At 10/26/09 06:44 PM, therealsylvos wrote:
theoretically, however all determinists agree that decision making is a chaos system, and since you will never get EXACT measurements, such an algorithm would be useless. (see long range weather predicting)

Well, the thing about chaos is that it is exactly predictable given the right initial condtions. So the only error to be made is inherent to faulty machinery.
It's like stating that the answer to a problem can never be pi, since we will never be able to exactly calculate pi, because of it's irrational nature. So we can only end up approximating it.
Quantum incertainty might cause some doubt though.

How does someone making a free choice disprove free will??

Well, I just take the ability to make free choices as inherent to fee will.

Furthermore, since reasoning is quite complex, why can't our prediction be something along the line of, "He will say cat, unless someone informs him of this prediction."

That's kind of cheating. It's like calculating something and the machine says, 'It is the solution to that equation" instead of an exact number.

Hey, I'm a mathematician, so I'm quite fond of the abstract.

Dump that woman and find the girl of your dreams over here.

The last supper (not a Christian one)

At 11/1/09 07:54 AM, IETFB wrote:

At 11/1/09 06:12 AM, RubberTrucky wrote:
Computers who work randomly are based upon a mathematical algoritm, using simple (mathematic) picking methods. They don't make their decisions out of a conscious intention.

And what makes you think the brain is any different?

I hold on that the way we pick our choices is to benefit ourself or to benefit some other beings. Our actions and intentions are not random, nor according to a preset natural law.

Tell me then, what stimulation causes me to date that one girl, stay faithful to her and not date some other girl I met. What physics stimulus prevents me from going to the kitchen now and instead type this here? What stimulus makes me stand up now, jump in the air twice and dance around Russian style.

It's hard to imagine that the word I'm typing now in the discussion I'm participating in now are predetermined by the position of all the particles in the universe 20 minutes ago.

It's no one stimulus, but a complex interaction of an uncountable number of stimuli. Your choice of women is determined by genetics, nurture, interactions with other women over the years, and so on.

All these variables are not dependent on fundamental laws of physics.

I still feel it's far from logical to assume that even within quantum uncertainty the exact deliberate thought I'm having right now is not steered by myself, but by the dynamics of the universe. That assumption, I feel is as likely as saying that God put those thoughts in my head.

At 10/31/09 09:48 PM, Elfer wrote:
So basically you're saying you want the same basic social restrictions that exist on alcohol, with slight modifications tailored to the specific drug?

If hard drugs were to be legalised then it shoukld be sure that
1. They really have limited effects and not make the general user do fucked up stuff. So those drugs should be able to be used 'responsibly'.
2. The addiction should be low enough so people can limit the use to private spaces and not act like an ass in spaces they were not meant to be using those drugs.

So yes, I don't want to allow people tripping balls on the street like I don't want people drunk pissing against public property and stuff.

At 11/1/09 06:28 AM, riemannSum wrote:
One's a crime, an act against society, and has a possibility to affect me.

Sure, it's a crime but it doesn't need to affect you if you don't know the girl.

At 11/1/09 12:23 AM, poxpower wrote:
Seeing as its not, I could use your reasoning to say that, say, computers who make random decisions do so not based on the laws of physics, which anyone can plainly see is false.

Computers who work randomly are based upon a mathematical algoritm, using simple (mathematic) picking methods. They don't make their decisions out of a conscious intention.

At 11/1/09 12:33 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 10/31/09 02:05 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: But if I were to choose for a leaded die, my choice should not be affected by physics of the outside world.

No? You would lead the die by using your hands to put weights in. What are your muscles connected to?
Nerves. Whata re your nerves connected to? Your brain.
What in you brain decides how to send signals to the nerves to tell them what to do? Neurons.
What feeds signals to the neurons in your brain that causes them to fire? Your eyes, skin, etc.
What are those organs connected to?
The outside world

You can't separate your mind from your brain, and you can't separate your brain from the physical world. Too bad.

Tell me then, what stimulation causes me to date that one girl, stay faithful to her and not date some other girl I met. What physics stimulus prevents me from going to the kitchen now and instead type this here? What stimulus makes me stand up now, jump in the air twice and dance around Russian style.

It's hard to imagine that the word I'm typing now in the discussion I'm participating in now are predetermined by the position of all the particles in the universe 20 minutes ago.

At 11/1/09 03:55 AM, riemannSum wrote:
Whatever, I still don't care, and I don't see why I should. It's a cow. An animal. Why should I care if it gets hurt?

Welll, to care for something like that is ones own choice, really. But so is caring for the fact that an eight year old girl is raped and drowned somewhere in your neighbourhood.

At 10/31/09 09:13 PM, rafattack wrote:

:if he needs the bananas because he wants to feed his children when they get home, then he will tell you that mike has lots of banana. if he doesnt need the bananas, he will give them to you)

What if he needs the bananas and you also need them and mike has no bananas?

or youre a psicopath (or both). without personal property, you wont need to comit crimes.

Yes you do, because if there is no public property enough to satisfy your needs, you must secure your 'share'.

At 10/31/09 08:51 PM, FlashCam wrote: Give them Cherry Bombs that look like sweets

Or better yet, these

Unbearably sour candy balls

At 10/31/09 02:13 PM, vgfa287 wrote: I'd like to be a member of this club. my favorite sciences are Astronomy and Biology

Wha kind of astronomy do you enjoy?

At 10/31/09 08:18 PM, ChocEliteBar wrote:

At 10/31/09 08:15 PM, Yukin wrote: maybe if it was actually something scary...

The kittens page on ED, all of it.

dunbanme OHSHI-

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGH
MY VIRGIN EYES

sex is ruined forever

I'm still betting on Ebola to kill us all.

At 10/31/09 06:15 PM, SirColton wrote: Lots of other dolls pee water apparently, whats the appeal of this?

It pees! What's not to like?

If I had to make the choice:

girl: Merel/Kiki/Margot/Sylvana
boy: Nathan/ Dimitri/Iwein

At 10/31/09 05:37 PM, Victory wrote:
Strawman argument. Ericho never raised that as a point for legalisation in his post, and nothing indicated that he even took that stance.

You're so very right.
But I still oppose when people say it should be legalised because by being illegal people will dot it more (forbidden fruit issue).

At 10/31/09 06:00 PM, Elfer wrote: That sort of situation would imply you're either bothering someone at an inappropriate time or they're tripping in an inappropriate setting.

If a person wants to trip balls in his own envirenment and stick to his private space, then by all means he may do so for all I care. A person should be free to do whatever he wants as it does not interfere with what other people do.

At 10/31/09 04:56 PM, Elfer wrote:
If we're talking about proper behaviour, let's start with why you're bothering people at home uninvited.

I'm not a vampire, I can do so according to social standards. AKA huh?

At 10/31/09 03:43 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 10/31/09 02:05 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

But if I were to choose for a leaded die, my choice should not be affected by physics of the outside world.

Huuuh... why?

Even according to the laws of physics, stochastics and chaos is merely a result of us not being able to fully estimate all initial positions and all applied forces in an event, but thye result is predetermined anyway.

But there is no natural law that tells me which random decisions I consciously make.
Laws of physics can tell me I will fall if I lose my balance, but they can not tell me to go to the kitchen and make me a tuna sandwich.

Personally, I feel that the concept of hierarchy is something you can't go without.

Look at the schoolsystem. Would it be so much better if the 'students' would explore their dcuments to the way they would feel like, instead of some teacher telling them what to do?
People with more expertise are there to lead people in situation that requires their expertise, like a doctor prescribing you medication.

Bigger even, people need hierarchy, they need men who are in charge and who take the decisions no one wants to take, so they have someone else to blame when the shit hits the fan.

Math

Currently Happy Tree Friends is on, that's kind of horror anyway.

I've seen a dvd of Shutter lying around today, didn't buy it, but I'm feeling that would make a very scary movie.

At 10/31/09 02:25 PM, pr0ded wrote:
well if you're all about 'behaving properly' like in that politics thread, than that should be properly immoral

There's always that difference between what is a objective fact and what is a societies rule. Sure, farting is healthy, but farting at an intimate party is a faux-pas. Shouldn't stop a doctor from saying that a fart a day can keep the doctor away.

On a side note: no, I'm not personally interested into sleeping with minors.

Unless they are really hot of course ;-)

At 10/31/09 02:23 PM, pr0ded wrote: proper? like manners? you want me to engage in culturally laid down behaviors?

Yes. I want to be able to discuss bussiness matters with you or introduce you to my other friends without you looking like an ass.

and you want to interact? will we be at an "acid party"

At the place I meet you. If you're acting stupid high on some shit at an acid party, go ahead. As long as you act properly in a standard setting.

and do your expectations exclude drunk people?

No, drunk people are stupid too.

At 10/31/09 02:19 PM, pr0ded wrote:
or wait until you accept the facts and stop comparing it to something immoral, like murdering in the other thread

See, it's controlversial because you think sex with underage is immoral. Now if this psychologists is telling the truth, should he be silenced because the truth is 'immoral'? Similar to this debate, I recall Wattson causing a commotion because he claimed that science shows that black people are really intellectual inferior to white people. Was all that commotion really necessary?

and MDMA isn't dangerous by itself, you'll only die from water intoxication, dehydration, mixing it with other drugs, or adulterants in ecstasy tablets, or something that isn't MDMA.. like PMA

I'm not here debating that issue, though..

Wait till some child psychologist suggests that consentiously sleeping with 12 year olds makes these children be more ready for future sexual relationships...

At 10/31/09 01:33 PM, Elfer wrote:
Gee, you think so? If you want to get a more realistic picture or these drugs, you're going to have to actually meet people who have experience with them.

Well, as long as people can behave properly on LSD, shrooms etcetera while I interact with them, I have nothing against it.My GF for instance does hate it when her father used even marihuana because he becomes an asshole afterwards, or so she says...

At 10/31/09 01:57 PM, Elfer wrote:
You're arguing from incredulity. All you're saying is that you think it's silly without giving a reason why. If I throw a die with a hundred sides, there's still physical laws that decide which side it's going to land on.

One can predict the outcome of the die by analising the dynamics of it. Chaos effects or not. Of course, we're not physically able to do so, but in theory, the throw of a die is determined as soon as it leaves my hand.
But if I were to choose for a leaded die, my choice should not be affected by physics of the outside world. Even if I have a goal to go for and my motives may be to win a game, that motive means nothing on the scale of the universe

At 10/31/09 01:28 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 10/31/09 12:34 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: This doesn't work with our theory that we are a bunch of particles in interaction with the environment.

One is perfectly compatible with the other as long as people can't know or be aware of every single thing at any given moment. And guess what. People can't know or be aware of every single thing at any given moment.

If my choosing bulwarkmannshaft is a result of initial conditions and a bunch of differential equations I would be very surprised, even if I were to take incertainty into the equation.

At 10/31/09 01:18 PM, Ericho wrote: I would say that we should first legalize marijuana and once that is done, all hard drugs will be legalized eventually as it's obvious prohibition didn't work. While the things may be bad in themselves, people are just going to get more of it in more of it in even worse versions.

If we were going to legalise murder, would also less people be doing that?

As far as I know I've never had any kind of infection on my weewee. So I'm figuring, medically uncut is not that dangerous.

For the pleasure I can not know. I'm guessing it's like anal fisting. I can't really decide until I've actually done it, but if I do it, I will be signed for life.