|
Post by NASH7777 on Oct 4, 2006 8:27:44 GMT -5
Let me know what ya think ~~~~ Choice? Brock Nash
Choices we make them everyday… or do we? Obviously we make little choices everyday, like what to wear, but are these true choices? Your not gunna wear something dirty, it’s gunna be a cold day, possibly a sweatshirt. Something on top of te droor or your favorite one. Doesn’t Matter! You’re going to pick something based off your experiences. Something based on how society has influenced you and taught you to think. So is it choice or you just acting off experience. I’m here not only to prove how we can’t have true choice but more importantly persuade you to think this way with the benefits that come with that acceptance. One plus one is two, not six or eight or eleven, just two. Math and science can’t change, well other than Pluto no longer being a planet, but one plus one isn’t going to be two today and 2.5 tomorrow. If we could freeze time right now, we could mathematically work our way backwards through the equations and find out what happened 100 years ago. But if we can work backwards, shouldn’t we be able to work forwards as well? So predestination isn’t too far off. It all boils down to equal reactions. For every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction. Notice reactio-N not reaction-S. Meaning that the situation we are currently in has not only a definite past but also a definite future. Computers are a good example of how this all works. Computers don’t have true choice, they do as they were programmed to do. They can’t even come up with truly random numbers, only advanced calculations and algorithms to generate numbers. What are we but super advanced computers? Just because we can use experiences to adjust how we do things doesn’t mean our actions are true choice. In fact computers of the current age are starting to be taught how to change how they handle things based on experience. Handwriting recognition for instance, the more you write the more accustom it becomes to interpreting your handwriting. But we already know computers can’t have true choice, and we aren’t doing anything more than advanced versions of what they do. Perhaps you’re struggling with understanding all of this. It’s really as simple as this. Imagine a triangle cut out of paper. Looking at the triangle you can’t tell which side I cut first, second, and third, but just because you can’t tell which one I cut first doesn’t mean there isn’t a side I cut first. This is like our future. Even though there appears to be many possibilities, only one of them is truth. Now hopefully you understand the impossibility of true choice. But are you willing to accept something so bound in logic and fact? Truth is people don’t like the idea irregardless of how it just has to be. I’m going to convince you that believing in this not only will be beneficial but also won’t conflict with current religious beliefs you may have. First off however, you have to be willing to accept such a dynamic understanding of existence itself. Even if you currently don’t understand it all, give it time. Accept it for the sake of the speech and debate the idea later in your head later because what I’m about to tell you is the key to why we should think this way. People need some form of control, they feel helpless without it. But really if you want to feel in control you need to side with me on this because the closest we can be to having true choice is realizing that we don’t have choice at all. This is because as soon as we realize how everything is constantly effecting us against our will we in turn want to surround ourselves that will effect us in a positive light. We can see for the first time we have some way of influencing our lives instead of being the products of our parents and surroundings. For a second clear your mind, you are nobody, being nobody what kind of person do you want to be? Want to be successful? Easy! Yes Easy, too often we get caught up in our daily lives and don’t think about our future and how we’re being influenced. All we have is our life and future shouldn’t we put a little more time and effort into giving ourselves the best one we can? The best thing is that so many people aren’t looking out for their future that when you come prepared your gunna blow them out of the water! You’re going to get ahead in the world, because you’ve come prepared. The most unfortunate occurrence in explaining choicelessness is that people disregard it when applying their religion. Does religion really disagree though? Let’s take a look at Christianity. “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be blameless in his sight.” Ephesians 1:4. In 2nd Thessalonians verse 13 says “because from the beginning God chose you.” God chooses, we don’t because we can’t. But what is true choice and is it something we really want to have? True choice infers a choice not made based on all your influences, one that has true options. Options where each has 100% possibility of occurring. Think of the most rash action someone you know has ever done…now even that action had some psychological reason for it to have occurred, regardless of how disturbing. True choice would allow everything to have no merit and logic behind it, the possibility of true and utter chaos, chaos on a whole new level like never seen. Scary. Irregardless of what you believe, choice in the current physical world is nonexistent. Convinced? How can’t you be? Science and logic support it, religion doesn’t conflict it, and you can use it to your advantage in life. I hope you’ve come to understand the three subsequent ideas in this speech: •We can’t have true choice •Believing this can be advantageous •Most people waste their time not caring about their future But more importantly I hope this can benefit you and change how you think. And remember – “the closest we can be to having true choice is realizing we don’t have choice at all.”
~~~~~ Even though it is a speech to persuade, it's mostly just to get people to think, which is why I like it. It's an oral speech so pardon the "gunna"s etc...
|
|
|
Post by Bigfoot on Oct 4, 2006 13:41:11 GMT -5
Oh that Nash! What won't he say!?
|
|
|
Post by Neo Samurai on Oct 4, 2006 14:00:27 GMT -5
I don't agree with you, Nash.
I'll try to explain why when I get the chance.
|
|
|
Post by NASH7777 on Oct 4, 2006 15:44:36 GMT -5
Ha I don't care if you disagree, I mostly wanted people to think about the idea, get them to think about what they felt and thought about it. But I got an A so it can't be too bad, I did end up cutting a lot. I had a bunch more on religion and prechoice and etc...
|
|
|
Post by doyleman on Oct 4, 2006 15:56:14 GMT -5
religion is a big no no at my school... well, when I went there, i spose. then again, they do say the pledge of allegiance (spelling?).
it's a confusing, dumb topic. (not this, but the school/religion)
|
|
|
Post by The zoradude on Oct 4, 2006 16:16:57 GMT -5
What did you right this for? If this is a school thing Gunna is not a real word btw, just a note i see at the start, I will go back and edit after i read it.
|
|
|
Post by NASH7777 on Oct 4, 2006 16:19:52 GMT -5
Lol @ zoradude. In my very first post I mentioned about "gunna" and stuff...obviously you didn't read it all. I did it on purpose, I wrote this speech as exactly I would say it, because it was given orally.
|
|
|
Post by doyleman on Oct 4, 2006 16:29:59 GMT -5
you didn't read all of zoradude's post he said he'd come back to edit his post ONCE he's read it i found that funny, sorry to stray off like that, its that you kinda did what he did, exactly.
|
|
|
Post by NASH7777 on Oct 4, 2006 16:52:29 GMT -5
No Nathan you missread, the "obviously you didn't read it all" was sarcasm to what he said because he didn't see the explanation. So obviously he didn't read it all, get it?
|
|
|
Post by BloodKnight on Oct 4, 2006 18:23:54 GMT -5
I don't agree with the article(and my stomach doesn't either, I gotta go eat!). But good job on that A. ;D
Someone posted about choices on gamefaqs a while ago and how we couldn't choose, and I came up with this to crush their argument:
"We do have the ability to choose freely... the ability to make our lives better or worse, what other kinds of choices do we need? If you want more, most likely you haven't taken advantage of the ones you already have."
It's changed slightly since then.
|
|
|
Post by realitybites on Oct 4, 2006 21:39:29 GMT -5
Everyone is entitled to their own opinon so, this is your opinon Nash. I kinda scanned through it.....but eh, you write to much just kidding.
|
|
|
Post by The zoradude on Oct 5, 2006 0:25:27 GMT -5
Lol @ zoradude. In my very first post I mentioned about "gunna" and stuff...obviously you didn't read it all. I did it on purpose, I wrote this speech as exactly I would say it, because it was given orally. sorry nash man, today has been a long hard day on me, i was nit picking around on what i was reading..
|
|
|
Post by NASH7777 on Oct 5, 2006 7:33:49 GMT -5
Someone posted about choices on gamefaqs a while ago and how we couldn't choose, and I came up with this to crush their argument: "We do have the ability to choose freely... the ability to make our lives better or worse, what other kinds of choices do we need? If you want more, most likely you haven't taken advantage of the ones you already have." Being able to do things intellectually is not choice. I'll rebring up my computer reference. Computers now can already start adjusting how they respond based on experience. All I say is that the current situation we are currently in, has a definite future so true choice is non-existant since the laws of physics can't change and are consistent. The only choice we have is a chemical/physical one which has no randomness or possibility to not follow the laws of physics, thus not true choice. There's always a cause for the effect and the effect is always 100% true to the cause. Every reaction has an equal and precise opposite action.
|
|
|
Post by BloodKnight on Oct 5, 2006 10:33:55 GMT -5
What do you consider true choice Nash? And why would you want such an ability to choose?
|
|
|
Post by Bigfoot on Oct 5, 2006 15:04:54 GMT -5
Nash kind of reminds me of my sister when he does this. Tries to confuse you to make you think he is extremely smart beyond our minds can comprehend.
Now I aint saying he aint smart, he sure as hell is. But this thing on "true choice" I think is maybe chosen because Nash likes a little controversy in his stew. Its kind of like the pleasures I get when I put offensive humor in my games.
Plus I have read this from when Nash has posted this 2 or 3 times before.
|
|
kennyken
RPGM2 Helper
superboy teaser video is on youtube right now
Posts: 184
|
Post by kennyken on Oct 5, 2006 15:57:39 GMT -5
I thought I remembered seeing something like this when I went through all the old threads when I first joined here.
I don't know nash, I need a little clarity.
Define true choice.
|
|
|
Post by NASH7777 on Oct 5, 2006 19:36:03 GMT -5
Did anyone bother to read through the whole speech anyways?.... I talk about things like this.
|
|
|
Post by vespuleth on Oct 6, 2006 0:58:25 GMT -5
nash, i'm ashamed of your teacher. and i agree w/ kennyken. read the paper all you want; its unclear. its very political; that is, it dances around the issue, and never really clarifies anything. You don't really ever explain why its logical to believe that true choice doesn't exist. you don't define choice, true choice, or predestination. you don't analyze any shortcomings of your arguement (which is a necessity of a good presuasive speech, and a necessary part of a college level speech) and finally, it is based on fallicious information. current state tells nothing of previous state. ask any scientist. (and no, i don't care whether you think every scientist is wrong. furthermore, if you think every scientist is wrong, you cannot then use science to validate your arguement.) let's use a simple example. I am holding a solid putty in my hands. It is composed of many different atoms. all are in the putty. can you really tell me that knowing that these atoms are together in the putty can tell you anything about where they were beforehand? furthermore, since quantum mechanics has given us insight into the fact that matter/energy can be created (quantum fluctuation of the void) instantaniously (for periods of time inversely proportional to the quantity of matter/energy produced) it is quite possible that instants ago they didn't exist! this is important because the kopenhagen (sp?) interpretation of wave mechanics tells us that anything that is not observed does not exist (this is not fact, though it is the predominant theory; next to it being the many worlds theory). furthermore, physics are not consistent, which is what relativity has taught us (thus the name!) that is, the closer to the speed of light a particle gets, the less the laws of physics apply to it. why is this important? because electrons (and protons and nuetrons if i remember correctly, though rodak will probably have to give the final word) have shown evidence that suggests they are always moving at the speed of light (and may very well be light themselves) until the instant they are measured, and even sometimes at that instant (this is why subatomic particles are foundational to the wave diagram: they are matter that display wave (energy) properties) which is why we have the heisenberg uncertainty principle, which unifies everything i've just said: everything you observe, you alter.
in short, i wouldn't have given you an a. i may have given you a b because i like people that go against the grain, but i think that on this one you lean on people's ignorance too much rather than demonstarting any expertise of your own and that most likely i would have given you a high c (on a side note, i started my first teaching work this last week). what i suggest is performing a boxes and arrows model of the speech, and then expanding each point to ensure clarity and well established points.
also, just as a nugget, 1+1 is only = 2 when counting in base ten. my preacher made this same mistake when trying to prove the absolutism of math (whick i agree with, but this is a fallable way to prove it). if we are in base 5, we would count 1,2,3,4,10,11,12,13,14... when i took math theory (an extremely fun though aggravating class) we explored some very interesting bases. base ten has a hard time relating to our physical world because everything seems to tend toward spheres of influence or similar concepts (the wave) which tend to be relatives or derivatives of pi.
|
|
|
Post by BloodKnight on Oct 6, 2006 9:11:26 GMT -5
Did anyone bother to read through the whole speech anyways? I did. What I found was a whole bunch of examples that to me, didn't support your argument, then I found the reason for your argument, and I found a vague definition of what you consider true choice, that wasn't enough for me(especially wthout a good example). What I get from it is, you want a computerized version of what choices are really offered. But IMO, that contradicts what you later say about true choice, which is to be chaotic.
|
|
|
Post by NASH7777 on Oct 6, 2006 11:57:31 GMT -5
Ves my friend I beg to differ here again. My triangle example proves your puddy one wrong. The puddy in your hand has a definate past and form. If we freeze EVERYTHING we know by the situation where your had had just been squeezing. Physics are consistent irregardless of the parts we don't understand, there are just factors we don't know about or can't understand, but there is a definate reason for everything to happen.
You have one option, to believe that the world is lawed and consistent or you can believe that it's chaotic completely. Judging just merely off the existence of time and us, we obviously know that the world we live is a definite patterned one. It's utter foolishness to think otherwise. Just because we have know way of finding all the variables or to ever completely solve the situation because of the ripple effect, doesn't mean there isn't definity in the universe, in fact it's stupid not to accept definity.
You can be the optimist thinker or the logical thinker.
~~~~~~ As far as my grade, we're in a class of 5 and the only one even to compare was the one on abortion. My teacher didn't like mine at first but after the 3rd time and revision he said he finally got what I was trying to do with the speech and ended up really liking it. ~~~~~ Ves it's silly to say that the base system has some barrier in what 1+1 is. This is just a notational way. The idealistic value of blah+blah=blee doesn't matter, the idea of having one object and another object and the sum of the objects being 2, regardless of base system is the same.I can't believe you'ld stoop to something so retarded lol.
Sorry I have band sectionals at school right now gtg...maybe more later....
|
|
|
Post by Doan the Nado on Oct 6, 2006 14:28:26 GMT -5
Wow, Nash. I can't believe that you think calling people stupid and retarded helps your argument at all. It is one that we have discussed before and I do not really want to get back into it again. Suffice it to say that on one hand you say that there is no choice, but then later you say "as soon as we realize how everything is constantly effecting us against our will we in turn want to surround ourselves that will effect us in a positive light." Aren't the acts of "want"ing and "surround"ing acts that a person must consciously choose to do? I could decide to skip class right now (some days I might), but I will choose to go today. Theoretically, what you say might make sense at some level. In practice, it is just not the case:
"In theory, it is possible for theory and practice to agree. In practice, they never will."
|
|
|
Post by vespuleth on Oct 6, 2006 17:16:24 GMT -5
no. the problem is that you are assuming that the constituents have a past at all, which they don't. this is modern science, and if you are going to use science to validate your paper, you cannot then ignore what science has to say. you then commit the fallacy of begging the question. and actually, the pressure exerted, the imprint left tell you nothing of the previous state. because you can only know state or velocity; not both. furthermore, what i was referring to is the independant pasts of all constituent atoms of the putty. you are saying that you know where they once were in the putty (which in itself is inaccurate) and i'm saying you cannot know where they were before they were in the putty, which you never rebutted. this is the bastion of newtonian physics; and its very dogmatic, almost religious in its reasoning. but its deprecated. no good scientist (that knows his quantum physics) will agree to this. its not that we we don't understand things about our world, its that the more we understand it, the more we understand how much of our world isn't as structured as we would like to believe. again, before you go saying things like this, you need to check and see if they are correct, and this one isn't. Newtonian physics have been supplanted by quantum mechanics, which say the exact opposite of what you are saying. your information is about 100 years behind. but the choice is yours, right? a system does have barrier as to what 1+1 is. so long as 1 exists as a wholistic concept, it is absolute; however, once it is used as a type of measurement, it is subjected to the barriers of it's unit. that is, 1 is not a unit. think of it like this (more math theory; yay!): 1+1 =2 we cannot think of 1 as absolute, but as a place holder; because 1+1 is nothing with out a unifier between left and right side of the equation. while 1+1 is not always 2, x+x == 2x. that is, if i have one of something and you give me another one of something, then i have 2. so why is it based on units? well, take for instance a mole of hydrogen. if i have 1 mol H and get another mol H, what do I have? this example provides us with a quick reason that units (bases) are needed: i can have (6.0221415(10)×10^23)x2 hydrogen atoms, 6.0221415(10)×10^23 H molecules, 2 mol H or 1 mol H2. why is this a problem? measurements are not absolute; only the numbers themselves are. For instance, what is an inch? the inch did not exist before we as humans sat down and said, this is an inch. furthermore, take the notion of 'trees'. 1 tree did not exist before we sat down and said it's a tree. before that, it was a conglomerate of atoms that interacted with other conglomerates of atoms (that is, it is not seperate from its environment, as we assume it is) in a unique chemical process. but it was a part of the whole. therefore, base is important, because combination is dependant on base. i hope that was clear, but i doubt it. the base system must be identified so any sort of combination can take place, and base systems are not absolutes. only the numbers themselves are. i find it ironic that you never commented on any of the quantum mechanics that i mentioned, as that seems to be the heaviest weight against your system, which depends on newtonian physics to be true (and quantum mechanics demonstrates how newtonian physics are not absolutes anymore). and i wish you wouldn't resort to name calling; it really hurts your arguement. consider how it comes across: person 1: the world is flat person 2: here is proof that the world is not flat, but rather it is round person 1: your a poopie head! who do you think people really view as the more knowledgable and thus the easier believed individual in this instance?
|
|
|
Post by vespuleth on Oct 6, 2006 18:14:17 GMT -5
i think this went in the wrong thread... I hate being so pressed for time. I just want to point out that there are HUGE problems at the core of Math. 1 + 1 may not equal 2!! Bertrand Russell took hundreds of pages in Principia Mathematica constructing a rigorous proof that 1 + 1 does indeed equal two. But it took Hundreds of pages!!! It is FAR from Obvious. Whole numbers are NOT natural (as Vespuleth pointed out). Base e systems seem the way of Nature. Whole numbers just Never Occur naturally. They should never be held up as an example in a case like this! And to limit the Universe to two ways of being strikes me as wrong too. It can not be truthfully asserted that one must take either of your two positions. Why not have alternatives? You say that we can't know. So how can you claim to know??
|
|
|
Post by NASH7777 on Oct 6, 2006 18:37:28 GMT -5
Where is all this name calling coming in? I never called ves any names. I did say certain ideas were quote "silly" and "foolish" but that's about it.
And you didn't provide an adequate counter example to my base thing, be you claimed 1+1 not always to be 2...which I said was retardedand would still say because it's flat out false. The notation changes but the realistic value doesn't. The chemistry addition isn't a good counter example for obvious reasons. Your adding from a derived measurement, the number of protons electrons and neutrons don't change the true quantity is still matched. That's like saying I have one blob of water and another drop of water and I add them together to get one blob of water therefor 1+1=1, obviously not, the quantity of water in the product is still the addition of the two beginning quantities in number of protons and everything.
Ves you truly don't understand the complete way it works. Your right that the putty itself can not have a derived history just alone but thats not what I'm talking about, I'm saying that we have access to all factors, like the current position of your hands, air, sound waves, every single atom. When every value is known you can always work backwards because everything that effected it has been effected in the same exact world and it all works together backwards logically, it has to or the past would be non-existant, and same with the future in that case.
As far as quantom physics, you make claims that aren't even supported. It's generally accepted things they say to make things easier. Sorta like light has no mass, we say that in school because it's soooo small that it's impractical to worry about it, but it still does have mass and is effected by gravity. Just because it's sooo slight that it's impossible for us to measure doesn't mean that we can say "Oh I guess it just doesn't follow the fundamental principles," that actually goes against the theory of relativity, things would know longer be relative in the same basic principles as everything else. And unfortunatley in science we have to use our best guessing methods because we don't know. That's why we say light comes in waves....while in reality it's probably something more like bursts. We use things we can relate to, to describe things that are new to us.
I feel I'm being very realistic in saying math governs all and things just have to make sense mathematically and patternally. Math has been the only thing in my entire life I can be sure of. I use that to deduce how everything else has to be. You may get a few answers for a problem, but only one is the truth for the precise situation, and everything happens with an equal and opposite reaction with no ifs ands or buts about it... If you want to believe the world isn't consistent and mathematical and that it just doesn't make sense go right ahead.....I personally feel it's a little naive, regardless if you believe in a creator or that's just how everything is.
|
|
|
Post by Rodak on Oct 7, 2006 4:52:30 GMT -5
i think this went in the wrong thread... Yup... it did! Dang this working 2 jobs!! I hit the wrong reply button on the "25 most recent posts page" I guess! So Sorry. But... What about Virtual Particles? They have a truly untraceable history! Those things spontaneously form in the vacuum of space, then vanish. They may be the "Dark Matter/Energy" that has been plaguing Astronomers since the mid 1990's. You can not realistically trace the history of matter before it's conversion from energy (or energy before it's conversion from matter)! Else the Big Bang would be more than Just a Theory! Belief in The Big Bang is just as Huge and Unjustified a Leap of Faith as Believing in God! It must be made via an emotional method, not a rational one! So if you want to believe in either (or even both!) (they are not mutually exclusive!) you MUST acknowledge that it is a mostly baseless conclusion! Made from the heart, without Proof. OK... Time is still short around here and I have a cutscene to make!! And PLEASE don't think it is so obvious that 1+1=2!! It Ain't!! Else, why would Lord Russell have needed Hundreds of pages to construct a Proof of the idea? Peace.
|
|