Quote:
Originally Posted by polarkrackin
Yes, a good defense is calling me a loon!
Anyways, I think the absolute best example I can leave you with is this.
What happens when we take someone with no long term memory and test them in the same situation multiple times? Interesting direction to take this, I know. The reason this is so important is that it gives the researcher a new level of control over the subject. History will never change for this person. They will not add more data to their history, so that is controlled for. Also, genetics never change from day to day (well im sure somehow they could...) so they will be considered controlled for. So if we test someone with no long term memory function again and again the only thing we do not have direct control over is the environment. The environment is internal and external. We can control the room they are in, the temperature, the humidity, the lighting, but we cannot readily control their level of stress fatigue, amount of sleep they got that day, how frustrated they are, etc. One would assume if you made them conform to a pattern they would be easier to deal with, but that would be simply unethical. In light of that, I predict that if one tests a person with no longer term memory multiple times in the same situation, they will yield identical results. <------ that is a prediction. I am putting it all on the line. I haven't seen a creationist do that. I haven't seen someone defending free will do that. That is an enormous difference.
The famous saying is, you cannot step in the same river twice. Controlling every aspect of an environment is practically impossible. If nothing else, the subject will continue to grow older day by day. I am unsure how that would impact anything.
Also, I think I put a lot more into this thought process than you gave me credit for. A good theory offers a more fruitful explanation. Free will is just a cop out. "why did that person do that, because he chose to!" Failing to want to dissect and analysis the causes of behavior is rather hilarious. It's like saying, "why is the sky blue, because god wanted it to be!"
|
More likely isn't an absolute. Because that absolute does not exist is a vicious point against your argument
The only thing I haven't refuted yet, the rest was you reiterating your own points without attacking my rebuttals.
I didn't call you a loon I called your point stupid. I think you are taking incomplete data and making an assumption based on incomplete data. More commonly known as a logical fallacy. That very long and ultimately fruitless conclusion you have reached is the definition of a logical fallacy. I'm actually near overload on specifically where to start.
Here goes:
First I think that the word you are looking for is short term memory. Short term memory is day to day memories if a person had no longer term memories but had short term memories they would make a history each and every day. Well actually they'd be regressed to an infantile stage since your long term memory is (assuming I'm remembering correctly) also where you keep functions like walking and talking.
In any case assuming they forgot each day is what I'm guessing you're trying to get at and I have to say you don't really have anything to say.
All of your point is based on assumption and unlike creationism which cannot be proven or disproven via science and thus trying will inevitably lead to frustration, your point IS subject to proof and you have offered none. You are literally preaching (irony most delicious) about a subject you thought of with zero back up. Even some of your assumptions were proven to be fallacies.
Your example is an extreme to a ridiculous extent. It's almost as bad as saying a person offered a choice between getting stabbed to death or winning a million dollars will always decide to pick a million dollars. BRILLIANT!
But your example is just silly a person given the exact same choices if they have nothing raising them or any memory of things raising them would do the exact same thing isn't really saying much. Now if there were some way to put in morally questionable tests like a guy losing his wallet on whether or not the person would return it but since they have no memories they don't even know what a wallet is they'd probably just pick it up and try to determine what the hell it is. Others probably would be to shy to pick it up perhaps their curiosity would get the best of them perhaps it wouldn't. I doubt even their sleeping patterns would remain consistent. They also would be influenced on how the hell they felt. That right there is free will! Free will isn't choosing to do something else it is merely the ability to do so.
You risked absolutely nothing since your prediction cannot be tested. I can tell you that you're wrong but ultimately you'll stick with your dogma. And thus bad for something like science.
The point you seem to be missing is you can only be influenced by your surroundings, memories or anything. You make the choice to do something or decide not to. That seems to be what you keep missing.
You are amusingly self assured that what you think you know to be scientific fact and that you actually have to bolster your own faith in your opinions to make it seem more valid only speaks volumes that you yourself aren't to convinced by it. You don't want to believe your opinion is wrong and that mentality is the exact opposite of science.