Thread: An Intelligent Discussion on Nature

Originally Posted by Jimbo

The answer you get depends on numerous things.

An applied statistician would most likely have you repeat the "experiment" and observe the results. Adequate replication would mean you'd be going at it like rabbits for the rest of your reproductive lives.

A Bayesian would want to observe the distribution of your posteriors. They'll mention vague priors, but all they really want is to examine your posterior.

A Theoretician might seem like your best bet, but generally they are so socially inadequate that, frankly, all they will do is ask you if they can watch while they doodle something about the Borel-Cantelli Lemma to take your attention away from the fact they have a video camera hidden in their coat pocket.

An expert in stochastic processes will generally try to create a sequence of events whereby they attempt to string you along for as long as possible, and snigger to their colleagues about "copulas".

James.

So which class do you fall into Jimbo? Grats on the 3k BTW

From the tiniest dew drop on a morning leaf to the majesty of a clear night's sky, Mother Nature never fails to inspire awe. Why look for any higher power?

Originally Posted by xman

This seems relevant.

There is no need to separate the mind from the imaginary soul to have free will. We simply need to understand that the minute biochemical reactions which happen in the brain are not the same as the sum of them which make up a decision or an action more precisely. We merely need to understand that the process is different, just as the quantum world is different from our midde world which is different again from the macro universe. Each informs the other, but they have different rules of engagement.

On the question of free will vs predestination, I can't imagine it makes any difference to the layman anyhow since we all effectively operate as if there were free will even if there isn't. At least we believe we do.

MHO

X

The video was good.

If you are arguing then the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts then you are arguing, essentially, for something nonphysical.

It was quite a difficult question to answer, and that's one way I thought you could do it. Another, I guess, would be to simply prove determinism beyond reasonable doubt - something that is much much simpler.

It probably isn't important for many people, but it could be used in court (for example), and hell, I just have that kind of mind that finds debating this stuff interesting - it keeps the blood flowing.

This segment is blowing my mind!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E25j...layer_embedded