The Debate Hall Social Thread

[rvkevin]

You mention that camo would have to have begun on one individual organism, but wouldn't this also apply for species that actually do currently have camo?

I was simply using it to illustrate the difference between a neutral mutation and a beneficial one. In one species, it may be beneficial which would prompt it to occupy the gene pool. In a different species, it may be neutral in which it would fluctuate randomly and might occupy the gene pool or die out with the former being more likely due to the small initial sample. If we were to compare the two, we would find that the beneficial mutation has a greater chance of ‘catching on.’

Remember, camo is different from say, the elongation of the gharial's jaw to allow it to predate fish better. The 'elongation' simply a variable on a pre-existing feature (the jaw). So in this scenario, evolution works the traditional way, because the individuals with the most elongated jaws, even if they're not elongated enough to be considered an optimal adaption at the time, survive to pass on their genes, catalysing more elongation.

I don’t agree. Remember, the change in coloration comes from a neural network that connects the brain to the skin cells. This means that these nerves need to be extended incrementally. This means that this needs to have a beneficial impact on the organism for natural selection to favor these mutations. While there may be certain step mutations that allow the different colors, etc., much of the groundwork would still need to be incremental. This also has some cost attached to it, and we have agreed that there is no benefit at this stage so this would mean that it would be selected against.

Edit: I don't mind weighing in on the cosmology stuff, but clearly define 'contingent' and 'necessary' first. They have multiple definitions even just within philosophy and starting off talking about different concepts makes for a frustrating discussion.

 

[Dre89]

Contingent is basically something that could have been otherwise. A simple example would be saying a unicorn is the first cause. The unicorn is a contingent first cause because it could have been something other than a unicorn, it's simply a unicorn with the property of first causehood.

Now if you're going to say the unicorn isn't contingent, and that it's necessary, that would be almost impossible to justify. You'd have to show how the unicorn's properties are the only things capable of causing existence. So it's horn, specific colour, specific height etc. That would all be impossible to explain.

Most atheists would be what I call a contingentalist, as they often start with concepts such as matter and energy, and specifc forms of space and time (as in they believe these concepts weren't created). They assume these to be brute contingencies. Very few atheists would argue that these properties are metaphysically necessary, meaning that existence would be impossible unless matter, energy, time and space all had the specific forms they do (an example of a form would be linear time vs infinite regress vs no boundary proposal).

So basically I'm looking for either how an atheist justifies contingency being the first existence, or how they justify believing a natural/physical existence is metaphysically necessary.

Just for clarity, the reason why I equate physical/natural beings and properties to being contingent is because they have a specific form.

All of this stuff is part of the reason why I consider atheism more rational than any other God model apart from my own, because pretty much every other model ascribes contingent properties to God. To me, if you're going to believe that the first cause can have contingent properties, then it's much more logical to be an atheist, because then non-physical properties become totally unnecessary and unexperienced, which defines irrational belief.

So the reason why I'm a D(r)eist is because I believe the first cause must have exclusively necessary properties. So if I could be convinced that it doesn't need to have necessary properties, or that physical properties can be physical, I could be swayed to atheism.

 

[rvkevin]

Contingent is basically something that could have been otherwise.

In which case any God you propose would be contingent since I could propose a universe that didn't have such a being so 'it could have been otherwise'.

 

[Dre89]

No that's impossible. Because the argument is that this deity is responsible for any type of existence.

That's the difference between mp and physical arguments. A physical argument such as design doesn't hold in a different universe which is chaotic. Physical arguments are based on specific types of existence, whereas mp ones are just based on existence in general.

This is why I contest no science whatsoever, because my argument doesn't require cosmology to be a specific way, like physical arguments do.

But anyway I don't want to get into a God debate (for once). I just want to hear people's origin accounts, hopefully being as thorough as possible. It'd be interesting for everyone in general anyway.

 

[rvkevin]

No that's impossible. Because the argument is that this deity is responsible for any type of existence.

This is only the case if you think that brute facts, brute contingencies, whatever you want to call them are impossible. This isn't even close to being shown. I don't even think you claim it to be so, only that they are unjustified. However, if these other hypotheses are possible, then 'it could have been otherwise' for the God hypothesis, which would make God not necessary. In order to show that he is necessary, you have to demonstrate, not just claim, that he is required for any type of existence. Until then, the God hypothesis is in the same category as any other 'contingent' hypothesis.

 

[Dre89]

I don't believe brute contingencies are possible, but I do have reasoning for that if called upon.

I also have reasoning why my deity is the only thing that is necessary, I just haven't shown the reasoning here. It's pretty long and complex, I'm doing a 30 000 word thesis on it.

I certainly don't think any God model is metaphysically necessary, in fact I think they're all contingent apart from my own, and I don't think the default position should be that a god is necessary.

I'm more interested in your origin theory though.

 

[Mewter]

Hey Dre, could you restate your reasoning against the infinite regression of time?
Was it that an infinite number of things would have had to happen before you got to the present?
Because if so, then that assumes a beginning, which would make it a case of circular reasoning. :|

Not trying to start a god debate, but a discussion about time.

 

[Dre89]

Talk about a blast from the past.

Firstly, I want to make a dictinction between a metaphysical first cause and a physical first cause. The distinction is important because you could have a physical infinite regress, that has a metaphysical first cause. If you're an atheist, you believe the physical and metaphysical first causbe are the same thing.

I'm specifically against the idea that there can a metaphysical infinite regress (as in the most fundamental existence is an infinite regress/ does not have a first cause).

The reason I make this distincttion is because physics could determine in the future that time is looped or infinite, so I'm not contesting science ,I'm simply saying this system itself needs a first cause.

There are a number of problems with a metaphysical infinite regress. One being that there are no reference points in an infinite regress. Here, infinity refers to length (infinite length of time/infiniate amount of causes) yet two things can't actually be an infinite length of time apart. There will always be a finite number for the distance they are apart, there isn't a point where it goes from a finite number (eg. 9 billion trillion light years) to infinity.

Also , if X asks Y how many years have passed, Y says 'an infinite amount'. Ten years later, if X asks the same question, if Y says 'an infinite amount' he's not accounting for the ten year difference, you can't actually tell ten years have passed. However, he can't say 'infinity plus ten years' because infinity isn't a number applicable in mathematical equations.

For example, if the present equals 0, you can't regress back until you reach infinity. This goes back to my first point, it will always be a finite number.


All that is just off the top of my head. I do have an incomplete chapter on infinite regress from my incomplete thesis though, and that probably has some stuff I missed out on here.

But yeah, so this atheism origin stuff lol.

 

[rvkevin]

I'm more interested in your origin theory though.

I don’t support a particular hypothesis. I feel that much of what is discussed concerning origins is, due to the lack of available empirical evidence, either speculation or semantics. Either way, these methods are not useful for increasing our understanding of our universe. I find it extremely baffling that people presume that they have gained or can gain knowledge about our universe without actually investigating it. I will be patiently waiting until particular hypotheses yield predictable results and those predictions are tested.

 

[Dre89]

I find it extremely baffling that people presume that they have gained or can gain knowledge about our universe without actually investigating it. I will be patiently waiting until particular hypotheses yield predictable results and those predictions are tested.

Are you talking about theoretical physics or people with metaphysical frameworks like me?

Because I'm not claiming to know anything about the universe, but rather existence in general. I'm not using philosophy to suggest that the physical world has to exist a certain way.

Ok so you don't subscribe to a particular hypothesis, but you're completely fine will believing that things with specific forms such as space, time, matter and energy, all simply existed initially without explanation?

 

[Mewter]

Yeah it's been a while.
It seems like I slightly misunderstood your position.

There are a number of problems with a metaphysical infinite regress. One being that there are no reference points in an infinite regress. Here, infinity refers to length (infinite length of time/infiniate amount of causes) yet two things can't actually be an infinite length of time apart. There will always be a finite number for the distance they are apart, there isn't a point where it goes from a finite number (eg. 9 billion trillion light years) to infinity.

Sounds good so far. I noticed that you are imposing a beginning on the Universe. To measure infinity between Point A in time and Point B would be to draw a line from Point A to an infinity in either direction. Point B can never happen because it has no place. The problem with this is that Point B is then a Beginning or an End to the timeline, which is forbidden in infinite regress. It's like showing someone an orange and asking them "where is the vine?" (You already said this, but I am just restating it.) On to your reason for making a beginning.

So, I understand that you are setting a beginning because all of the events in time require a prior event, which would eventually lead to a simple beginning that required no prior event.

BUT, and this is where I make my argument, this first event does not have to be responsible for everything that came afterward. Maybe every instance, including it, is just the result of a rule repeated. In other words, maybe the universe just follows laws, and it is a result of plugging a time value into the equation of the law that gives result#5; result #4 did come before result#5, but it didn't actually cause it from this point of view.

For example, take a function. We'll use y=x+1 and start at x=0 for clarity, where x is time and y is a value dependent on the value of x.
Simply because x=0 yields 1 does not mean that every value that comes afterward is the result of y being 1. They are all, y=1 included, representations of the function y=x+1 ! You have a shape with each value adhering to a pattern.
The first cause wasn't a necessary cause. The only necessary thing was the equation itself.

Taking this a bit further...
It's possible that the universe is like a gigantic static block (time inclusive) that just exists on its own. Just like an description you made for the existence of a self-necessary, static being some time before, but brought down a tier so that the universe is a solid, unchanging block rather than the god. Time would be along one dimension and the other three (or more if there are) would have their own axes. We can assign variables to all of these dimensions, but all of them would finally rely on just one variable, x. So t= x^2, p=x-3, g=some other operation with x, c=something else done to x. There is no time necessary on this level, though. You have your set of equations (your shape) and every value for them exists at that instant. Again, all you need is to establish that your equations exist. At some point, all these equations (laws) could just be different implementations of a single law, which by itself exists.

Anyway, with the idea that the first cause/event/object existing inside the universe is the reason for all later existence out of the way, we can safely build our infinitely regressing timeline.

Here are some more examples of the idea just in case (Arrows indicate causation.):
(ex: You kick a ball, and it flies forward. This argument is the difference between interpreting it as (1) your kick caused the ball to go forward and (2) the laws overlapped in such a way that your leg is next to the ball at t=1, hitting it at t=2, and the ball is in the air at t=3.)
(ex2: A>B>C>D>E>F>G [Timeline is independent. The t value does not affect the letter, only the letter before it does]
vs
TIME 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
_____v v v v v v v
Place A,B,C,D,E,F,G)

Also , if X asks Y how many years have passed, Y says 'an infinite amount'. Ten years later, if X asks the same question, if Y says 'an infinite amount' he's not accounting for the ten year difference, you can't actually tell ten years have passed. However, he can't say 'infinity plus ten years' because infinity isn't a number applicable in mathematical equations.
For example, if the present equals 0, you can't regress back until you reach infinity. This goes back to my first point, it will always be a finite number.

First paragraph above.


Argument summary:
You are right that a beginning (the absolute time 0) is incompatible with infinite regress. The only reason for trying to reach back to infinity is to get to a beginning, which your argument for a first cause justifies as a necessity. The argument says that everything requires a cause except for the first cause, which is existence itself.
But here's why that is unnecessary.
Maybe you can build a universe where our 'first cause' is not actually the reason for the later developments. It is just a point among the others and happens to be where x=0.

So then we just decide to make a universe that runs according to this, with time 0 (x=0) being an arbitrary time point. It doesn't matter. What matters is that every event in that infinite timeline is a result of the laws of the universe, the equation/pattern, and not the state of the value before it.

As a side note these laws could just be specific instances of a super law. Whether or not it is mandatory they would exist in that form or are chosen by random for each universe doesn't matter.

What do you think?
I personally see it is a cool idea but at the very best it is just in the realm of possibility.
Nothing more, possibly less.

 

[rvkevin]

Are you talking about theoretical physics or people with metaphysical frameworks like me?

I’m talking about both.

Because I'm not claiming to know anything about the universe, but rather existence in general. I'm not using philosophy to suggest that the physical world has to exist a certain way.

When I said universe, I meant the set of all things that exist. This includes anything prior to the cause of our local universe. Are you saying that this being exists? If so, then you are making a factual statement about this universe.

Ok so you don't subscribe to a particular hypothesis, but you're completely fine with believing that things with specific forms such as space, time, matter and energy, all simply existed initially without explanation?

I see no reason to exclude the possibility and I’m fine with accepting it as a possibility.

 

[Dre89]

When I said universe, I meant the set of all things that exist. This includes anything prior to the cause of our local universe. Are you saying that this being exists? If so, then you are making a factual statement about this universe.

Ok fair enough.

Mewter- The mode of causality doesn't really change anything. You still have an infinite amount of events, which is impossible. At what point do a finite amount of events become infinite? What is the last finite number?

 

[Mewter]

Mewter- The mode of causality doesn't really change anything. You still have an infinite amount of events, which is impossible. At what point do a finite amount of events become infinite? What is the last finite number?

The mode of causality does matter. It determines whether or not we need a first cause.

To answer your question though: you're thinking of infinity in the wrong way.
Our line has no inherent flaw, because it doesn't require a last finite number. The act of placing a boundary to show that infinite regress is impossible contradicts the fact that the domain is all real numbers, going to infinity (-∞,∞). To change this is to change the argument to [0,5) or [0,∞). Now it's no longer our infinite number line; we changed the argument. We can't do that.* The domain must remain infinite if we are going to argue for its possibility.
After establishing this we should ask whether it's safe for causality, which my previous post did.

Or another way to put it:
Infinity is a concept, not a number.
The reason it is used on a number line is to show that the the set goes on indefinitely. Don't think "the numbers never reach infinity," because it implies ∞ is a number, which is not the intent of placing it at the end of a number line. Instead the thought should be phrased "there is no end to the quantity of numbers which we lay down."

Asking at what specific point to which infinity is the next step is like asking when your pet rabbit will mature into a tractor. Infinity is not a number, just what you do to the numbers.

*This is the same as adding a first cause. You could argue that a first cause is necessary but I already addressed that in my previous post.
*A Youtuber also made a video about this argument (It's a great vid): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVU3...DvjVQa1PpcFNnIa2e1X82u8ZHOlJObQPJlcygf4Mi7as=

 

[Suntan Luigi]

To anyone who cares: Some of you are aware that I left the debate forums abruptly without so much as saying goodbye. I should have let you guys know beforehand, but I just lost much of my interest in debating mainly because I found out that Team Fortress 2 became free to play around the time I left, plus I don't really find debating all that worthwhile/fun. I may still make a thread on evolution in the future if I find the interest and the time to do so, however. For now though, see you all later.

P.S. If you want to know my steam I.D. just send me a pm and we can play some tf2.

 

[Aesir]

^ That was Random.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

After seeing Suntan Luigi post in another thread, I have to say that I am downright eager to see him make a thread about evolution. Like, in the way that Wugga is eager to see Proton Jon play Special World stage 2 in Kaizo Mario blind.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

To anyone who cares: Some of you are aware that I left the debate forums abruptly without so much as saying goodbye. I should have let you guys know beforehand, but I just lost much of my interest in debating mainly because I found out that Team Fortress 2 became free to play around the time I left, plus I don't really find debating all that worthwhile/fun. I may still make a thread on evolution in the future if I find the interest and the time to do so, however. For now though, see you all later.

P.S. If you want to know my steam I.D. just send me a pm and we can play some tf2.

The only reason I visited this subsection was so I could see you post. I am thoroughly disappointed by this development. ;~;

 

[rvkevin]

Is anyone here a compatibilist with regards to free will? What does this position entail/mean?

It seems like a complete distortion of what the term 'free will' originally meant and then shaping it to mean something that actually exists.

 

[Aesir]

The DH use to have a "views" thread, you would list your views and it would be easy to identify what others thought. Is anyone interested in doing a like thread like that again? Might be easier to generate content.

 

[Dre89]

I don't think compatibilism distorts the meaning of free will, it's just in a different context. The will in this sense is still free in the sense that what we will, be it determined or not, can be acted out. But free will can also mean freely choosing what to will.

I think compatibilists are basically just determinists who have used the term
free will in a different context. When you think about it, determinists believe the body can do anything it wills within the laws of physics, but it doesn't choose what it wills. That's basically what compatibilists believe too.

I'm also happy to do the beliefs thing if someone else is willing to get the ball rolling.

 

[rvkevin]

I don't think compatibilism distorts the meaning of free will, it's just in a different context. The will in this sense is still free in the sense that what we will, be it determined or not, can be acted out. But free will can also mean freely choosing what to will.

The thing is, the person I'm talking to is still framing it as "you could have done otherwise." As in, they could have chosen cheerios instead of corn flakes for breakfast this morning. The reasoning is that they have chosen cheerios on other days, so they were 'physically' able to choose it on that day. However, they also seem to accept that they were unable to choose cheerios this morning because they were limited by their brain, but then why say that they could have chosen otherwise? It just seems like sloppy language to me. It's much more clear to say that they were 'physically' able to do otherwise, but they couldn't do otherwise due to their mental function.

I'm also happy to do the beliefs thing if someone else is willing to get the ball rolling.

Same here.

 

[Dre89]

Well yeah what you said makes sense, but as far as I understand standard compatibilits don't believe there other possibilities.

 

[GoldShadow]

The DH use to have a "views" thread, you would list your views and it would be easy to identify what others thought. Is anyone interested in doing a like thread like that again? Might be easier to generate content.

Sounds like a good idea to me!

 

[Aesir]

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=18026&highlight=positions this was the original thread, (I had to search for it LOL)

Would you guy slike to see something more thought out than this? or a simple list saying For or against good enough?

 

[Sucumbio]

I am For (ha ha c wut I did thar) a simple list.

 

[Dre89]

I'm for it too.

 

[Aesir]

well I made the thread so feel free to fill it out guys

 

[GoldShadow]

Wow, looking at my 2003 post in that thread, it is ridiculous how much I have changed.

Referring to the old thread, of course.

 

[Aesir]

Wow, looking at my 2003 post in that thread, it is ridiculous how much I have changed.

Referring to the old thread, of course.

Yeah I know, I was all over the place my views are a bit more refined now. haha

Also FILL OUT THE NEW ONE

 

[Dre89]

I'll do it soon once I get to my computer.

And once I learn what half of them are.

 

[Aesir]

I'm seeing some possible thread ideas. Mainly me vs everyone else on why I think a bio metric ID is a bad idea.

 

[Sucumbio]

rv had some compelling points on why it could be bad. though I tend to think from a theoretical standpoint on such things, which pass over the logistics. in reality it'd be a horrible idea because people are incompetent. but in a perfect world, I think it could be fairly beneficial.

 

[Aesir]

In a perfect world you wouldn't need it.

 

[Sieguest]

http://digitaljournal.com/article/322396

I'm sure you peeps have already caught wind of this but I'd like to know what you all think: Doomed to the same fate as SOPA and PIPA or is the use of the internet as we do now doomed?

 

[rvkevin]

http://digitaljournal.com/article/322396

I'm sure you peeps have already caught wind of this but I'd like to know what you all think: Doomed to the same fate as SOPA and PIPA or is the use of the internet as we do now doomed?

From what little I have heard about it, it does not censor the internet, it just allows the government a general warrant to obtain private information on the internet. While this doesn't mean the internet is doomed, it is a big violation of the fourth amendment.

 

[GoldShadow]

What rv said. It's ostensibly less worrisome than SOPA/PIPA, to me at least, because it seems like something that really could be used as an effective tool by the intelligence community to combat terrorism. On the other hand, there is absolutely no way I would support it in its current form, ie vague wording and ambiguous delineation of powers. It would need to set out very, very specific goals and very, very specific limitations before I would even think about supporting it.

That said, I doubt it'll get to that point, and outcry over it will destroy any chance of it being passed.

 

[rvkevin]

What rv said. It's ostensibly less worrisome than SOPA/PIPA, to me at least, because it seems like something that really could be used as an effective tool by the intelligence community to combat terrorism.

I don't believe for a second that this would be used to combat terrorism. Just like how the Patriot Act was used to fuel the war on drugs, this is likely to have a similar course. I'm sure that immigration officials would love to get their hands on Facebook's database. You would find out where someone lives, their social network, their family network, where their family lives, more than likely their photo (i.e. skin color), etc. So you have family that live in Mexico? I see that you recently visited X? Or the more scary version, I see you are planning a trip to go X with Y (which was conversed over private message)? This the start of targeting you for either being an illegal immigrant or a drug trafficker and are now on their 'radar'.

Sounds a little crazy until you realize that they have placed GPS trackers on cars of people who have 'suspicious' contacts. However, when the GPS tracking went before the courts, it was found to be illegal. Continued surveillance (i.e. just knowing the location of the car, not the location of you) was found to constitute a search which requires a warrant or probable cause. It would not surprise me if they are already doing this as they will continue to push boundaries (even if they violate basic constitutional rights) that have not been specifically stated by the courts.

If this was done via regular mail, it would be considered a felony to tamper with it (even if you just opened it, read the contents, and resealed it), but information on the internet is not viewed as 'sacred' as mail even though the only thing that has changed is the medium. Well it should be treated with the same level of privacy we demand for physical transmissions.

 

[Okuser]

outcry over it will destroy any chance of it being passed.

Since CISPA only effects personal liberty there will be almost no corporate involvement like there was with SOPA. Big companies like Google aren't going to be around to help out this time around, meaning there's almost nothing to stop this bill from passing except for small efforts from internet communities and whatever lobbying efforts are already going on in Washington.

 

[GwJ]

What's up with the Debate With your Power subforum? What's that used for?