which brings up lots of messy and interesting questions. Though this article implies heavily that issues of genetic determinism are extremely clear cut, and I don't know that reliable neuroscience actually says that at all.

Unfortunately at the end he wigs out and seems to conclude that science is going to rip itself apart looking for certainty...what? Dude, put down the Nietzsche and go and read Kant and Hume.

Still, worth the read. 

Isn't there some inherent unpredictability in all systems though? When we talk about brain chemistry we're talking about molecular interaction, between neurons and neurotransmitters. Isn't there an arm of science that states there is an indelible 'chanciness' in all such things? 

Quantum Mechanics states that everything is based on probability rather than predictability, but at molecular levels the probability of something acting 'odd' is pretty small, and on larger levels like animals, planets, cells, etc the probability is so small that most oddities would happen once every existence of the universe or so, if that. But, there still is always the chance that a particle could disappear from its system and end up somewhere else, no matter how small the chance. 

Yes and no. While there is chaos at all levels in our universe, there is also a force that creates order within that chaos, or else there would be no order at all (second law of thermodynamics). If you are interested and wanna read up, there is a fantastic introduction into this relatively new field of science. The book is called "Complexity" by Mitchell M. Waldrop: http://www.amazon.com/Complexity-Emerging-Science-Order-Chaos/dp/0671872346/sr=8-2/qid=1171052891/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-9067434-7020044?ie=UTF8&s=books

Also look here and follow up on the links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence 

Well, yeah, order can be developed in a system like that, but that isn't my point. If the same termites built the same colony under the same conditions it still wouldn't turn out identically every time. 

What nonsense, the author makes so many "First year" mistakes it's not funny. The greatest of which is to introduce the term PREdeterminism at the start of the article. Fatalism is not determinism for f**k sake.

Chaos theory has nothing to do (functionally) with chance or probability. Read Gleick FFS! Lun, the same conditions never apply, but as we operate mostly in the macro domain it's sometimes hard to cognize this simple fact.

Sorry about the language, but chaos theory and determinism have been specific areas of study for me these past 12 years. I react badly when people start fapping on about both like they actually know what they are talking about. 

I have no beef with either Lun or distrans, but distrans, you do demonstrate why it is pointless to debate matters on the func board because it is probable someone is going to yell at you if they do not feel you have the same qualifications or level of knowledge that they they seem to do.

If you have any respect for the scientific method or empirical logic, you would use a different approach, say, explain why Lunaran may be wrong on points of definition considering the terms,'probabilaty', 'determinism', and 'chaos theory'. 'Read Gleick FFS!' is not an answer.

I've read Chaos: The Making of a New Science,
as it describes non-linear models and their application to the world, and given non linear systems deal with differentiated outcomes, Gleik is writing about probability.

(from the Webster's Probability: The state or quality of being probably; a mathematical statement or the prediction of the odds of something happening or not happening.

Gleick stays within the Positivist framework as you would expect of a science journalist (meaning no metaphysical speculation) but using that to preclude the sort of ideas Lunaran was engaging in is just dogmatic. 

... the reason it's pointless to debate matters like this on func is that one would soon be shouted off the board for posting huge tracts that have nothing to do with gaming or level design.

For example I'd need a good 300 words to explain why the conditional in your second para doesn't hold. I'd need to give a couple of "lectures" on logic before demonstrating that the "argument" in your third para isn't cogent. Then we'd have to have several exchanges until we knocked that last para of yours into something that actually made some sort of sense...then we could debate it.

Wrath can get on here and spit venom, Lun can get on and occasionally act like a real prat, you can apparently get on and act like a primary teacher attempting to spank a wayward student; you can criticise me for making a brain fart but don't ever expect me to take you seriously. 

300 = 3000 

I, for one, won't take any of this seriously... after all, we all like to see ourselves in print making a point, eh? 

I guess the answer to my question was 'no' then.

thanks distrans. you're a peach. 

How did this devolve into silly dickwaving about causal determinism and chaos theory when TFA contains precious little about either?

You all suck. 

You're all wrong. And, you're all right. Meditate on this! 

interesting rejoinder you have there. I would have gone with another approach, but why bother when you can complain about about how others behave or dismiss the person making the argument out of hand as being beneath your high standards.

Word count has no effect on the cogency of an argument. Beyond the first dozen words or so, everything else is just proof. If you had a good counterargument, you would have made it. 

but if he is right, and I agree with him, and he stated that I'm wrong, then he is wrong, and then if he is wrong, that means I am wrong, and since he stated that I was wrong, he was right all along. I agree with Biff then 'cause he is right. 

BALLS ROLLING! 

Here's an e-quiz to help you determine what position you and your lover should sleep in!

http://www.evany.com/sleeptest/index.htm

Post your results here and we can discuss them! 

http://www.evany.com/sleeptest/toboggan.htm

The slightly unnerving thing is that they got it right--more often than not, anyway. 

although you've probably come to assume that from me and are just pretending you didn't notice.

so I guess if we're sharing, I'm a colon!
http://www.evany.com/sleeptest/colon.htm 

I'm a colon!

That doesn't seem quite right. 

For generally abusing each other in the general abuse thread. 

...we haven't had a good flame war on this board for ages.

Headthump, I'm not sure what I did in the past to make you react the way you do but it's very strange. Nonetheless, you missed the point on all counts once again. Yes, you even missed the rights of my ad hominem attack, so here it is in simple terms:

If you critique someone for being a twat by being a twat then you just end up being an hipocrit. And, I have little time for hipocrisy.

pjw: unnerving indeed, they got me dead on "pinching koala and tree". 

FFS stop being such a self-important tool.

Bad behaviour justifies harsh words; you are being rude and shallow and deserve many. Trying to nullify that criticism of yourself by calling other people hypocrits is perhaps the most clueless and lame argument possible, not to mention being unbearably smug.

There's only one twat in this thread*. Grow the fuck up.

*two now, I guess ^_^ 

you people areactually fighting over something ?

Usually the flame wars on this board are over absolutely nothing. This is a big step forward :) 

Wrath can get on here and spit venom

I'm hurt, sir. Hurt and offended!