A question of free will

[Rear Naked]

 

Originally Posted by Mike LX-R

you haven't proven anything either Holmes. like I said in a much earlier post, all of the debating is based from speculative logic with loosely organized facts and theories and is for the most part nonsensical hullabaloo.

 

No, I havn't proven anything. You're the one who said your position was definite. People have given evidence for the position. You have not, and that is fine, but stop acting like you are.

[knucklefux]

 

Originally Posted by Rear Naked

No, I havn't proven anything. You're the one who said your position was definite. People have given evidence for the position. You have not, and that is fine, but stop acting like you are.

You are acting as if you are providing evidence for your position, but are just stating your position.

 

also, he says fluoride isn't good for your teeth, so it must be so.

[Mike LX-R]

 

Originally Posted by knucklefux

also, he says fluoride isn't good for your teeth, so it must be so.

 

I said the data is conflicting

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc2001050/

http://scholar.googleusercontent.com...t=0,5&as_vis=1

[knucklefux]

 

Originally Posted by Mike LX-R

I said the data is conflicting

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc2001050/

http://scholar.googleusercontent.com...t=0,5&as_vis=1

 

here, let's use a credible source that actually knows WTF they're talking about: http://www.ada.org/fluoride.aspx

further, you JUST used the metabolism of fluoride (specifically higher calcium retention) in a different argument. are you really trying to say that more calcium is bad (or not good) for your teeth?

edit: just because a bunch of quacks and morons generate a conflict over something, it doesn't mean that there is a generally accepted "conflict" about it. the age of the earth, evolution, etc are FINE examples of this sort of thing.

[Mike LX-R]

 

Originally Posted by knucklefux

here, let's use a credible source that actually knows WTF they're talking about: http://www.ada.org/fluoride.aspx

further, you JUST used the metabolism of fluoride (specifically higher calcium retention) in a different argument. are you really trying to say that more calcium is bad (or not good) for your teeth?

edit: just because a bunch of quacks and morons generate a conflict over something, it doesn't mean that there is a generally accepted "conflict" about it. the age of the earth, evolution, etc are FINE examples of this sort of thing.

 

the ADA? are you {censored}ing kidding me

credible? next thing you're going to tell me that the FDA doesn't have vested interest in the dairy industry.

[Dr.Picklebottom]

flouride isnt bad for your teeth- your teeth were always going to be teeth, rotten or not. it was determined by forces you cant even begin to comprehend. how do i prove it? flying spaghetti monster.

duuuude. dude. whoaaaaaaa. duuuude.

you guys need to stick to amps.

[Mike LX-R]

 

Originally Posted by knucklefux

here, let's use a credible source that actually knows WTF they're talking about: http://www.ada.org/fluoride.aspx

 

I read it. It's a joke without citations... anecdotal article.

[bbutler123]

 

Originally Posted by OverDriven

That being the case, it could easily be argued that we do not have free will at all. We are all simply perceiving the results of this complex reaction and we only FEEL like we are actively changing it.

Thoughts.

 

You've come upon the age-old question.

If you believe that you are a body whose brain is RESPONSIBLE for your thoughts, then you must conclude that free-will is a sham.

There are two ways out of that, and one includes having a definition of God which 99% of religionists don't have, and of course atheists/agnostics have NO definition. But I won't go into that.

The bolded statement of yours shows that you are willing to be extremely open-minded, which not only implies that you might be ready for the definition alluded to in the previous paragraph, but even more likely you are ready for the next one:

The alternative is to believe that mind (not brain, but mind) is separate from the electrical impulses using transmitter subtance to jump synapses. In that case, you would have mind acting, and then immediately (perhaps even in 'zero' time) causing a change in the physicality of brain- thereby making it look to physiologists with limited measuring tools like oh, that thought must have been caused by that electrical blip in the brain (instead of vice-versa).

If neither of these explanations were the correct one, then you'd be correct. There is no free-will. It is only perceived as being free will because you're not conscious of enough that's going on.

It seems to me that Heisenberg or one of his contemporaries considered suicide when they 'discovered' something back then. I don't know or remember what it was, but I have reason to believe it had to do with the Uncertainty Principle and/or the belief that free choice is a canard.

You're a thinker.

P.S. Don't worry. What you perceive as free-will actually is.

[bbutler123]

 

Originally Posted by Sandy Cheeks

That is coming close to determinism. Suppose there were no "intelligent life forms" on a planet and we did this rewind experiment. What if the weather turned out differently because of quantum mechanics? No one would call that free will.

Maybe we could start with a discussion of the Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will. For me, "free will" involves an appeal to the supernatural.

 

Quantum physicists are well on their way to discovering that matter is a manifestation of mind. They already know that the observer can AFFECT the event, and they will eventually discover that the observer is actually RESPONSIBLE for the event.

No, of course you don't understand that at this point. Even they don't, though some of them may have thought of it, of course. It concerns the fact that it is actually time which involves an appeal to the supernatural, not free-will which does.

But just because you can't correlate or validate it with your macro and limited experience at this time, don't let that convince you that it is impossible.

You are smart to bring Qaunt Mech into it.

[knucklefux]

 

Originally Posted by Mike LX-R

I read it. It's a joke without citations... anecdotal article.

 

here, i'll spoon feed you http://www.ada.org/4048.aspx

[Mike LX-R]

 

Originally Posted by knucklefux

here, i'll spoon feed you http://www.ada.org/4048.aspx

 

you're posting from the biased site of the single most proponent of water fluoridation. I posted an article from John Colquhoun the Principal Dental Officer of Aukland New Zealand who no longer advocates water fluoridation based on current research, and an article by a professor of Epidemiology outlining the conflicting data.

[knucklefux]

so, TWO guys are supposed to be more credible than the entire ADA?

sure thing, broski.

stupidity like this is one of the reasons i'm glad i don't live in kalifornia any more. next you'll be telling us all about how vaccines are horrible because a chick with nice tits says they cause autism

[knucklefux]

here, from your own link:

 

 

 

 

 

The review estimated the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth) and fluorosis of aesthetic concern at around 48% and 12.5% when the fluoride concentration was 1.0 part per million,9 although the quality of the studies was low. The evidence was of insufficient quality to allow confident statements about other potential harms (such as cancer and bone fracture). The amount and quality of the available data on side effects were insufficient to rule out all but the biggest effects.

Small relative increases in risk are difficult to estimate reliably by epidemiological studies, even though lifetime exposure of the whole population may have large population effects. For example, an ecological study from Taiwan found a high incidence of bladder cancer in women in areas where natural fluoride content in water is high. The authors attributed the finding to chance because multiple comparisons were made.11 Testing the hypothesis that drinking fluoridated water increases the risk of bladder cancer would need to take account of errors in estimating total fluoride exposures; potential lack of variation in exposure; the probable long latency between exposure and outcome; the presence of strong confounders such as smoking and occupational exposures; and changes in diagnostic classification of bladder tumours. Therefore, a modest association between fluoridation and bladder cancer would be difficult to detect, both in communities and in individuals. This is of concern because a modest (for example, 20%) increase in risk of bladder cancer would mean about 2000 extra new cases a year if the entire UK population was exposed.

The methodological challenges of detecting harms of long term exposure to fluoridation are further illustrated by a case-control study on hip fracture in England.12 It reported

[knucklefux]

the article from JOHN COLQUHOUN contradicts earlier postings that you've made in that it claims fluoride causes a loss of bone density due to LESS calcium (kinda contraindicates pineal calcification, no? unless you're trying to claim that fluoride both increases AND decrease calcium levels, that is)

you need a more coherent argument, son.

[Mike LX-R]

 

Originally Posted by knucklefux

so, TWO guys are supposed to be more credible than the entire ADA?

sure thing, broski.

stupidity like this is one of the reasons i'm glad i don't live in kalifornia any more. next you'll be telling us all about how vaccines are horrible because a chick with nice tits says they cause autism

 

ok guy, you've taken this discussion about the conflicting data on whether or not fluoride is healthy for teeth more seriously than I expected

you've latched on to these exchanging ideas and arguments as if disproving my opinion is going to validate your knowledge and intelligence. Still we're just going around in a nonsensical hullabaloo.

I personally don't trust the ADA or the FDA, so yes these two guys to me are more credible than anecdotal articles on the ADA's site. furthermore the whole fluoride thing was an example, which I was willing to discard earlier in the thread and shifted to omega deficiency instead, to support my opinion that altering one's biochemical make-up will effect the conditions that are consequential to the brain's decision making and that we therefore do play a role in our own decisions and will. now you're just hellbent on proving my stupidity.