For the Frankenstorm victimz -some on weather underground radios!

As the mentioned ongoin filth of the speech dee votes has in common for a plurhaal interpretation the lysis has narrated as theory of kin friendship, the Union beAph of too squat has the tri_ball_Ism a bash against homo_nationalism by all filthee deficits.

Well based on Quantum mechanics, there can be multiple possibilities of every decision or event. However, I think that people over-apply this to everything. For example, when you flip a coin. Some may think that the outcome of the coin flip is decided only when it lands on one side or the other. However, based on the laws of physics, the outcome is predetermined the moment you release the coin from your hand, by its velocity, spin, and launch position. Therefore a coin flip is deterministic, it only appears probabilistic because the initial conditions to produce either a heads or tails is equally likely, so in a perfect situation, reproducing the initial conditions of a coin flip would result in it landing on the same side every time. By varying the technique of tossing the coin, you are adding randomness to the coin toss that is independent of the mechanics of the coin toss itself. The only common variable in these matters is the mind. What determines how our hand launches the coin? Do we have any free-will? Or is it merely the work of chemicals in your brain activating in the right order? What I am asking is, are our decisions and thoughts predetermined by biology and the laws of physics, or do we actually have the ability to shape our decisions? Are choices merely an illusion?

Obviously, creatures are finite…the same is not necessarily true for the universe at large.

The mainly diagnostic approach of the critical theorists of the 1940s did not complete—and could not have been expected to complete—the task of analyzing the problems of capitalism and its culture. Just as one hundred years earlier, Karl Marx’s work did not and could not complete that very same task. This is not because of faults in The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 or the Dialectic of Enlightenment of 1944, to mention two examples…anee[male] qaeda for left radicali interventions….

Very simply, capitalism’s operational logic is the same, but its organizational mode is changing. Same as femme’s militant aesthetics for victimized the sun… In the spirit of the set-up above, I shall now address the question of „What is to be done?“ However, I want to rephrase the question as „Who should do what?“ And, to be fair to this line of questioning, it is not always a disingenuous quip against theory. Most radical critics of capitalism want a theory of praxis of some kind, even if their idea of revolution is more Foucauldian than Marxist.

Yes, I get that, but it is simple consequence of bringing determinism to it’s fullest conclusions.
And thus far you have simply rejected that this is the case off hand, without any illustration of substance of your refutations.
I could restate my line of reasoning repeatedly…and you can continue to claim it is radical…but that will get us no where.

Maybe you could start a new thread about evolution and determinism?

It is also critical to emphasize that the „results“ of the popular insurrection in Egypt have been overemphasized by too many observers around the world. Critics of the uprising continually ask what’s next, worrying about the Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia law. Supporters, on the other hand pointed the prohID back as tri_ball_Ism…Um actually that is not my assumption, that is a general outline made by the theory.

That an adaptation will only be selected, as the result of utility, which essentially serves to grant an advantage to survival.

Take sophisticats example of „neutral traits“…we would only consent that they are neutral if.

1) the ecological niche of these creatures have predators and prey that can detect fur coloration

2) that domestication is a natural control group rather than a form of artificial selection

Anyway, like I stated before, I tend to regard evolution as a refutation of determinism, or causal fatalism at least, because the theory expects that variation is the result of non-deterministic randomness…even if natural selection is a process that is not completely random.

Bel . for a beer at postfascist Hamburg’s 1987 ‚Barrikaden_Tage‘ at the Hafenstr….votes!

0 Antworten auf „For the Frankenstorm victimz -some on weather underground radios!“

  1. Keine Kommentare

Antwort hinterlassen

XHTML: Du kannst diese Tags benutzen: <a href=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

− drei = vier