OGTEleven Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Because Emeka and Diana have mad basketball skills! The physical skills they inherited from their forebears --- like Diana's amazing peripheral vision on no-look passes that's probably about 10 percent better than even an above average person. Emeka's amazingly long arms and hand-eye co-ordination for shot-blocking. This combined with the experiences in training, diet, etc. If you're meaning that it was somehow predetermined for UConn to win? Well, it was a confluence of all kinds of different factors. Hard determinism doesn't advocate that results of everything were necessarily written in stone at the Big Bang. It takes hard work to get things done. The world is what we make of it, using what resources we have. 109284[/snapback] If there is no free will how can you possibly make the most of what you have? It was simply your molecules doing what they always do. Nothing more, nothing less. Okafor got some good molecules. Woop-di-do. If everything is pre-determined then hard work and making the most of what you have is a mere illusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Why can't some of you respond to what Mickey is saying? 109273[/snapback] Isn't there the board's good will protocol not to flood it with "yeah, me too" posts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 If there is no free will how can you possibly make the most of what you have? It was simply your molecules doing what they always do. Nothing more, nothing less. Okafor got some good molecules. Woop-di-do. If everything is pre-determined then hard work and making the most of what you have is a mere illusion. 109293[/snapback] I'd love to sit here and talk about the brain and nervous system that directs our actions toward advantegious work and the broader world of science and philosophy... but I'm not going to. Have to split firewood so I can stay warm this winter and make cash money for food and electricity. Have a wonderful day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 I'd love to sit here and talk about the brain and nervous system that directs our actions toward advantegious work and the broader world of science and philosophy... but I'm not going to. Have to split firewood so I can stay warm this winter and make cash money for food and electricity. Have a wonderful day. 109421[/snapback] It was predetermined that you were going to split that firewood anyway. I understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Isn't there the board's good will protocol not to flood it with "yeah, me too" posts? 109297[/snapback] When you ignore the 4 paragrapghs that follow that one and you have a point. Got anything else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 It was predetermined that you were going to split that firewood anyway. I understand. 109424[/snapback] How do you extrapolate that from his survival argument? Just because he thinks we have adapted to survive doesn't mean that every single action we take is survival-based. And if you want to discuss the fact that every thought you have is an electrochemical reaction, which it is, then maybe the "soul" or god or self is in those reactions. At the electron/photon level of those reactions, you can't ever predict the state of an electron, so some things are just not predictible. Maybe this scientifically proven unpredictability is the basis for free will. Free will may be built in to us at the electron level. (This is not an original idea- it's been postulated by many scientists.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 How do you extrapolate that from his survival argument? Just because he thinks we have adapted to survive doesn't mean that every single action we take is survival-based. And if you want to discuss the fact that every thought you have is an electrochemical reaction, which it is, then maybe the "soul" or god or self is in those reactions. At the electron/photon level of those reactions, you can't ever predict the state of an electron, so some things are just not predictible. Maybe this scientifically proven unpredictability is the basis for free will. Free will may be built in to us at the electron level. (This is not an original idea- it's been postulated by many scientists.) 109626[/snapback] How does one prove unpredicatability? Doesn't this go against the theory that you cannot prove a negative? It may in fact be correct that we cannot measure the electrons reactions because our very method of measurement interferes with the reaction(s). That does not prove they are unpredicatable. Although electrons may have different states which are unknown, and these states help drive their reaction, it does not mean these states cannot be known. They may not be measurable, but they are real. If, in fact, there is nothing but matter and energy, their reactions may indeed be immeasurable, but they would not be unpredictable. Free will could not and would not exist. UConn is free to believe whatever he feels is correct, but his theory that we are all a bunch of matter/energy does not line up with the will to win of his favorite hoop team. Free will is in no way inconsistent with evolution or the will to survive. Determinism is not at odds with survival either. It is at odds with free will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 How does one prove unpredicatability? Doesn't this go against the theory that you cannot prove a negative? It may in fact be proven that we cannot measure the electrons reactions because our very method of measurment interferes with the reaction(s). That does not prove they are unpredicatable. Although electrons may have different states which are unknown, and these states help drive their reaction, it does not mean these states cannot be known. They may not be measurable, but they are real. If, in fact, there is nothing but matter and energy, their reactions may indeed be immeasurable, but they would not be unpredictable. Free will could not and would not exist. UConn is free to believe whatever he feels is correct, but his theory that we are all a bunch of matter/energy does not line up with the will to win of his favorite hoop team. Free will is in no way inconsistent with evolution or the will to survive. Determinism is not at odds with survival either. It is at odds with free will. 109714[/snapback] Miller-Urey proved through their lab test how life could have been formed from elements in early life of earth...add a little light...bang!!!!! you have living organisms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wham Rocks Posted November 9, 2004 Author Share Posted November 9, 2004 Miller-Urey proved through their lab test how life could have been formed from elements in early life of earth...add a little light...bang!!!!! you have living organisms 109736[/snapback] LOL! Miller-Urey proved nothing! First of all, its not light that's added to the primordial soup, its electricity. Duh! Second, the only result of the electric current were a few amino acids, not even enough to form a functioning chain. Third, Miller-Urey totally overlooked major factors such as what earth's prehistoric atmosphere may have been like and failed to take foriegn matter such as asteroids or debris into account. LOL @ how dumb Miller-Urey is. That was a good textbook lie in like the 1950's or something. But its obvious in our day and age that Miller-Urey are doofuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Miller-Urey proved through their lab test how life could have been formed from elements in early life of earth...add a little light...bang!!!!! you have living organisms 109736[/snapback] That is not even remotely close to the topic we're discussing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 That is not even remotely close to the topic we're discussing. 109779[/snapback] I know but thought I'd throw a wrench in there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 LOL! Miller-Urey proved nothing! First of all, its not light that's added to the primordial soup, its electricity. Duh! Second, the only result of the electric current were a few amino acids, not even enough to form a functioning chain. Third, Miller-Urey totally overlooked major factors such as what earth's prehistoric atmosphere may have been like and failed to take foriegn matter such as asteroids or debris into account. LOL @ how dumb Miller-Urey is. That was a good textbook lie in like the 1950's or something. But its obvious in our day and age that Miller-Urey are doofuses. 109770[/snapback] Wow aren't you the Einstein of the Christian freaks,,,,,, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 This reeks of pork. does "Wham" have a fond affinity to "hog." Come on!... 4 pages?... Given to a poster with a "lily white" handle... What da ya think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 How does one prove unpredicatability? Doesn't this go against the theory that you cannot prove a negative? It may in fact be correct that we cannot measure the electrons reactions because our very method of measurement interferes with the reaction(s). That does not prove they are unpredicatable. Although electrons may have different states which are unknown, and these states help drive their reaction, it does not mean these states cannot be known. They may not be measurable, but they are real. If, in fact, there is nothing but matter and energy, their reactions may indeed be immeasurable, but they would not be unpredictable. Free will could not and would not exist. UConn is free to believe whatever he feels is correct, but his theory that we are all a bunch of matter/energy does not line up with the will to win of his favorite hoop team. Free will is in no way inconsistent with evolution or the will to survive. Determinism is not at odds with survival either. It is at odds with free will. 109714[/snapback] I didn't answer this because I agree with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 When you ignore the 4 paragrapghs that follow that one and you have a point. Got anything else? 109608[/snapback] Drop the combatitiveness, I was referring to Mick's post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Drop the combatitiveness, I was referring to Mick's post. 114687[/snapback] Then respond to HIM, not ME! I'm not a mind-reader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Then respond to HIM, not ME! I'm not a mind-reader. 114694[/snapback] You asked the friggin question, and I responded to you. Sheesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Well, I'm a chemist. I do know that about 10,000 years ago, the climate became greatly attenuated, going away from 20 degree swings to 2 or 3 degree swings. I know that the enate mitochrondrial variance is much less varied in homo sapiens than it should be if our species were of the age of the apes and other primates. I do know that the so-called "missing link" remains elusive. Evoultion is about survival of the fittest. If that were all, slavery of our fellow humans makes perfect sense. Justice has no place. Racial superiority would not only make sense, it would be mandatory. Somehow, though, something mitigates...even though it makes no scientific sense... 108672[/snapback] Your explanation is why some people believe religion was created to prevent all out anarchy and be able to live a somewhat peaceful life. Without religion there would be no orderly society. Some people believe religion was created as a control mechanism to prevent chaos. Now that we have firm governments to establish an orderly society, some people believe religion is no longer needed to control the masses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Your explanation is why some people believe religion was created to prevent all out anarchy and be able to live a somewhat peaceful life. Without religion there would be no orderly society. Some people believe religion was created as a control mechanism to prevent chaos. Now that we have firm governments to establish an orderly society, some people believe religion is no longer needed to control the masses. 114760[/snapback] It is no longer needed for control, it is however still needed for the purpose of anesthetizing the masses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 It is no longer needed for control, it is however still needed for the purpose of anesthetizing the masses. 114846[/snapback] Don't steal Karl Marx's material, Mick. Oh, and Excommunicabo vos, my esteemed doit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts