I've always said that the illusion of freewill is all that matters but now I am not so sure.



I always know when I am dreaming. In the dream I can fly or its fuzzy like I can't quite make out faces... I know who they are but they aren't right. I just know its a dream. So I can wake myself up. Always have been able to.



I've also always wondered about the state of reality. The idea of epistemology. I knew about Descartes and the idea of "Cogito ergo sum" that is associated with his theories. I recently was introduced to a modern day man who has these ideas; Sam Harris. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g)



I was just wondering if anyone has had this experience. Or just to start a thread on the nature of reality... We'll see where this goes...

 

Huh?

 

 

That was quite an interesting talk, I haven't been presented with strong arguments about reality for a while so I find it very hard to pick fault in his logic. Eep!

 

Go watch inception.

 

Wow, that is long.... You got any cliffs? I assume he is making the argument much like American has 'free speech', but not really? Meaning if you threatened the pres, you would get arrested, you are being punished for your speech so it isn't free..."technically". Is he attempting to make this argument with free will? How we our 'choices' are due to our socialization process, so they aren't really our choices rather a madated answer from the small influences of our lives that made that choice?



I couldn't really get past the first min, the guy seems arrogant and full of crap. I think anyone is full of crap who says evolution is a fact and even more dilusional to say that he is a scientist and no scientist would say that. If you want to believe it is a highly probable theory or have those beliefs, thats fine, you can believe what you want and I respect that, but to claim it is a fact is against every sense of the definition. And to say that science and religion don't mix is foolish and he really doesn't know much about religion of science. Nor will I or can I ever say with any scientific certainty that creationism is a fact, because I can't, but it is my strong belief that it is. And he spoke of religious why religious folks argue with that theory when people call ti fact for the same reason anyone argues with an illogical statement calling something non provable a fact, it is in our makeup to refute blatant falsehoods. Though it is hopefully in our makeup to accept and repect others beliefs and not to be so arrogant as to say you have ultimate knowledge and something is fact because you say, when it can't be proven at all.



If you have a two glasses of water sitting on a big hot plate, and one is half full and the other is full, using science, since we know that water boils at a certain rate, one walking into the room, could theorize that the hlaf empty one has been sitting there for X amount of time. But his isn't a fact, as someone could have just placed a half full container of water there 5 min ago. That is all evolution is, a theory that says, we know how radio carbon dating works or other methods of measuring somethings rate, and we see it half full, so we assume or theorize that this item is X old. Some have much faith in that theory and that is up to you, but to call it a fact is dilusional and can't be said unless you witnessed it...which no one alive has, making it a theory. And there is no place in any religious materials/books that I am aware of that say anything about science being bad or the opposite of religion. Sure there are plenty of religoius people in teh past that where against science, but this is a stereotype much like asians are smart. Sure it is true for many of them, but that is more based on their socialization rather than their genes, much like some religoius folks are against science, but again this is their socialization rather than what their religion actually says.



So after hearing that, I couldn't really go on to listen to this guy, as he was probably wasting an hour just to speak the obvious that I think anyone would agree with but so few care to be that technical much like it isn't technically true that we have free speech. You can talk about technicalities about pretty much anything all day long, but what really did this accomplish?



Though he is also wrong, just because something won't happen, doesn't mean it couldn't. Lets say the pope decided to go on a shooting spree and kill a bunch of people, he very well could chose to do this. It has nothing to do with his socialization, as he is strongly taught to do the opposite of this and he probably will never chose to do this, but he could chose to do this, he has free will. His choice though is based off of his socialization, and punishment from God of government would prevent him from chosing to do this, but he could chose to do this, ergo, he has free will. Just because he chooses not to, doens't mean his will was taken away or that he was persuaded not to due to his socialization process, doesn't mean his free will to do that was taken away, it was just the probobility of him chosing to do that is extremely low. So I think this speaker is confusing probabliity and the likely hood of certain choices making them seem almost compulsery, with freedom of choosing the opposite.



If that whole hour was based of what he said in like min 3 or what this poster/commentor said "It's not an argument from ignorance; he is making a dichotomy: actions are either caused or they are random. A combination of causation and randomness is also random. Neither situation leaves any room for free will. It's as simple as that."



If the pope chose to not kill people that would be in the 'cause' category, and if he chose to shoot a bunch of people that would probably be classified in the 'random' category. But that is wrong, though the reasoning for the shooting choice might seem radom as there is no logic or causality to it, it was still a choice, even if at 'random' or a very low probablilty.



If one wanted to sound smart and arrogant like this guy and pretend they came up with some 'revolutionary' thinking, one could say that "technically" there is no such thing as random. Again showing that an extremly low probablitly of something doens't mean if it occurs it was random....it was just a low probability. One could go on also for hours showing how nothing is truely random, but that would just be a waste of peoples time and accomplish onthing from it, other than making yourself sound smart and stroking your ego....like this guy just did.



But I love inception, that is a good movie. And OP, I bet a lot of people out there would be jelous of your 'ability', just browse the "lucid dream" forums and you will see how people 'train' night and day for years to be able to control and be aware of their dream state.

 

Evolution is a proven fact. It has been observed in many isolated populations of animals.



That doesn't mean that humans can trace their lineage back to an amoeba, but evolution is real and it happens, often fairly quickly. It certainly aids in the adaptation and survival of species, but doesn't directly prove that it is the typical way that a new species is brought into existence.



Evolution and radio carbon dating are not the same thing...or even related. It just happens that both are theories supported by the majority of observable facts, and the most likely theories to be supported by people who don't believe the Bible is a reliable source.



You're either very confused, or don't know anything about the theory of evolution.



Evolution:



As this has been observed happening in nature and in controlled laboratory conditions, it is not debatable by anyone who is even semi reasonable. The macro application of this theory (there was a first living cell, which through the process of evolution resulted in every living thing on Earth today) is most certainly unproven and debatable. The process of evolution does not preclude other origins for the varied species present on Earth, just refers to their adaptability due to conditions in nature favoring the ability to pass on your genes if you have favorable characteristics.

 

microevolution is obvious and apparent.

macroevolution is a theory but can be argued as fact, as the only difference between the two appears to be the scale of change and the time it takes.

 

OK. i am going to get back to this thread when I have the time to read and watch. But if evolution is real and continuous, why are there no half humans half apes in the jungle. You guys argue that evolution is proven...where are the half apes? Adaptation is not evolution. even darwin was an agnostic. How exactly do you believe that billions of life forms just happened to be? what logic is there to prove that life just happened and it all just appeared? and it branched out into all of the creatures on the earth. I question religion...but the idea that all the right components to make an ameba got zapped by lightning and created life is rediculous. you can take all those componnents and zap them with 1.21 gigawatts until you are blue in the face and you WILL NOT get life. Life didnt just happen out of nowhere. get a clue. adaptation is not evolution. there are no half apes. if evolution happened from apes to man. why did it just decide to stop?

 

You just wrote:

I haven't read what you wrote, but allow me to retort.



I f**king hate it when people do that. Go back and read before you assume you know what people said...and then proceed to argue with them about things they didn't say.



About half apes half humans, that's where these guys come in. There are at least 13 identified species between an ape ancestor and modern humans. Why aren't there half ape half humans running around right now? Because humans and apes can't mate successfully, neither proving nor disproving the theory of evolution. Not to mention that the naturally most favorable traits are passed on the most, so any middle ground between 2 distinctly different species should be inferior to the newer version.



Why did people stop evolving? They haven't. Natural selection isn't playing its role very well in western civilization so it is tending to move backwards in the most advanced countries. Those who are most successful tend to have the least children, those who are least successful tend to have the most, and the death rate is not significantly higher for the least successful people. In other parts of the world it is still working, developing populations which are resistant to different diseases, etc. It takes many generations to see major changes, and usually only then when there is a significant advantage to certain features. There needs to be pressure to drive evolution, if there isn't pressure changes will be very minor.