit
@AIRFORCEismyfuture now listen you stupid son of a bitch, i aint never commented on you before and god dammit you, bitch about every third day to comment me so FUCK YOU
@TheMerlinOfAR He also never opens the door that the car is behind, period. It is his acting on his knowledge of where the car is that changes the probabilities.
You should mention the assumption that Monte must always reveal a goat. And that Monte knows what's behind which door. then the problem is easy to understand. Half the time, Monte has a choice but half the time he does not .
But how could picking one chance instead of another be right? You also said ''there's still a 2/3 chance in the car being behind one of the doors you didn't choose'' - there used to be, but evidently there no longer is because it was shown that it isn't so. By saying that the chance hasn't increased, it sounds like you're saying the location of the car can't be falsified or something?
While I otherwise as usual agree with the video in itself, I'd like some in-depth on that scenario! thanks.
The odds remain 2/3 against you because absolutely nothing in the scenario has changed. There are still three doors, two of them still contain goats, the third still contains the car. The new information given to you wasn't new at all; you already knew one of the two doors you didn't choose would have a goat, and one such door was shown to you. The scenario is the same, the information is the same, the outcome is the same, thus the probability is the same.
So what makes it better to pick a particular decision out of staying or swapping? you have absolutely nothing but pure chance to go on, so you know... how can you actually determine what pure chance is better than the other pure chance?
I mentally nod my head in agreement with all your videos, they put what's in my head into words. But the car doors grabbed my curiosity. I'm reviewing it as I write it and it feels like something is wrong with it. Probability in this case seems like a very abstract concept. I mean you have 3 doors, he pulls up one, now that decreases the amount of doors from 3 to 2 - how can you possibly predict what door the car is in? reminds me of another video of yours with guessing the contents of a box.
I'v watched three of your videos, and have found them to be very well made, logical to your way of thinking, and well presented. Bravo! Especially when one considers that most videos on Youtube are not as well done. But,why do you bother to make them? What point are you trying to make? Are you trying to lead others to your way of thinking because you believe that if everyone thought as you do the world would be a better place? I'm not saying you shouldn't make them, I'm just wondering why you do
@panadesu Say you pick door 1 which is 1 in 3, at least one of the other doors has nothing behind it (100% chance) maybe both have nothing(33.3% chance). They eliminate one of the 3 doors so now it is 50-50 behind which remaining door has the car but but you picked door 1 while it was a 33% chance(If you picked door 2 a 50-50% chance door 1 would show nothing) If you knew nothing about previously picking door one, it would be a 50% chance to you instead of 33.3% but you know door left is 50%.
How many pages of these narcissistic keyboard-jockey's arguments are there?? I just wanted to find out how to win on Let's Make a Deal and get Wayne Brady's autograph. :D
"Showing a clear lack of awareness of the probabilities involved"
Hell, I must have watched and rewatched that scene more times than I can count and I still don't understand the Monty Hall Dilemma. Nice video though.
Marilyn vos Savant explained using a chart why it's better to switch, and on a knowledge level I know that it's correct, but I've still never fully comprehended why… XD No one's ever explained it in a way that I really "get it". :P
His second calculation of odds is built on an unknown. You cannot figure odds using unknown data. After the goat is revealed, the question is really 'What door do you pick?' Your odds are the same as someone who walks into the room after the first door is revealed and does not know your choice.
@stiltmeister It is not unkown data.The host always reveals the goat and not deliberately at the same time reveals 66/100 the position of the car.Imagine the 100 box example whith the 98 opened goat doors.You will understand it then.
Flawed logic.If god is something countable then it is finite.Something infinite cannot be counted.Guys stop abusing logic in order to make it universal..it's a human calculating tool and probably nothing more than that.
@asasasarap This statement clearly evidences that you dont know probability and math. If it's countable then it's infinite and thus not countable?
The infinite is countable. The number is infinite. It doesn't mean incomprehensible, it just means that equating it to other numbers makes it very very large.
What you argue for god is unevident and mathematics is not a tool to aid you in your case, unless you use it fallaciously like you did.
This video clearly shows "god" as not included in numbers.
@Ital21 Nope,infinite is not something very very large.Infinite is larger than any number.Infinite things cannot be counted and compared to any size.They don't have a measurable size.They are infinite.As sometimes is the stupidity of some people.
@asasasarap Nope. In physical systems the number "infinite" does not mean unimaginable, like you say your god is. In nature and physics and in reality, an "infinite" number is a number so large that counting it would be a waste of time, therefore we treat it as unending. For example, the amount of air in the earth is not infinite, but the number is very large so that any physical system that requires air to work, in say, thermodynamics, would consider it infinite, as it is an amount large enough
@asasasarap to satisfy the needs of the system. On a larger scale, if we considered, say, the size of the universe, we could say it's infinite, but it's actually determined by the distance traveled by light since the beggining. Since the universe doesn't have a definite form, we can't give an estimated qty that can be applied indiscriminately. But, in it's lower limit, the universe has a size of about 78 billion light years. This is far from infinite, but is a number so large that trying to--
@asasasarap --quantify it on earth's terms makes it a bit silly and inapplicable due to it's immensity, so for practicality, we equate it to infinity, or near-infinite. This is possible in mathematics. You'd know this, if you knew about mathematical modeling and physical quantities.
Yet again, it seems you overstepped your intellectual boundaries by assigning a magical, supernatural criteria indiscriminately to mathematical quantities.
You're in no position to call this video's logic flawed.
@Ital21 If there is a god or an allah or anything it is not a physical measurable quality to be one two three etc.or nearly infinite.I think you should read with more attention what I write or state.I don't think you even understand it.
@asasasarap Oh I understand it. I understand your supernatural concept-inclined intention, evident behind every comment.
The last person that's gonna teach me about physics and mathematics is you. This I know firmly.
What you state is either vague or not evidenced. If you stated actual facts about what you believe and how this video is flawed, then you'd have at least a standpoint to defend.
@Ital21 You will never understand a thing about paranormal phenomena if you try to simlpy find something to utilize and study methodically in a scientific way to get into market or production.They are rogues in our system and the real deal is rare.You have to taste a bit of the red pill in order to approach.The only thing I know is that they probably exist.Now for the video
@asasasarap But isn't it presumptuous to say what I WILL and WILL NOT understand? Isn't this the same kind of bias that you exhibit with logic and it's explanations? Can't you admit that you're being at least a bit on the close-minded side by immediately asserting that it's IMPOSSIBLE to understand something, whatever it is, whomever it is, in the rational pool of human minds?
@Ital21 It tries to present god gods or I don't know what as a paradox of chance through natural observation but theists don't claim it is a personified naturally observed something.(Well some do believe in an old guy with a beard but....ok).Other deities that are in numbers are not omnipresent and omnipotent.The rest I explained with the dice.Life from no life is something of unique as far characteristics.It's not an every day random event.
@asasasarap I disagree. 1st of all, your dice explanation is flawed, because each 3-dice 6-side probability is the same on 3's set. If it's too hard to grasp, a mathematical method is to simplify it. In this case, go for 1 dice. What is the probability if each 1 side to appear? 1/6. What is the probability 2 die land on the same side? 1/36. But each dice is still 1/6, we just doubles the number of eventualities. This is why I say your example with dice doesn't constitute proof. The odds don't --
@Ital21 The odds will most of the times create random non pattern variations.(Take a die and do the experiment.)Sometimes they will create impressive patterns by chance.(Lots of same numbers or 1,2,3,4etc progressions.).The more unlikely the pattern is and the more it goes on,the more chance that something is affecting the dice(though is still can be coincidental but the chance of coincidence geometrically dwindles.)This is what this
@Ital21 video does not say,by sticking to the possible coincidence.And life from no life is as far as we know a no replicable event even if we arrange the dice ourselves.I honestly don't know if a god created it or not,what I do know is that ''it just emerged from an ingredient soup'' is a bit oversimplified and this video doesn't help with the presentation of chances.
@asasasarap It doesn't need to say it. The odds of ANY one combination of die, is the same for any other combination. This is mathematically verifiable. The video says and exemplifies this. What you're saying is, SHOULD you EXPECT that during the 1st throw of the die you get, say, all 5's, it will be VERY UNEXPECTED to get it. And you'd be right. BUT, you'd ALSO be very right about any other combination. If I wanted 2,3,1 to come up, it's the same chance as 5,5,5. Or 4,4,1. Or any other.
@Ital21 My problem is not that much with this video on probability buy with the other with the coincidence.I explained you why.Now since you respond as well lets stop trolling elements and have a decent conversation.Two questions1)If the universe is deterministic what is the meaning of probability and in what ways does it win over fate?2)How do you define the word physical?(You can ask me questions as well but if we want to really excange ideas we have to go one part at a time).
@asasasarap I have no problems with your questions.
And just for the record, I don't think the video asserts things on coincidence so much as saying that coincidence CAN be probabilistic. The video DOESN'T say what was coincidence in recorded history or scientific findings, and what wasn't. This is clear. The rest I think is actually implied notions that weren't there. But you're right, it might be a stretch in conclusions. So, let me ask you concretely: in what specific aspect, exemplified, do-
@Ital21 Actually the video tries to pass from existence to belief in an elusive way.Like implying that faith in a god negates the existence of a god because of lack of evidence and thats why faith occurs.This is not the real case.You cant use logic or maths or probability to disprove god either.You can't either experience a hypothetic god as a natural phenomenon.Natural phenomenas are not omnipresent and omnipotent.They have characteristics.Traits imply differences therefore limits.
@asasasarap -you think that this video is making an unjustified jump from mathematics to possibilities, or, put another way, from probabilistic to coincidental-specific?
On to your questions:
1) None. If it's deterministic then it's not probabilistic. It's never both, with the possible exception of inclusions, such that when life can happen, determinism dictates that it WILL happen, but it will probably be adapted to environmental conditions. This is probability inside determinism. From this, we
@Ital21 First my answer.I agree that the existence of god is not a case of percentage.This does not mean it is either a case of personal faith.If it does exist (an omnipotent creator of everything else)whether some one believes in it or not does not change this.(its existence).so the leap is unjustifiable and flawed,it's not a matter of personal faith.the same goes with the opposite.The coincidence objection was for the other video.
@asasasarap Just so we're clear on the exact statement in the video, are you referring to what's stated in about 2:48? Or are you referring to what's stated in another particular time?
I want to be very very clear as to where it is that this video states what you say it states. I want to correctly identify when this video states that faith can act, as you say, as a validator or invalidator of a god, so I can look at that argument myself and see what you are seeing.
@asasasarap -can reasonably conclude, that life, since we've seen it arise twice on earth already, WILL arise a 3rd time if an extinction event occurs, because either no full taxonomic extinction happens, or because the most basal organisms survive. If you take a no-life event and find the proper conditions, you can reasonably assert that life will arise. This is why we can reasonably assert there is life in other planets but we can't affirm how that life adapts or looks like. Now to the 2nd ---
@asasasarap -part of your question. How does it affect fate? Well, I'd ask 1st: why should it? And what is fate in this context? Is fate a prediction of the future? Is fate a preconceived plan? If so, what plan? Who made it? How do you assert it?
For instance, predicting is science's house specialty given reasonable conditions. As an example I could reasonably cite that, along all of 2011, 10 new species of arthropods will be found by science. How is this reasonable? 1st of all, arthropods --
@Ital21 'how it affects fate'.A deterministic world is an inevitable world in every aspect.The number of people that you will meet tomorrow in the street,the name of your grand grand grand children,the weather in 5000 years,the time and way of every death,every thought every action,every feeling,all events,everything is written on a book of inevitable fate.There is no free will.There is no point in trying.Thee is nothing that can change.There is NO DECISION.
@asasasarap No. That's carrying the criteria of "deterministic" too far. All the examples you mention are, 1st of all, scarcely applicable to the same criteria, and 2nd, are to some degree a product of an intelligent society that has transcended nature. Deterministic results only apply to prior states coming directly from nature. Life arising is a natural result, which is deterministic, given the prior states required to give rise to it. It's NOT a preconceived plan OR fate, because those two--
@asasasarap -concepts don't apply to natural elements. You don't say "that river was fated to disappear", you say "that river was bound to disappear given the advancing desert-like climate to which that region is prone". Or some other influencing agent. You also don't say of a wild animal something like "that zebra was fated or planned to be hunted down by that lioness", because there's a number of natural elements in play that have had to be in place for that hunt to occur. Neither the lioness-
@asasasarap -nor the zebra in my example are rational beings. They are irrational animals. They have primitive societies, if any, and at best belong to packs and groups. You can't say they are even inclined to fate or plans. It's instinctive behavior adapted through the ages.
The same can be said of natural processes. Would you say the earth was fated to develop tectonic plates? Or an atmosphere? No. That would be applying personal views, none of which are supported by science. Again, this is--
@asasasarap -determinism at work. So to say the weather in 5000 years or a particular person's given name or time and circumstances of death are "determined" IS saying that it's actually fated. Determinism doesn't work like that. That's an incorrect interpretation. A person's name can be said to be deterministic regarding, for example, his geographical situation. A girl born in México is propense to be named "María". In the USA or England, it's "Mary". In Israel, it'd be "Myriam". Would you say-
@Ital21 Hello again.Well I have to explain my view on determinism a bit more.My argument is specific.If you hit a snooker ball with sertain power and angle on an ideally cut to the molecule shaped table with ideal cut to the molecule balls in ideal conditions ...isn't it logical that there is only one possible outcome in a deterministic world?If a force makes a big bang and the world of energy matter and physical laws begins isn't it logical that you also have one and only outcome?
@asasasarap Since you say "your view", can you at least accept that "your view" might be a little divergent from what the word determinism actually applies to?
I mean, I have been basing myself on definitions. Have you looked up 'determinism' in any dictionary so as to adhere to the correct meaning in your assumptions?
Your analogy for the slicing of a ball in "a deterministic world" is flawed in some areas. I really don't want to type here anymore, though. It's a bit stressing to explain stuff.
@Ital21 I looked for a definition of determinism and my assumtions are crystal clear accurate logic.I think it would be a good idea for you as well to check what the definition of a deterministic world is.Actually I think today most physicist don't believe anyway in a deterministic world.Isn't that rignt?
@Ital21 You are not even validating.You either don't understand or shut your ears to what I say and respond by reflex with tons of words,and references.I can discern real complexity from tons of words.We're not getting anywhere because you don't even understand what I'm saying.You have no real argument.
@asasasarap There's no understanding what you're saying because you are NOT saying anything!
What are you saying? Cuz just now, you introduced "complexity". Are you arguing from complexity?
Don't confuse yourself. I'm asking for evidence of what you say. Studies, pictures, working models, ANYTHING. And when you provide none, instead of admitting it, you go ad hominem.
Very nice. The true attitude of an indoctrinate douche.
@Ital21 I think indeed it would be useful to show my comments to a colleague of yours because you seem to be unable to understand plain simple and direct statements.It would be useful and cool to have a credible argument but you seem unable to understand the whole subject.No offence but I'm amazed by this fact.Anyway
@asasasarap "I think indeed it would be useful to show my comments to a colleague of yours because you seem to be unable to understand plain simple and direct statements."
I don't think so. In fact, I think it would be a waste of time to show your comments to anyone else.
I'm done saying what I had to say. I debunked your claims, I showed your opinion of this video carries no weight, and I backed myself up with evidence and sources. Whereas, you did nothing of the sort. QED.
@asasasarap "It would be useful and cool to have a credible argument but you seem unable to understand the whole subject."
The whole subject is you trying to undermine this video and anyone who advocates it with nothing but your opinion and biased conclusions, based on 0 evidence.
That's the subject I've tried.
I also said I have no problem with your questions, and I answered them politely and accurately, WITH sources and evidence backing me up.
@asasasarap "you seem unable to understand the whole subject.No offence but I'm amazed by this fact"
Well, nice going. You've gone passive-aggressive (again) on someone better educated than yourself out of spite and out of resentment for being asked questions.
THIS is what amazes me from someone who claims to be objective and to have a sound argument.
I've analyzed your argument and it does have rationality behind it. That I EVEN GRANTED to you. But the questions I asked in KEY points--
@asasasarap -of your argument remain unanswered. I asked plentifully for an explanation of the reasoning behind your thoughts on determinism and a deterministic world and how they were substantiated in reality, and you not only DIDN'T answer, now you attacked me and implied I lack understanding.
I could've done that move on you over a week ago, dismissing you out of calling you uneducated and just not informed in physics, astronomy, and science in general, which I've shown I am. And I didn't. I-
@asasasarap -kept a cool tone. I kept entertaining you idea on determinism and why it overrides causality and free will, asked questions regarding your evidence or a study or HECK AT THIS POINT I'd take a damn philosopher... and you came back with nothing.
I'm done being polite. I answered your questions, I gave you sources, science backs me up, and I'm done entertaining your ridiculous idea of what nature and determinism are.
@asasasarap -all those 3 names are the same? Would you say they're "fated"? No. They're bound by culture, education, socio-economical status AND region. That's the prior conditions determinism adheres to. But the ultimate decision? That rests with the girl's parents. Or an orphanage. Or the warring faction. Or whatever the political situation of the region allows. Determinism has NOTHING to say about those final factors. That would be saying too much.
@Ital21 Please don't answer until i say full stop because after usually some paragraphs u tube says it cant show the comments and a try again message appears.
@asasasarap And also, if you're looking for a place to have more freedom from these 500-chr boxes, why are you still posting?
Did you decide on something? did you find a forum like I suggested?
I mean so far I don't really detest YT's answer boxes, but there are better things, and I would appreciate the change.
Or was that not true?
I'm kindda hoping we're done. I mean you have some ideas, but they're far from realistic. If you want to philosophize, I'm probly not your best 1st online choice.
@Ital21 Nomatter how many almost infinite factors interract in a deterministic universe,the result can be only one.And it doesn't die if you cut its head off l.o.l.And not only can it be only one.It's determined (pre determined from the start of everything).There is no other way for the snooker balls unless by the word deterministic you mean something else.
@asasasarap "Nomatter how many almost infinite factors interract in a deterministic universe,the result can be only one."
No, because you're utilizing an absolute criteria in a non-absolute universe. To put it in another way, you're saying that things that don't fit the definition of determinism are also deterministic, and that's the flaw in your logic. I'm a bit tired of entertaining the ideas you're trying to assert.
Why don't you open up a thread in some forum or something?
@asasasarap -my example of the animal. They're bound by their condition, this is true, but they're also relatively free. This is true even of humans. Would you kill your kin? Even if you were taught no morals, there's a biological leash holding you back, unless there's a rare pathological condition that overrides it, such as the hypocampus does to the pituitary gland. This is true even if the attempt was to kill yourself. Or have sex with your little sister. Or steal. Or cheat. You CAN override-
@asasasarap your biological leash, but only because that's a human condition, present in almost no other creature on earth with the exception of other members of the Great Apes family.
So to say determinism overrides free will and decision-making is a stretch, as determinism precedes free will much like existence precedes essence. But it is through free will, essence, that we came to define existence.
Yup.
I can philosophize too. :)
Without our free will to learn, we wouldn't have found out what
We're bound by our planet as a species. This is true. It's deterministic. We're free to do what we will to this planet, this is free decision-making.
There is no paranormal involved in any of those two cases. Parapsychology has nothing to say of either, since both of those occurrences happen in nature.
This is what I mean when I say that there's no such 'fate' liking us or anything to anything. Fate is wishful thinking turned divine, in my eyes.
@asasasarap -account for about 80% of all the species known to exist on earth. There's more of them than there will ever be of us. So by scouting unlikely environments and hostile parts of the planet, we can find organisms that adapted through evolution and made their niche in the most unlikely places. This is fact. And we find new species EVERY year. This is also fact. As an example, I can point you to the species.asu.edu webpage and ask you to click on SOS report. You'll find the statistics-
@asasasarap -for the new species that were found in the referred year. Click on 2010. You'll see charts and statistics on tens of thousands of new species found... Just in 2010!! To me, that's amazing, and it's one of the reasons that I'd call biology my 2nd calling. It's true scientific beauty.
But on to the numbers.
If you reason that just last year, 18,225 new species in all taxonomic classes were found, bringing the earth's total to 1,922,710 species, and about 80% of those are of the --
@asasasarap Arthropod species, would it be reasonable to assert that in 2011 at least 10 new arthropods will be found?
Yes, it would. That's a more than reasonable proyection, as the actual number will likely be closer to 10,000.
How is this fate? Is it fated that humans classify all life? No, that'd be unreasonable, since we're only looking at about 4% or 5% of all the species that have ever inhabited the earth. Can we assert an extinction event from these numbers? Also no, since to do that,--
@asasasarap we'd have to look at other data, like observing the skies for extraterrestrial masses, sun spots to predict solar flares, and the political situation of our society, since man can destroy himself nowadays.
So to say probability "wins" over fate is the wrong perspective. Probability is a reasonable approach. Fate is a prediction that has no bearing in observable data but is asserted nonetheless. I don't think fate is more than wishful thinking, so I can't quantify it nor compare it.
2 Of or relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind;
tangible or concrete;
*pleasant physical environments*
*physical assets such as houses or cars*
of or relating to physics or the operation of natural forces generally;
*physical laws*
I argue from the 2nd definition more than I do from the 1st. Air is physical. Humans are physical. The earth and the universe are observable and physical. This is fact. I argue from fact, and it's study, which is science.
@Ital21 Now about the physical.Can you define a direct logical way to discern something physical from something imaginary?An indirect way is to witness and predict the behaviour pattern and the coherence of the experience.(It's what we do all our waking life)My question this time is a really dire question.Appart from the cohesion,is there a logically discernible quality diferrence between dreaming a ball and seeing a ball?
@Ital21 The big problem is that the result of our sences is as much imaginary as fantasy.(whether or not it is more objective)A red hot ball would not be eitner red nor hot nor ball without the depiction with which the brain fantasises it.Yes exactly.The little detail no one tells.Red hot balls and blue cold cubes do not exist apart of us or creatures that perceive like us.They are images created by our mind in order to interract with the outside world.
@asasasarap "The big problem is that the result of our sences is as much imaginary as fantasy."
Can you prove this? I'm requesting evidence.
"A red hot ball would not be eitner red nor hot nor ball without the depiction with which the brain fantasises it."
Without resorting to fantasy, I can tell you that spectra and wavelengths are heavily monitored in the ultraviolet sequence of hydrogen lines and various infrared sequences, so that we know that the colors we observe MEAN something specific.
@Ital21 You do resort to fantasy everytime you think or experience or feel.Consiousness cannot be defined through anything.It's conciousness that defines everything in the most fundamental base(wheather or not a more or less objective world/s exist).Proof?Tell me what defines conciousness without indirectly at the same time resorting(you or it) to conciousness in itself,as the fundamental element and ground for the definition?
@asasasarap -preconceived perspectives are not something I'm willing to engage anyone on unless they part from a substantial amount of fame from their life-long work OR have advocated and acknowledge a study that backs them up intellectually. So far, you're neither. It's not personal, it's just the way it is with me.
So consciousness is what sentient beings exhibit. That's my take on it, and I'm sticking to it. It's not "consciousness about consciousness" that defines everything else. It's --
@Ital21 You are not backing anything intellectually.You are just making endless references to books.I do back my claims,you don't.It would indeed be enough to put in some sentences however complicated it is but you don't.
@asasasarap "...anything intellectually.You are just making endless references to books.I do back my claims,you don't.It would indeed be enough to put in some sentences however complicated it is but you don't."
How exactly are you backing up your claims? Can you at least tell me that?
Where is your evidence? I've asked this question to you PLENTY of times and I STILL haven't had an answer. Books are an excellent back up.
Do ANY books back up your notions on the imaginary bearing on the real?
@asasasarap --observation, documentation, repeated usage, and utility that do. Of course, you need sentient beings to be able to do that. Recall "if you wish to make an apple pie, you must first create the universe" ??
And AGAIN, we're back to determinism preceding consciousness, since without the rise of intelligence on earth, irrational animals can only get insofar as to be aware of their individuality and needs and those of the group. Everything else: advances, science, society... out of the
To even assume intelligence, thus consciousness to be aware and to define what's observed, you must first find it. Yes, we're stellar dust looking at itself. How is this outside of the universe's naturalistic capabilities? How is consciousness the proof? Consciousness is a result, and one of many. It's scarcely impressive by itself, and if it were a means to it's own end, then the universe would be a very boring place. Eyeball earths and black holes just-
@asasasarap -exchanging matter. Planck distances... deterministically disabled regarding discovery. No progress to acknowledge or to cling to and construct more on top of. No intelligent awareness. What would be the worth of philosophizing about that? What conscious decisions and appreciations could be taken without intelligent life to document and record and solve problems?
Saying that consciousness is bound only by consciousness as though a supreme design or fate could be concluded from it --
@asasasarap -is a downright flawed path of intellect, since there's no way to assert that consciousness was 1st aware to as to propagate itself. That's just the "argument from complexity" mixed up with the "argument from wonder". It's still philosophizing. It's still biased and very particular. Hardly a path to illumination.
Also, consciousness is not an element. It's a result of sentient beings. If I followed this argument, I'd be stuck in circular logic.
@asasasarap So to end this train of thought: no, we don't fantasize every time we think. That's a generalization, and you'd need proof to get that to fly in the real world.
The senses keep us grounded. Count on it. If you couldn't count on it, how'd you answer this message? ;D
@asasasarap "The big problem is that the result of our sences is as much imaginary as fantasy."
THIS IS THE PROBLEM IN YOUR ARGUMENT.
In case you didn't get it from my "complex" sentences.
Reality is not imaginary or fantasy. You're arguing this from a perspective that, because humans see science through their brains, and their brains can have perception through senses AND imagination, then science can and is imaginary.
WRONG.
DEAD WRONG.
I don't even need to invalidate you. It's evident.
@Ital21 I challenge you to show my coments to your colleages if you truly have(at least they will have the brain for a debate.).I don't know how the heck you got into university you do NOT look like a smart person and I'm personally dissapointed if this unintellectual crap of your arguments comes from a real scientist.We're done as well.Any smart person that will read our dialogue will make his conclusions.Believe what you want.I don't give a damn for your sheer stupidity.
@asasasarap "you do NOT look like a smart person and I'm personally dissapointed if this unintellectual crap of your arguments comes from a real scientist."
Lol proyect-onto-me much?
Buddy, in this exchange of ideas, you're the irrational one. I've evidenced every claim I made with evidence and backed up further claims with sources and bibliography that backs me up.
Did you?
NO. You didn't. You have NOTHING backing you up. Only baseless assumptions. You even stated this. You stated you're ---
Note also that natural selection is not innovative. All it can do is to select for and thereby preserve current (or improved) existing function. So where do the improvements and innovations come from? Random mutations. This means that UNTIL such innovations can be generated from RANDOM mutations, then natural selection is incapable of guiding evolution TOWARDS functional innovation that doesn't yet exist. This isn't controversial, but like the Monte Hall dilemma, it's usually overlooked.
tubewatch59 6 months ago
@tubewatch59 Wow, you sure have rambled on about nothing.By the way Doug Axe's published papers had nothing to do with evolution. Lets see, the theorum of evolution is the most proven theorum in all of science. More then 250,000 published, peer reviewed, verified papers have been written on it, in 150 years. Yet you say you can disprove it, please post the published (main stream media), peer reviewed, verified paper that does this.
wizard970 6 months ago
@wizard970
Doug Axe's published papers seem to do the job nicely enough. But do read Axe's latest article: "The case against a Darwinian origin of protein folds" if you want the details on why this work concerns evolution. I didn't ramble on about nothing, I rambled about something that seems to have you on the defensive, a challenge to the "most proven theorem in all of science". Can you can site a published (main stream media), peer reviewed, verified paper that refutes this challenge?
tubewatch59 6 months ago
@tubewatch59 By the way, a great copy and paste job. But I would like to see the paper that will rock all of science. And in case you di not know, Axle works for the Discovery Institute.
wizard970 6 months ago
@wizard970
(By the way, if you really want to check if my ramble was a copy and paste job, just pick out some sentences from it, and do a google search. If I have copied and pasted my comments, you'll easily be able to find out where I got them from.)
tubewatch59 6 months ago
@tubewatch59 Even though it was published, it has yet to be peer reviewed. As I understand it, this particular paper was not published. His published works have nothing to do with it. Both of us will have to wait and see where it goes. I stand corrected, it was an original ramble.
wizard970 6 months ago
@wizard970
Axe's published papers have "nothing to do with it"? Axe (their author) disagrees. But he explains why people say that. If he'd openly written that proteins likely cannot evolve, and thus their origin may even require design, then I'd bet that his estimated odds for protein origin by evolution, would have seemed positively likely in comparison to the probability of gettting those papers published! :-) To be published in this climate, you CANNOT even hint you may support ID.
tubewatch59 6 months ago
@wizard970
But you are quite correct, this work is somewhat new although I recall that other scientists have come up with similar results in the past to Axe's. I think many people on both sides of the discussion are waiting to see what happens in this area.
tubewatch59 6 months ago
@tubewatch59 It seems it was published in a second rate journal, at best. It has already been disproved.
To summarize, the claims that have been and will be made by ID proponents regarding protein evolution are not supported by Axe’s work. As I show, it is not appropriate to use the numbers Axe obtains to make inferences about the evolution of proteins and enzymes. Cont.
wizard970 6 months ago
@tubewatch59 Cont. Thus, this study does not support the conclusion that functional sequences are extremely isolated in sequence space, or that the evolution of new protein function is an impossibility that is beyond the capacity of random mutation and natural selection. This is only one of many papers that disprove this. The paper you quote is very old, wanna try again?
wizard970 6 months ago
@wizard970
"This is only one of many papers that disprove this."
This comes I believe from Art Hunt's blog entry in the Panda's Thumb about Axe's 2004 papers. I know that Axe responded to that. There has been some to and froing on this work. I'll look up both of them and comment tomorrow. I have to go right now.
tubewatch59 6 months ago
@tubewatch59 Actually the original paper is 2004. There have been many papers written on it. All criticize his not using scientific methods to conduct the experiment. He purposely mutated the protein then changed the temperature, so the result would come out the way it did. That is why it was not published in main stream media. It seems most other creationists have let this one go as being totally not supportive of the cause.
wizard970 5 months ago
@wizard970
The Hunt article criticized Axe's experimental procedure in using a TEM enzyme with a starting functionality considerably less than the wild type, because Hunt assumed that this approach would produce a lesser than normal resistance to mutations, thus Hunt summized that the resistance to mutations on the wild type "robust" TEM enzyme would show results far more favourable to evolution than Axe's 10^-77 results. ie. A much larger functional to nonfunctional ratio than 1 in 10^-77.
tubewatch59 5 months ago
@wizard970
Hunt put it this way in his Panda's thumb article:
"Because Axe measured mutational sensitivity from a weakly functional starting sequence rather than the fully functional natural enzyme, the mutants he generated were inappropriately disadvantaged, and this is why he arrived at such a low value for the prevalence of functional sequences."
But Hunt didn't design the experiment and could be excused for getting the wrong idea about the effect of the less robust start sequence...
tubewatch59 5 months ago
@wizard970
Axe points out that contrary to what seems obvious to Hunt (and the rest of us for that matter!), it's actually the case that if the robust wild type TEM enzyme were to be used as the starting sequence, then evaluations of the tolerance to mutations on this robustness of TEM function (which must be made to a comparable standard of functionality in order for any estimates to be meaningful) turn out to be far less tolerated, than in the more weakly functional version that Axe used!
tubewatch59 5 months ago
In other words, Axe's estimates turn out to be MORE favourable than they would otherwise have been if he had used the typical highly functional TEM protein as his starting point. In the short term of course, that would have produced ratios far smaller than even 1 in 10^77 which would seem even better for our side - that is until a clever scientist figures out that in order to properly evaluate this kind of a question, a weakly functional (rather than a robust) initial protein should be used.
tubewatch59 5 months ago
You'll be wanting to read why yourself of course as my explanation wasn't even close to being detailed enough to explain what Axe was trying to say. So look up in a search engine the article entitled: "Correcting Four Misconceptions about my 2004 Article in JMB — May 4th, 2011 by Douglas Axe".
As to your evaluation that we creationists are backing away from Axe's 2004 paper - thinking it not supportive of our cause - well, no we aren't. Why did you think that we were backing away from it?
tubewatch59 5 months ago
In addition, another point in the Hunt paper worthy of mention is his comment on backwards versus forwards protein functional pathways. He claims that in a backwards calculation we see a rare result because we are testing just one function, rather than the many more that can take place in a forwards calculation. But forwards experiments while generating many more simple / crude protein functions that have some function, cannot generate the functions neccessary to perform specific tasks.
tubewatch59 5 months ago
For example, I can do a backwards calculation, that estimates that there are ~ 40 graduate students that might be suitable to be employed in a particular research group that are working on advanced propulsion systems.
Now, a forwards calculation may find that starting with preschoolers, we can expect to see ~ 80000 students will perform well enough to be employable in SOME kind of job.
Yes, but of those ~ 80000 employable students, only 40 (not 80000) could be well employed in propulsion.
tubewatch59 5 months ago
The point is that while we do see that most people going to school can get jobs, we also find that those capable of carrying out complex sophisticated research for example, are fairly rare.
Axe's estimates of the prevalence of protein function (along with similar function estimates from other scientists) are showing that these kinds of protein functions (to say nothing of the far more sophisticated multi-protein machines) are well beyond the capabilities of the Darwinian process to deliver.
tubewatch59 5 months ago
@tubewatch59 Just like all the other creationists, you write a lot, but say nothing. At the bottom of the pandas thumb article you will find an appendix of published(main stream), peer reviewed, verified papers that prove this is a non scientific experiment. It has been dis-proven so much most creationists are giving it a wide berth. So you still have not posted the paper you said you could. The published(main stream media), peer reviewed paper that disproved evolution.
wizard970 5 months ago
@wizard970
Axe answered Hunt's objection. You don't have anything to say about that, so you're resorting to the argument from authority. Peer pressure isn't science. So what about Axe's response? I doubt it would matter what Axe said, as long as he is suggesting that evolution as we now understand it cannot explain the origin of proteins, you'd oppose what he was saying. You should try to comprehend what Axe is saying in response to Hunt. Did you understand what Hunt was saying?
tubewatch59 5 months ago
@tubewatch59 The science was sloppy, the conclusions were wrong, it is a pitiful piece of work. The only one I see praising it is Axe. He has to or he would be berried in criticism.
wizard970 5 months ago
@wizard970
On the contrary, Axe's paper is one of an increasing number that support the same conclusions. Evolutionists must agree that a given protein function is rare. There isn't really anyway around that. What they're trying to argue now is that it isn't isolated in sequence space. In other words many of the very rare sequences in configuration space are clustered near to each other, thus (they hope) being reachable via gradual evolutionary steps. Art Hunt discusses this point...
tubewatch59 5 months ago
By the way, the fact that evolution ISN'T LOOKING TO FIND ANYTHING does not resolve any of these problems. I mention that rather obvious fact because quite often when I mention that the likelihood that evolution could manage to come across the various functional (and very rare) protein sequences in use in the cell, people will often point out that since evolution wasn't looking for these sequences in the first place, then that somehow explains the problem. (That doesn't make too much sense.)
tubewatch59 6 months ago
Doug Axe's article entitled "The case against a Darwinian origin of protein folds" reviews work showing that functional sequences do not occur often enough in protein sequence space for evolution to be able to find them often enough in the time available (hundreds of millions to billions of years).
We then infer that ID provides the capability to find such rare entities via the use of cognitive function, rather than mere trial and error folding of all selection criteria into overall fitness.
tubewatch59 6 months ago
Evolution is mindless, thus can't directly generate meaningful sequences, it can (sometimes) recognize meaning in sequences when such appears via random mutations (equivalent to a random search through sequence space) and sometimes these will be automatically flagged by natural selection due to the fitness they can sometimes improve (better adaption (by chance) to the environment).
So is the density of meaningful sequences in sequence space high enough for evolution to find them often enough?
tubewatch59 6 months ago
The relevance to evolution is that intelligences know how to write meaningful text, but mindless automatons don't (unless they have been programmed to do so by intelligences) know how to write meaningful text. Evolution however is an automaton that is often (but not always, perhaps not often) capable of recognizing meaning (in the form of organismal fitness). But evolution is not an automaton capable of directly generating meaningful sequences (such as proteins or paragraphs) like we can...
tubewatch59 6 months ago
But what if many people were picking up many needles from a haystack? In that case, it is more likely that we don't just have a stack of hay, but that we have a stack of hay and needles all mixed together.
But with functional proteins, science is telling us of late that such kinds of entities are rare, in a similar way that meaningful written paragraphs of a story are rare. There are many ways to write some meaningful paragraph, but there many many more ways to churn out meaningless text.
tubewatch59 6 months ago
So being able to find needles in a haystack is quite different than picking out a piece of hay from a haystack. The difference is clear. We would in that case be finding something that is truly rare, not speciously assuming that we have worked some miracle by picking up something mundane and believeing it to be extraordinary. If you find a needle in a haystack, you really have just experienced something like a miracle, because you likely won't ever experience such a thing again.
tubewatch59 6 months ago
So if WE are looking to obtain a functional protein (EVOLUTION isn't looking to do anthing of the sort, but put that fact aside for the moment) we can only do so by successfully picking one of the relatively very few (few compared to the number of nonfunctional sequences) amino acid sequences that can code for biologically functional proteins. So functional proteins become the small scattering of needles in a vast haystack. That they're functional proteins, gives them a pre-specification...
tubewatch59 6 months ago
You make some very good points. However there are cases where such probability arguments are justified. The main example I have come across is the difficulties related to protein evolution. Unlike the examples of picking up a sandgrain from a beach, and retrospectively claiming such a (mundane) choice to be astronomically improbable, in the cases of proteins, it appears to be the case that functional proteins form a very very small subset of potential proteins that are nonfunctional...
tubewatch59 6 months ago
I like a lot your videos and the reasoning behind them. Its indeed a good thing to clear unfundamented arguments. However, attacking others beliefs often leads to reinforcing them, since believes are usually based on values, not specificly on logic. Therefore, your videos may have the opposite effect you are looking for; as Daniel Dennet stated in a video about the evolution of religion, "it might be easier to tolerate it to death" (he was talking on a possibility of how religion could disappear
PerceptionES 6 months ago
wasnt this in the movie 21?
IGNsucks 6 months ago
I explained this to a christian (32 y.o.) and she told me I am ignorant and have much to learn about the world (I was 17)....
bobjoemagee 6 months ago
@bobjoemagee I told a christian woman god doesnt exist. she then said science was bullshit............as she talked on her cell phone, oh the irony.
IGNsucks 6 months ago
fantastic video. very smart and well put. I'm a christian and I really appreciate keeping any bias out of the video. I learned something new today. :3
razorman777 6 months ago
The familly picture, where the baby pops to existence, is just hilarious. I think you got the expression just right.
Bishop38f8 7 months ago
@Bishop38f8 and why are they smoking?
Fluffitra 6 months ago
@Fluffitra Because they just had sex.
shagoosty 6 months ago
@shagoosty why does smoking mean THAT????
Fluffitra 6 months ago
@Fluffitra People commonly smoke after having sex. In movies and TV shows (generally for commedy) it is an easy way to show that two people have just done the nasty.
shagoosty 6 months ago
@shagoosty poor baby's gonna get second hand smoke....
Fluffitra 6 months ago
@Fluffitra It was for commedic effect, how the baby comes into existance right after conception. Plus the baby was animated. I'm pretty sure this video isn't condoning smoking around new born babies.
shagoosty 6 months ago
@shagoosty good. or i would be quite disturbed
Fluffitra 6 months ago
If there are 2 doors and 1 has a car behind it, your chances of guessing which door is 50/50. Period. The disclosure of the wrong door is completely irrelevant to the odds remaining. If you roll a die 100 times and don't get a 6, the chances of a 6 on the next roll are still 1/6, the previous rolls are irrelevant. Sorry Qualia, you seem smart, but you are wrong on this one.
540merlin 7 months ago
@540merlin Google "Monty Hall Problem" and look at any of the links. Better yet, write down every possible situation that can occur (there should be 18 total) and count the number of times you win if you stay vs. if you switch. Also rolling a die is a completely different situation because it's a "replacement" condition (as you described). The door being opened is "without replacement" because once it's done, it sticks forever (kind of like a working gene).
klutterkicker 7 months ago
@klutterkicker Wow. I see the error of my ways. My brain hurts.
540merlin 7 months ago
@540merlin
shagoosty 6 months ago
To help explain the Monty Hall Dilemma, think about it this way. When you choose one of three doors you have a 1/3 chance of choosing the car which is behind one of the doors. Now one wrong door is revealed. You have the option of choosing to switch or not. The odds of winning if you don't switch remain 1/3, the odds of winning if you do switch? There remain only two options, switch or not. Well what's the remainder of 1 - 1/3? Your chance of winning just jumped to 2/3 for switching!
CasualTS 7 months ago
@CasualTS If you repeat this experiment very often, does switching indeed lead to a 1/3 increase in wins?
BaileysBeads 7 months ago
@BaileysBeads Of course! Otherwise it wouldn't be very interesting. As a game show contestant, if you always switch when it's offered, the only way to lose is if you pick the car on your first try (1/3 chance). So you have a 1/3 chance of losing, which requires you to have a 2/3 chance of winning.
CasualTS 7 months ago
mind=blown
zbere300 7 months ago
Apparently, there is a greater-than-zero chance that a goat is a car.
kujmous 7 months ago
subbed
Thunderios 8 months ago
like 1 in a hundred. more like 1 in a million.
so your saying theres a chance!
mboundtogether 8 months ago
fuck all yo people
vtjakiela 8 months ago
@vtjakiela why because you cant prove you are rigth?
AIRFORCEismyfuture 7 months ago
@AIRFORCEismyfuture hey does your momma still got uh werms crawling outta her pussy?
vtjakiela 7 months ago
@vtjakiela Is this what society has come to? stupid dumfucks making the most idiotic responses instead of having a normal 1 on 1 conversations, well no my mom aint got no worms out her pussy but you should cherck yourself, you idiotic piece of raped saggin' pussy shit
AIRFORCEismyfuture 7 months ago
@AIRFORCEismyfuture oh you god damned stupid son of a bitch you. Hey let me tell you how i feel: FUCK YOU
vtjakiela 7 months ago
@vtjakiela so god damned me?! HA! who cares how you feel not even your parents apparently, Im not wasting my time on such people like you
AIRFORCEismyfuture 7 months ago
@AIRFORCEismyfuture Well, you'll probably be getting a visit from the visit from the FBI buddy. Just keep commenting and you'll see.
vtjakiela 7 months ago
@vtjakiela just shut up for the sake of every one
AIRFORCEismyfuture 7 months ago
@AIRFORCEismyfuture now listen you stupid son of a bitch, i aint never commented on you before and god dammit you, bitch about every third day to comment me so FUCK YOU
vtjakiela 7 months ago
A key point in understanding the 3 doors is that the host never opens the door the contestant chose, whether or not the car is behind that door.
TheMerlinOfAR 8 months ago in playlist Critical Thinking
@TheMerlinOfAR He also never opens the door that the car is behind, period. It is his acting on his knowledge of where the car is that changes the probabilities.
brianpv1 6 months ago
You should mention the assumption that Monte must always reveal a goat. And that Monte knows what's behind which door. then the problem is easy to understand. Half the time, Monte has a choice but half the time he does not .
henrybird 8 months ago
But how could picking one chance instead of another be right? You also said ''there's still a 2/3 chance in the car being behind one of the doors you didn't choose'' - there used to be, but evidently there no longer is because it was shown that it isn't so. By saying that the chance hasn't increased, it sounds like you're saying the location of the car can't be falsified or something?
While I otherwise as usual agree with the video in itself, I'd like some in-depth on that scenario! thanks.
menaname123 8 months ago
@menaname123
The odds remain 2/3 against you because absolutely nothing in the scenario has changed. There are still three doors, two of them still contain goats, the third still contains the car. The new information given to you wasn't new at all; you already knew one of the two doors you didn't choose would have a goat, and one such door was shown to you. The scenario is the same, the information is the same, the outcome is the same, thus the probability is the same.
SeruQuik 8 months ago
@SeruQuik
So what makes it better to pick a particular decision out of staying or swapping? you have absolutely nothing but pure chance to go on, so you know... how can you actually determine what pure chance is better than the other pure chance?
menaname123 8 months ago
I mentally nod my head in agreement with all your videos, they put what's in my head into words. But the car doors grabbed my curiosity. I'm reviewing it as I write it and it feels like something is wrong with it. Probability in this case seems like a very abstract concept. I mean you have 3 doors, he pulls up one, now that decreases the amount of doors from 3 to 2 - how can you possibly predict what door the car is in? reminds me of another video of yours with guessing the contents of a box.
menaname123 8 months ago
I'v watched three of your videos, and have found them to be very well made, logical to your way of thinking, and well presented. Bravo! Especially when one considers that most videos on Youtube are not as well done. But,why do you bother to make them? What point are you trying to make? Are you trying to lead others to your way of thinking because you believe that if everyone thought as you do the world would be a better place? I'm not saying you shouldn't make them, I'm just wondering why you do
diyogee 8 months ago
Woah, the Monty Hall dilemma blew my mind. Math is awesome.
KayBeeEee1983 8 months ago
Only a sith uses absolutes.
WhiteCrazyPeople 9 months ago
winning
SkysBlues34 9 months ago
winning
SkysBlues34 9 months ago
Where can i learn about the math problem, i seriously suck at math and have no idea about what he was talking about.
panadesu 9 months ago
@panadesu Wikipdeia Monty Hall Problem
sangokuu231 9 months ago
@panadesu Say you pick door 1 which is 1 in 3, at least one of the other doors has nothing behind it (100% chance) maybe both have nothing(33.3% chance). They eliminate one of the 3 doors so now it is 50-50 behind which remaining door has the car but but you picked door 1 while it was a 33% chance(If you picked door 2 a 50-50% chance door 1 would show nothing) If you knew nothing about previously picking door one, it would be a 50% chance to you instead of 33.3% but you know door left is 50%.
tryithere 9 months ago
I felt like an idiot the first time I was given this puzzle.
CrazyBluePrime 9 months ago
How many pages of these narcissistic keyboard-jockey's arguments are there?? I just wanted to find out how to win on Let's Make a Deal and get Wayne Brady's autograph. :D
ccon96 9 months ago
"Showing a clear lack of awareness of the probabilities involved"
Hell, I must have watched and rewatched that scene more times than I can count and I still don't understand the Monty Hall Dilemma. Nice video though.
gdf40 10 months ago
Marilyn vos Savant explained using a chart why it's better to switch, and on a knowledge level I know that it's correct, but I've still never fully comprehended why… XD No one's ever explained it in a way that I really "get it". :P
VannahWilson 10 months ago
His second calculation of odds is built on an unknown. You cannot figure odds using unknown data. After the goat is revealed, the question is really 'What door do you pick?' Your odds are the same as someone who walks into the room after the first door is revealed and does not know your choice.
stiltmeister 11 months ago
@stiltmeister It is not unkown data.The host always reveals the goat and not deliberately at the same time reveals 66/100 the position of the car.Imagine the 100 box example whith the 98 opened goat doors.You will understand it then.
asasasarap 11 months ago
@stiltmeister Let's go through all the possibilities:
You choose door 1. The car is in door 1. Host opens a random door of the two remaining. You switch. You lose.
Choose door 1 again, the car is in door 2. The host opens door 3, as he cannot open the door with the car. You switch, you win.
You choose door 1. The car is in door 3. The host opens door 2 for the same reason as before. You switch, you win.
See? In 2 of the 3 positions the car is in, you would win if you switch.
TheMoriMaster 11 months ago
Flawed logic.If god is something countable then it is finite.Something infinite cannot be counted.Guys stop abusing logic in order to make it universal..it's a human calculating tool and probably nothing more than that.
asasasarap 11 months ago
@asasasarap This statement clearly evidences that you dont know probability and math. If it's countable then it's infinite and thus not countable?
The infinite is countable. The number is infinite. It doesn't mean incomprehensible, it just means that equating it to other numbers makes it very very large.
What you argue for god is unevident and mathematics is not a tool to aid you in your case, unless you use it fallaciously like you did.
This video clearly shows "god" as not included in numbers.
Ital21 10 months ago
@Ital21 Nope,infinite is not something very very large.Infinite is larger than any number.Infinite things cannot be counted and compared to any size.They don't have a measurable size.They are infinite.As sometimes is the stupidity of some people.
asasasarap 10 months ago
@asasasarap Nope. In physical systems the number "infinite" does not mean unimaginable, like you say your god is. In nature and physics and in reality, an "infinite" number is a number so large that counting it would be a waste of time, therefore we treat it as unending. For example, the amount of air in the earth is not infinite, but the number is very large so that any physical system that requires air to work, in say, thermodynamics, would consider it infinite, as it is an amount large enough
Ital21 10 months ago
@asasasarap to satisfy the needs of the system. On a larger scale, if we considered, say, the size of the universe, we could say it's infinite, but it's actually determined by the distance traveled by light since the beggining. Since the universe doesn't have a definite form, we can't give an estimated qty that can be applied indiscriminately. But, in it's lower limit, the universe has a size of about 78 billion light years. This is far from infinite, but is a number so large that trying to--
Ital21 10 months ago
@asasasarap --quantify it on earth's terms makes it a bit silly and inapplicable due to it's immensity, so for practicality, we equate it to infinity, or near-infinite. This is possible in mathematics. You'd know this, if you knew about mathematical modeling and physical quantities.
Yet again, it seems you overstepped your intellectual boundaries by assigning a magical, supernatural criteria indiscriminately to mathematical quantities.
You're in no position to call this video's logic flawed.
Ital21 10 months ago
@Ital21 If there is a god or an allah or anything it is not a physical measurable quality to be one two three etc.or nearly infinite.I think you should read with more attention what I write or state.I don't think you even understand it.
asasasarap 10 months ago
@asasasarap Oh I understand it. I understand your supernatural concept-inclined intention, evident behind every comment.
The last person that's gonna teach me about physics and mathematics is you. This I know firmly.
What you state is either vague or not evidenced. If you stated actual facts about what you believe and how this video is flawed, then you'd have at least a standpoint to defend.
Ital21 10 months ago
@Ital21 You will never understand a thing about paranormal phenomena if you try to simlpy find something to utilize and study methodically in a scientific way to get into market or production.They are rogues in our system and the real deal is rare.You have to taste a bit of the red pill in order to approach.The only thing I know is that they probably exist.Now for the video
asasasarap 10 months ago
@asasasarap But isn't it presumptuous to say what I WILL and WILL NOT understand? Isn't this the same kind of bias that you exhibit with logic and it's explanations? Can't you admit that you're being at least a bit on the close-minded side by immediately asserting that it's IMPOSSIBLE to understand something, whatever it is, whomever it is, in the rational pool of human minds?
Ital21 10 months ago
@Ital21 It tries to present god gods or I don't know what as a paradox of chance through natural observation but theists don't claim it is a personified naturally observed something.(Well some do believe in an old guy with a beard but....ok).Other deities that are in numbers are not omnipresent and omnipotent.The rest I explained with the dice.Life from no life is something of unique as far characteristics.It's not an every day random event.
asasasarap 10 months ago
@asasasarap I disagree. 1st of all, your dice explanation is flawed, because each 3-dice 6-side probability is the same on 3's set. If it's too hard to grasp, a mathematical method is to simplify it. In this case, go for 1 dice. What is the probability if each 1 side to appear? 1/6. What is the probability 2 die land on the same side? 1/36. But each dice is still 1/6, we just doubles the number of eventualities. This is why I say your example with dice doesn't constitute proof. The odds don't --
Ital21 10 months ago
@Ital21 The odds will most of the times create random non pattern variations.(Take a die and do the experiment.)Sometimes they will create impressive patterns by chance.(Lots of same numbers or 1,2,3,4etc progressions.).The more unlikely the pattern is and the more it goes on,the more chance that something is affecting the dice(though is still can be coincidental but the chance of coincidence geometrically dwindles.)This is what this
asasasarap 10 months ago
@Ital21 video does not say,by sticking to the possible coincidence.And life from no life is as far as we know a no replicable event even if we arrange the dice ourselves.I honestly don't know if a god created it or not,what I do know is that ''it just emerged from an ingredient soup'' is a bit oversimplified and this video doesn't help with the presentation of chances.
asasasarap 10 months ago
@asasasarap It doesn't need to say it. The odds of ANY one combination of die, is the same for any other combination. This is mathematically verifiable. The video says and exemplifies this. What you're saying is, SHOULD you EXPECT that during the 1st throw of the die you get, say, all 5's, it will be VERY UNEXPECTED to get it. And you'd be right. BUT, you'd ALSO be very right about any other combination. If I wanted 2,3,1 to come up, it's the same chance as 5,5,5. Or 4,4,1. Or any other.
Ital21 10 months ago
@Ital21 My problem is not that much with this video on probability buy with the other with the coincidence.I explained you why.Now since you respond as well lets stop trolling elements and have a decent conversation.Two questions1)If the universe is deterministic what is the meaning of probability and in what ways does it win over fate?2)How do you define the word physical?(You can ask me questions as well but if we want to really excange ideas we have to go one part at a time).
asasasarap 10 months ago
@asasasarap I have no problems with your questions.
And just for the record, I don't think the video asserts things on coincidence so much as saying that coincidence CAN be probabilistic. The video DOESN'T say what was coincidence in recorded history or scientific findings, and what wasn't. This is clear. The rest I think is actually implied notions that weren't there. But you're right, it might be a stretch in conclusions. So, let me ask you concretely: in what specific aspect, exemplified, do-
Ital21 10 months ago
@Ital21 Actually the video tries to pass from existence to belief in an elusive way.Like implying that faith in a god negates the existence of a god because of lack of evidence and thats why faith occurs.This is not the real case.You cant use logic or maths or probability to disprove god either.You can't either experience a hypothetic god as a natural phenomenon.Natural phenomenas are not omnipresent and omnipotent.They have characteristics.Traits imply differences therefore limits.
asasasarap 10 months ago
@asasasarap -you think that this video is making an unjustified jump from mathematics to possibilities, or, put another way, from probabilistic to coincidental-specific?
On to your questions:
1) None. If it's deterministic then it's not probabilistic. It's never both, with the possible exception of inclusions, such that when life can happen, determinism dictates that it WILL happen, but it will probably be adapted to environmental conditions. This is probability inside determinism. From this, we
Ital21 10 months ago
@Ital21 First my answer.I agree that the existence of god is not a case of percentage.This does not mean it is either a case of personal faith.If it does exist (an omnipotent creator of everything else)whether some one believes in it or not does not change this.(its existence).so the leap is unjustifiable and flawed,it's not a matter of personal faith.the same goes with the opposite.The coincidence objection was for the other video.
asasasarap 10 months ago
@asasasarap Just so we're clear on the exact statement in the video, are you referring to what's stated in about 2:48? Or are you referring to what's stated in another particular time?
I want to be very very clear as to where it is that this video states what you say it states. I want to correctly identify when this video states that faith can act, as you say, as a validator or invalidator of a god, so I can look at that argument myself and see what you are seeing.
Ital21 10 months ago
@asasasarap to this exact comment box, I hope you can trace it back, I asked a specific question about 2 days ago. Still waiting on an answer.
Just a friendly reminder. :)
Ital21 10 months ago
@asasasarap -can reasonably conclude, that life, since we've seen it arise twice on earth already, WILL arise a 3rd time if an extinction event occurs, because either no full taxonomic extinction happens, or because the most basal organisms survive. If you take a no-life event and find the proper conditions, you can reasonably assert that life will arise. This is why we can reasonably assert there is life in other planets but we can't affirm how that life adapts or looks like. Now to the 2nd ---
Ital21 10 months ago
@asasasarap -part of your question. How does it affect fate? Well, I'd ask 1st: why should it? And what is fate in this context? Is fate a prediction of the future? Is fate a preconceived plan? If so, what plan? Who made it? How do you assert it?
For instance, predicting is science's house specialty given reasonable conditions. As an example I could reasonably cite that, along all of 2011, 10 new species of arthropods will be found by science. How is this reasonable? 1st of all, arthropods --
Ital21 10 months ago
@Ital21 'how it affects fate'.A deterministic world is an inevitable world in every aspect.The number of people that you will meet tomorrow in the street,the name of your grand grand grand children,the weather in 5000 years,the time and way of every death,every thought every action,every feeling,all events,everything is written on a book of inevitable fate.There is no free will.There is no point in trying.Thee is nothing that can change.There is NO DECISION.
asasasarap 10 months ago
@asasasarap No. That's carrying the criteria of "deterministic" too far. All the examples you mention are, 1st of all, scarcely applicable to the same criteria, and 2nd, are to some degree a product of an intelligent society that has transcended nature. Deterministic results only apply to prior states coming directly from nature. Life arising is a natural result, which is deterministic, given the prior states required to give rise to it. It's NOT a preconceived plan OR fate, because those two--
Ital21 10 months ago
@asasasarap -concepts don't apply to natural elements. You don't say "that river was fated to disappear", you say "that river was bound to disappear given the advancing desert-like climate to which that region is prone". Or some other influencing agent. You also don't say of a wild animal something like "that zebra was fated or planned to be hunted down by that lioness", because there's a number of natural elements in play that have had to be in place for that hunt to occur. Neither the lioness-
Ital21 10 months ago
@asasasarap -nor the zebra in my example are rational beings. They are irrational animals. They have primitive societies, if any, and at best belong to packs and groups. You can't say they are even inclined to fate or plans. It's instinctive behavior adapted through the ages.
The same can be said of natural processes. Would you say the earth was fated to develop tectonic plates? Or an atmosphere? No. That would be applying personal views, none of which are supported by science. Again, this is--
Ital21 10 months ago
@asasasarap -determinism at work. So to say the weather in 5000 years or a particular person's given name or time and circumstances of death are "determined" IS saying that it's actually fated. Determinism doesn't work like that. That's an incorrect interpretation. A person's name can be said to be deterministic regarding, for example, his geographical situation. A girl born in México is propense to be named "María". In the USA or England, it's "Mary". In Israel, it'd be "Myriam". Would you say-
Ital21 10 months ago
@Ital21 Hello again.Well I have to explain my view on determinism a bit more.My argument is specific.If you hit a snooker ball with sertain power and angle on an ideally cut to the molecule shaped table with ideal cut to the molecule balls in ideal conditions ...isn't it logical that there is only one possible outcome in a deterministic world?If a force makes a big bang and the world of energy matter and physical laws begins isn't it logical that you also have one and only outcome?
asasasarap 10 months ago
@asasasarap Since you say "your view", can you at least accept that "your view" might be a little divergent from what the word determinism actually applies to?
I mean, I have been basing myself on definitions. Have you looked up 'determinism' in any dictionary so as to adhere to the correct meaning in your assumptions?
Your analogy for the slicing of a ball in "a deterministic world" is flawed in some areas. I really don't want to type here anymore, though. It's a bit stressing to explain stuff.
Ital21 10 months ago
@Ital21 I looked for a definition of determinism and my assumtions are crystal clear accurate logic.I think it would be a good idea for you as well to check what the definition of a deterministic world is.Actually I think today most physicist don't believe anyway in a deterministic world.Isn't that rignt?
asasasarap 10 months ago
@asasasarap "I looked for a definition of determinism and my assumtions are crystal clear accurate logic."
Evidence or not true.
"I think it would be a good idea for you as well to check what the definition of a deterministic world is."
That's two words. Define one, then the other, then add up.
"Actually I think today most physicist don't believe anyway in a deterministic world"
Opinions? To be asserted as truth?
Go interview most of the physicists in the world, document it, and we'll see. ;)
Ital21 10 months ago
@asasasarap "my assumtions are crystal clear accurate logic."
that's very nice... but look at the 1st word in my quote of you.
What's that word?
ASSUMPTIONS (you misspelled)
To you your logic will always seem flawless. How is this something I or anyone else can quantify or validate??
Either post your entire line of thought for others to review of validate what you say, or accept that by assuming things, you may be incorrect.
That's another reason why I advocate science. It's all peer-reviewed!
Ital21 10 months ago
@Ital21 You are not even validating.You either don't understand or shut your ears to what I say and respond by reflex with tons of words,and references.I can discern real complexity from tons of words.We're not getting anywhere because you don't even understand what I'm saying.You have no real argument.
asasasarap 10 months ago
@asasasarap There's no understanding what you're saying because you are NOT saying anything!
What are you saying? Cuz just now, you introduced "complexity". Are you arguing from complexity?
Don't confuse yourself. I'm asking for evidence of what you say. Studies, pictures, working models, ANYTHING. And when you provide none, instead of admitting it, you go ad hominem.
Very nice. The true attitude of an indoctrinate douche.
Ital21 10 months ago
@Ital21 I think indeed it would be useful to show my comments to a colleague of yours because you seem to be unable to understand plain simple and direct statements.It would be useful and cool to have a credible argument but you seem unable to understand the whole subject.No offence but I'm amazed by this fact.Anyway
asasasarap 10 months ago
@asasasarap "I think indeed it would be useful to show my comments to a colleague of yours because you seem to be unable to understand plain simple and direct statements."
I don't think so. In fact, I think it would be a waste of time to show your comments to anyone else.
I'm done saying what I had to say. I debunked your claims, I showed your opinion of this video carries no weight, and I backed myself up with evidence and sources. Whereas, you did nothing of the sort. QED.
Ital21 10 months ago
@asasasarap "It would be useful and cool to have a credible argument but you seem unable to understand the whole subject."
The whole subject is you trying to undermine this video and anyone who advocates it with nothing but your opinion and biased conclusions, based on 0 evidence.
That's the subject I've tried.
I also said I have no problem with your questions, and I answered them politely and accurately, WITH sources and evidence backing me up.
CAN YOU CLAIM TO HAVE DONE THE SAME??
Nope.
Ital21 10 months ago
@asasasarap "you seem unable to understand the whole subject.No offence but I'm amazed by this fact"
Well, nice going. You've gone passive-aggressive (again) on someone better educated than yourself out of spite and out of resentment for being asked questions.
THIS is what amazes me from someone who claims to be objective and to have a sound argument.
I've analyzed your argument and it does have rationality behind it. That I EVEN GRANTED to you. But the questions I asked in KEY points--
Ital21 10 months ago
@asasasarap -of your argument remain unanswered. I asked plentifully for an explanation of the reasoning behind your thoughts on determinism and a deterministic world and how they were substantiated in reality, and you not only DIDN'T answer, now you attacked me and implied I lack understanding.
I could've done that move on you over a week ago, dismissing you out of calling you uneducated and just not informed in physics, astronomy, and science in general, which I've shown I am. And I didn't. I-
Ital21 10 months ago
@asasasarap -kept a cool tone. I kept entertaining you idea on determinism and why it overrides causality and free will, asked questions regarding your evidence or a study or HECK AT THIS POINT I'd take a damn philosopher... and you came back with nothing.
I'm done being polite. I answered your questions, I gave you sources, science backs me up, and I'm done entertaining your ridiculous idea of what nature and determinism are.
Keep your opinions.
At least everyone here now knows how wrong u are.
Ital21 10 months ago
@asasasarap -all those 3 names are the same? Would you say they're "fated"? No. They're bound by culture, education, socio-economical status AND region. That's the prior conditions determinism adheres to. But the ultimate decision? That rests with the girl's parents. Or an orphanage. Or the warring faction. Or whatever the political situation of the region allows. Determinism has NOTHING to say about those final factors. That would be saying too much.
So there IS decision and free will, even in-
Ital21 10 months ago
@Ital21 Please don't answer until i say full stop because after usually some paragraphs u tube says it cant show the comments and a try again message appears.
asasasarap 10 months ago
@asasasarap I don't get what you want me not to do. Not answer to what comment exactly?
Ital21 10 months ago
@asasasarap And also, if you're looking for a place to have more freedom from these 500-chr boxes, why are you still posting?
Did you decide on something? did you find a forum like I suggested?
I mean so far I don't really detest YT's answer boxes, but there are better things, and I would appreciate the change.
Or was that not true?
I'm kindda hoping we're done. I mean you have some ideas, but they're far from realistic. If you want to philosophize, I'm probly not your best 1st online choice.
Ital21 10 months ago
@Ital21 Nomatter how many almost infinite factors interract in a deterministic universe,the result can be only one.And it doesn't die if you cut its head off l.o.l.And not only can it be only one.It's determined (pre determined from the start of everything).There is no other way for the snooker balls unless by the word deterministic you mean something else.
asasasarap 10 months ago
@asasasarap "Nomatter how many almost infinite factors interract in a deterministic universe,the result can be only one."
No, because you're utilizing an absolute criteria in a non-absolute universe. To put it in another way, you're saying that things that don't fit the definition of determinism are also deterministic, and that's the flaw in your logic. I'm a bit tired of entertaining the ideas you're trying to assert.
Why don't you open up a thread in some forum or something?
Ital21 10 months ago
@asasasarap -my example of the animal. They're bound by their condition, this is true, but they're also relatively free. This is true even of humans. Would you kill your kin? Even if you were taught no morals, there's a biological leash holding you back, unless there's a rare pathological condition that overrides it, such as the hypocampus does to the pituitary gland. This is true even if the attempt was to kill yourself. Or have sex with your little sister. Or steal. Or cheat. You CAN override-
Ital21 10 months ago
@asasasarap your biological leash, but only because that's a human condition, present in almost no other creature on earth with the exception of other members of the Great Apes family.
So to say determinism overrides free will and decision-making is a stretch, as determinism precedes free will much like existence precedes essence. But it is through free will, essence, that we came to define existence.
Yup.
I can philosophize too. :)
Without our free will to learn, we wouldn't have found out what
Ital21 10 months ago
@asasasarap -determinism is in the 1st place.
We're bound by our planet as a species. This is true. It's deterministic. We're free to do what we will to this planet, this is free decision-making.
There is no paranormal involved in any of those two cases. Parapsychology has nothing to say of either, since both of those occurrences happen in nature.
This is what I mean when I say that there's no such 'fate' liking us or anything to anything. Fate is wishful thinking turned divine, in my eyes.
Ital21 10 months ago
@asasasarap -account for about 80% of all the species known to exist on earth. There's more of them than there will ever be of us. So by scouting unlikely environments and hostile parts of the planet, we can find organisms that adapted through evolution and made their niche in the most unlikely places. This is fact. And we find new species EVERY year. This is also fact. As an example, I can point you to the species.asu.edu webpage and ask you to click on SOS report. You'll find the statistics-
Ital21 10 months ago
@asasasarap -for the new species that were found in the referred year. Click on 2010. You'll see charts and statistics on tens of thousands of new species found... Just in 2010!! To me, that's amazing, and it's one of the reasons that I'd call biology my 2nd calling. It's true scientific beauty.
But on to the numbers.
If you reason that just last year, 18,225 new species in all taxonomic classes were found, bringing the earth's total to 1,922,710 species, and about 80% of those are of the --
Ital21 10 months ago
@asasasarap Arthropod species, would it be reasonable to assert that in 2011 at least 10 new arthropods will be found?
Yes, it would. That's a more than reasonable proyection, as the actual number will likely be closer to 10,000.
How is this fate? Is it fated that humans classify all life? No, that'd be unreasonable, since we're only looking at about 4% or 5% of all the species that have ever inhabited the earth. Can we assert an extinction event from these numbers? Also no, since to do that,--
Ital21 10 months ago
@asasasarap we'd have to look at other data, like observing the skies for extraterrestrial masses, sun spots to predict solar flares, and the political situation of our society, since man can destroy himself nowadays.
So to say probability "wins" over fate is the wrong perspective. Probability is a reasonable approach. Fate is a prediction that has no bearing in observable data but is asserted nonetheless. I don't think fate is more than wishful thinking, so I can't quantify it nor compare it.
Ital21 10 months ago
@asasasarap 2) Well, as it's defined in the english language.
Let's look up the meaning in Oxford Dictionaries:
physical(phys·i·cal)
Pronunciation: |ˈfizikəl | [adjective]
1.- of or relating to the body as opposed to the mind;
*a whole range of physical and mental challenges*
involving bodily contact or activity;
*verbal or physical abuse*
*football and other physical games*
Ital21 10 months ago
@asasasarap
2 Of or relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind;
tangible or concrete;
*pleasant physical environments*
*physical assets such as houses or cars*
of or relating to physics or the operation of natural forces generally;
*physical laws*
I argue from the 2nd definition more than I do from the 1st. Air is physical. Humans are physical. The earth and the universe are observable and physical. This is fact. I argue from fact, and it's study, which is science.
Ital21 10 months ago
@Ital21 Now about the physical.Can you define a direct logical way to discern something physical from something imaginary?An indirect way is to witness and predict the behaviour pattern and the coherence of the experience.(It's what we do all our waking life)My question this time is a really dire question.Appart from the cohesion,is there a logically discernible quality diferrence between dreaming a ball and seeing a ball?
asasasarap 10 months ago
@asasasarap "Can you define a direct logical way to discern something physical from something imaginary?"
Hmmm... this question has a bit of a philosophical tone to it. Why would the imaginary have inference here? That, I would ask 1st.
What is the imaginary? Is it something that's inside someone's notion in his or her mind? Should we infer what it is from it's definition?
imaginary |im·ag·i·nar·y |[adjective]
existing only in the imagination
*Chris had imaginary conversations with her*
Ital21 10 months ago
@asasasarap I'm assuming your use of 'imaginary' isn't in the mathematical sense of imaginary numbers, which are square roots of negatives.
We can further define 'Imagination', from the same dictionary, as:
imagination | im·ag·i·na·tion | [noun]
- the faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses
*she'd never been blessed with a vivid imagination*
-the ability of the mind to be creative or resourceful
(continues)
Ital21 10 months ago
@Ital21 The big problem is that the result of our sences is as much imaginary as fantasy.(whether or not it is more objective)A red hot ball would not be eitner red nor hot nor ball without the depiction with which the brain fantasises it.Yes exactly.The little detail no one tells.Red hot balls and blue cold cubes do not exist apart of us or creatures that perceive like us.They are images created by our mind in order to interract with the outside world.
asasasarap 10 months ago
@asasasarap "The big problem is that the result of our sences is as much imaginary as fantasy."
Can you prove this? I'm requesting evidence.
"A red hot ball would not be eitner red nor hot nor ball without the depiction with which the brain fantasises it."
Without resorting to fantasy, I can tell you that spectra and wavelengths are heavily monitored in the ultraviolet sequence of hydrogen lines and various infrared sequences, so that we know that the colors we observe MEAN something specific.
Ital21 10 months ago
@Ital21 You do resort to fantasy everytime you think or experience or feel.Consiousness cannot be defined through anything.It's conciousness that defines everything in the most fundamental base(wheather or not a more or less objective world/s exist).Proof?Tell me what defines conciousness without indirectly at the same time resorting(you or it) to conciousness in itself,as the fundamental element and ground for the definition?
asasasarap 10 months ago
@asasasarap "You do resort to fantasy everytime you think or experience or feel."
Incorrect. That's called memory and sensorial perception.
"Consiousness cannot be defined through anything."
Yes it can. It's the state where all the senses are activated and not dulled by anything, including 0 impairment of thought processes.
"It's conciousness that defines everything in the most fundamental base"
Argument from Ghost in the Shell. Tried and found to be biased depending on the perspective.
Ital21 10 months ago
@asasasarap "Tell me what defines conciousness.."
consciousness |con·scious·ness|[noun]
-the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings
*she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later*
-the awareness or perception of something by a person
*her acute consciousness of Mike's presence*
-the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world
*consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain*
You're philosophizing. I already told you that proceeds from biased and --
Ital21 10 months ago
@asasasarap -preconceived perspectives are not something I'm willing to engage anyone on unless they part from a substantial amount of fame from their life-long work OR have advocated and acknowledge a study that backs them up intellectually. So far, you're neither. It's not personal, it's just the way it is with me.
So consciousness is what sentient beings exhibit. That's my take on it, and I'm sticking to it. It's not "consciousness about consciousness" that defines everything else. It's --
Ital21 10 months ago
@Ital21 You are not backing anything intellectually.You are just making endless references to books.I do back my claims,you don't.It would indeed be enough to put in some sentences however complicated it is but you don't.
asasasarap 10 months ago
@asasasarap "...anything intellectually.You are just making endless references to books.I do back my claims,you don't.It would indeed be enough to put in some sentences however complicated it is but you don't."
How exactly are you backing up your claims? Can you at least tell me that?
Where is your evidence? I've asked this question to you PLENTY of times and I STILL haven't had an answer. Books are an excellent back up.
Do ANY books back up your notions on the imaginary bearing on the real?
Ital21 9 months ago
@Ital21 Books are an ecxellent backup for people unable to think,combine and process information.
asasasarap 9 months ago
@asasasarap --observation, documentation, repeated usage, and utility that do. Of course, you need sentient beings to be able to do that. Recall "if you wish to make an apple pie, you must first create the universe" ??
And AGAIN, we're back to determinism preceding consciousness, since without the rise of intelligence on earth, irrational animals can only get insofar as to be aware of their individuality and needs and those of the group. Everything else: advances, science, society... out of the
Ital21 10 months ago
@asasasarap question completely!! Why??
To even assume intelligence, thus consciousness to be aware and to define what's observed, you must first find it. Yes, we're stellar dust looking at itself. How is this outside of the universe's naturalistic capabilities? How is consciousness the proof? Consciousness is a result, and one of many. It's scarcely impressive by itself, and if it were a means to it's own end, then the universe would be a very boring place. Eyeball earths and black holes just-
Ital21 10 months ago
@asasasarap -exchanging matter. Planck distances... deterministically disabled regarding discovery. No progress to acknowledge or to cling to and construct more on top of. No intelligent awareness. What would be the worth of philosophizing about that? What conscious decisions and appreciations could be taken without intelligent life to document and record and solve problems?
Saying that consciousness is bound only by consciousness as though a supreme design or fate could be concluded from it --
Ital21 10 months ago
@asasasarap -is a downright flawed path of intellect, since there's no way to assert that consciousness was 1st aware to as to propagate itself. That's just the "argument from complexity" mixed up with the "argument from wonder". It's still philosophizing. It's still biased and very particular. Hardly a path to illumination.
Also, consciousness is not an element. It's a result of sentient beings. If I followed this argument, I'd be stuck in circular logic.
But we're philosophizing! I said none
Ital21 10 months ago
@asasasarap of that for me!
Lol you're a sneaky one, ain't ya?
But still no dice. "Argument from wonder" can take many forms, and yours, though a little novel, is far from truly original or correct.
Ever read "Origin of the Species"? That's truly a humbling experience.
And if you like that one after reading it, take a look at Nietzsche's view of the world.
Hey! You're getting me to philosophize again!
None of that!
I stick with science and that's how I'll remain. XD
Ital21 10 months ago
@asasasarap So to end this train of thought: no, we don't fantasize every time we think. That's a generalization, and you'd need proof to get that to fly in the real world.
The senses keep us grounded. Count on it. If you couldn't count on it, how'd you answer this message? ;D
Ital21 10 months ago
@asasasarap "The big problem is that the result of our sences is as much imaginary as fantasy."
THIS IS THE PROBLEM IN YOUR ARGUMENT.
In case you didn't get it from my "complex" sentences.
Reality is not imaginary or fantasy. You're arguing this from a perspective that, because humans see science through their brains, and their brains can have perception through senses AND imagination, then science can and is imaginary.
WRONG.
DEAD WRONG.
I don't even need to invalidate you. It's evident.
Ital21 10 months ago
@Ital21 I challenge you to show my coments to your colleages if you truly have(at least they will have the brain for a debate.).I don't know how the heck you got into university you do NOT look like a smart person and I'm personally dissapointed if this unintellectual crap of your arguments comes from a real scientist.We're done as well.Any smart person that will read our dialogue will make his conclusions.Believe what you want.I don't give a damn for your sheer stupidity.
asasasarap 10 months ago
@asasasarap "you do NOT look like a smart person and I'm personally dissapointed if this unintellectual crap of your arguments comes from a real scientist."
Lol proyect-onto-me much?
Buddy, in this exchange of ideas, you're the irrational one. I've evidenced every claim I made with evidence and backed up further claims with sources and bibliography that backs me up.
Did you?
NO. You didn't. You have NOTHING backing you up. Only baseless assumptions. You even stated this. You stated you're ---
Ital21 10 months ago