You should realize that he never directly quoted and argued me when I said that. I was the one who put his logic into question first, therefore my argument that "everyone has the potential to be great at anything" is irrelevant. Stop derailing the thread with your stupid and pointless interjections. Your opinion means nothing to me. If you aren't going to contribute to the topic then don't post.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
You are capable of composing a orchestra masterpiece
- Thread starter Stagnant
- Start date
xenu
Banned deucer.
???
The effect of genes on the "potential" of an individual human being is probabilistic at best. Obviously, in order for potentiality to exist, determinism must be false. The specific genotypes that determine the capability to, say, compose an orchestra masterpiece, when looked at as a macrocosm only impact said capability in a purely statistical sense. However, when seen from an individualistic angle, one operates on a completely different set of assumptions. The first of these is that human cognitive patterns do not follow classical logic (I would elaborate; but that'd take us far beyond the scope of this discussion). If this is true, then the mind does not work in a probabilistic manner (i.e free will over pseudo-free will), and hence everyone, in an infinite sense, has the potential to do anything and everything.
Now once genes and environment are factored in, instead of impacting the potential itself, genes affect the probability of the actualization of said potential. In the infinite sense, this has no effect whatsoever. Given an infinite time frame, even an infinitesimally small probability, will, at some point, be actualized. Obviously, in a mortal sense this potential may not be actualized, but this potential does exist.
Quantum mechanics states that nothing "exists" until it is measured. This doesn't apply for potential since it is neither a scalar nor a vector quantity and treating it quantitatively instead of qualitatively will get you nowhere.
Okay guys, I think we're making things more complicated than we need to be; common sense can pretty much solve this one.
First of all, not everyone is created equally. We all have varying levels of intelligence, athletic ability, artistic ability, musical ability, etc. Even in elementary school, there's going to be that kid who is just way better than anyone at singing or drawing or whatever. You've also got your naturally-born geniuses: Mozart, for example, started composing at the age of 5. There are also the musical savants, who are often severely autistic or have some other mental disorder but can achieve great things in terms of music. In addition, patients with the genetic disorder Williams Syndrome are often born with perfect pitch, which some people can't even achieve with years of ear training. Annnnddd you've got your tone-deaf folks like my boyfriend who probably couldn't compose an orchestra masterpiece if his life depended on it. And then there is the extremely rare case that some surgeon dude who never had any musical talent before gets struck by lightning and then suddenly becomes overwhelmed with the desire to compose beautiful piano pieces, so he does just that (only one case of this was ever documented, and this person came and spoke and played piano at JHU). So there is DEFINITELY a level of determinism at play here; raw talent does exist. For more info on musical talents and oddities in musical perception in general, Musicophilia by Oliver Sacks is a great read that is very informative and pertinent to this discussion.
That said, practice goes a long way. If someone has a lot of innate musical talent, they're still not going to reach their potential unless they practice or take lessons. Even someone who isn't as talented can still become decent with enough practice.
And so, potential is based on two things: 1) the luck of the draw in terms of genes and upbringing, and 2) practice/determination. So while potential is not completely deterministic, it does rely heavily on pre-determined factors.
First of all, not everyone is created equally. We all have varying levels of intelligence, athletic ability, artistic ability, musical ability, etc. Even in elementary school, there's going to be that kid who is just way better than anyone at singing or drawing or whatever. You've also got your naturally-born geniuses: Mozart, for example, started composing at the age of 5. There are also the musical savants, who are often severely autistic or have some other mental disorder but can achieve great things in terms of music. In addition, patients with the genetic disorder Williams Syndrome are often born with perfect pitch, which some people can't even achieve with years of ear training. Annnnddd you've got your tone-deaf folks like my boyfriend who probably couldn't compose an orchestra masterpiece if his life depended on it. And then there is the extremely rare case that some surgeon dude who never had any musical talent before gets struck by lightning and then suddenly becomes overwhelmed with the desire to compose beautiful piano pieces, so he does just that (only one case of this was ever documented, and this person came and spoke and played piano at JHU). So there is DEFINITELY a level of determinism at play here; raw talent does exist. For more info on musical talents and oddities in musical perception in general, Musicophilia by Oliver Sacks is a great read that is very informative and pertinent to this discussion.
That said, practice goes a long way. If someone has a lot of innate musical talent, they're still not going to reach their potential unless they practice or take lessons. Even someone who isn't as talented can still become decent with enough practice.
And so, potential is based on two things: 1) the luck of the draw in terms of genes and upbringing, and 2) practice/determination. So while potential is not completely deterministic, it does rely heavily on pre-determined factors.
Uh oh, do you really want to go there? O.o
xenu
Banned deucer.
Not really lol, was just trying to fortify my argument.
iDunno, i would try to refute your points, but the interesting thing is that they are so nonsensical that it is actually painful for me to try to make sense of them. it literally sounds like you're a) spouting random idiocies to try and sound intelligent or b) trolling. please stop.
anyway, here's my attempt to refute your statements
"outcomes are based on upbringing and the past -> everything is fated -> potential doesn't exist -> there is an outcome."
this is logical. (although potential doesn't exist doesn't necessarily lead to "there is an outcome"
however, your third sentence is
"lack of potential -> no outcome -> time continuum would collapse."
how does a lack of potential imply a lack of outcome... you make no sense. also, here's a tip: saying random stuff about the time-space continuum only makes you look smarter if you actually say something that's intelligent.
your argument is "everyone has the potential to be great at anything". my argument is "everyone does not have the potential to be great at anything". masterful attempts to disprove your argument. doing that would help my argument. therefore, it's not derailing the thread. however, you can't seem to understand basic logic.
i'll attempt to post my argument about why potential doesn't exist in simple terms (i'll try to do two syllable words although that might be difficult) so you can understand.
there is no such thing as potential. the way you define potential seems to assume that there are many outcomes that can happen.
but, you seem to not be able to see that given perfect knowledge of how a system starts, what will happen in the system at any time will be known. therefore, you can think of the world as a system. given perfect knowledge of what will happen in the world at the beginning, it is possible to know how the world will be like at any time.
you can make it even smaller and make it to human scale. if you have perfect knowledge about a person, their genes, and what is around them, at their start then you will be able to tell everything about them at any time.
therefore, we can see that this means that they only have one possible outcome. this means that potential cannot exist, as you assume that there must be many different outcomes.
anyway, here's my attempt to refute your statements
i don't think you understand what determinism is. determinism states that there is only one outcome. you say that there are multiple outcomes present at one's birth and that people can change what will happen. i think there's a flaw in your logic.
firstly, using words like "your argument is completely circular" is hypocritical when your argument makes no sense whatsoever. moving past that, how does your third sentence connect to your second sentence.? i assume you are *mildly* intelligent and past the third grade (or you used a thesaurus) because you used the word "insinuating" which is past the average third grader's intelligence. however, the logic of your next sentence completely befuddles me. this is what you are stating in your second:
"outcomes are based on upbringing and the past -> everything is fated -> potential doesn't exist -> there is an outcome."
this is logical. (although potential doesn't exist doesn't necessarily lead to "there is an outcome"
however, your third sentence is
"lack of potential -> no outcome -> time continuum would collapse."
how does a lack of potential imply a lack of outcome... you make no sense. also, here's a tip: saying random stuff about the time-space continuum only makes you look smarter if you actually say something that's intelligent.
and here is your second stupidest post. (your posts seem to increase in stupidity as the thread goes on (perhaps a variation of godwin's rule!_!).) you seem to not be able to understand that genes and brains do not equal potential in the sense that you are using it. you're using the term potential like there is a wide variety of possible outcomes; however, you then use something that we use to state that there are not a wide variety of possible outcomes (environment + genetics) and then say that that somehow is potential. you make no sense. then, you attempt to use some terms but here's the problem; you shouldn't apply them stupidly.
finally we see it! the pinnacle of stupidity.
your argument is "everyone has the potential to be great at anything". my argument is "everyone does not have the potential to be great at anything". masterful attempts to disprove your argument. doing that would help my argument. therefore, it's not derailing the thread. however, you can't seem to understand basic logic.
i'll attempt to post my argument about why potential doesn't exist in simple terms (i'll try to do two syllable words although that might be difficult) so you can understand.
there is no such thing as potential. the way you define potential seems to assume that there are many outcomes that can happen.
but, you seem to not be able to see that given perfect knowledge of how a system starts, what will happen in the system at any time will be known. therefore, you can think of the world as a system. given perfect knowledge of what will happen in the world at the beginning, it is possible to know how the world will be like at any time.
you can make it even smaller and make it to human scale. if you have perfect knowledge about a person, their genes, and what is around them, at their start then you will be able to tell everything about them at any time.
therefore, we can see that this means that they only have one possible outcome. this means that potential cannot exist, as you assume that there must be many different outcomes.
really I thought the hamburger analogy was pretty good........
so why is everyone still spouting stupid crap?
so why is everyone still spouting stupid crap?
First of all, I do understand what determinism is. What I was pointing out was that there is no set outcome. If there was a set outcome, then that would be the same as saying that everything was fated to happen. There is no science that is concrete in every sense of the word. There is a degree of randomness to everything, including which genes activate in a lifetime and which genes do not. Genes are guidelines - they are not a god-like force that governs one's acts. A lot of the time, certain requirements must be present in order for some of them to activate. People are perfectly able to go against their "basic instincts" and do things they wouldn't normally do.
Lets take a little dive into the philosophy of physics, shall we? Spacial causality is based on potential and kinetic forces. If something does not have the "potential" to move, it will not move. If something moves despite not having the "potential" to move, then its movement must be caused by an outside force with the kinetic energy that would cause it to move.
So if, as you say, there is no such thing as potential, then what drives us to create our outcomes? Are we just brains in vats? Or are we puppets connected to strings? I'm pretty confused here and I am sure that you will just excuse what I just said as unintelligible and self aggrandizing.
No YOU make no sense.
If you have the right genes, you have the potential to do something that those genes might make you do, according to you.
Newsflash: Your future outcomes haven't "happened" yet. I think you may be forgetting that nobody can predict the future no matter how smart they may think they are. There is a degree of doubt in everything, and thinking in absolutes is dangerous.
My definition of potential is not that. My definition is the dictionary definition. I was saying what I said in a non hostile, informal saying so you cannot use that against me.
Here is the flaw in your logic:
You somehow think that it is possible to have perfect knowledge about the world - that you can know everything. It is a widely accepted scientific fact that this is not the case, and basing your logic on such a far fetched ideal oozes incredibility. But I won't spend too much time on that because, in your eyes it will just come across as a straw man argument.
What you don't seem to understand is that people can go against their instincts. That is what differentiates them from animals. They do things that are irrational and they can think beyond their own existence. Like I said before, genetics are basically just guidelines. They cannot account for everything in an environment, and because of this it gives its host the option of choice. You may say that the choices you make are inevitable, but I say that is not the case. There are many external influences in the world that can influence your choices that have absolutely nothing to do with yourself. Let's take a businessman for example. Let's say that he has the option to go up in the ranks of his company. It is a high paying position and he will have tons of power. He would take it right away, normally, however he harbors guilt because in order to get to where he is today, he framed his colleague for an act that he himself committed, thereby ruining his chances for the job. Before he makes his decision, he is going home, but the freeway he usually takes is blocked because of an accident so he has to take a detour. He never usually takes this road, which goes through skid row etc., and throughout his drive home he sees poverty, murder, bad things, goes home, talks to his wife, blah blah blah. Seeing all this pain in the world, etc, causes him to choose to go against his better judgement (i.e. his instinct) and choose to partake in a self-sacrificial act for the sake of rectifying his wrongdoings. This act is irrational and would not be predicted based on any sort of gene. How does your version of determinism account for the accident that caused the freeway to close down?
lol you say that I think I'm the smartest guy ever? That may be true, but you aren't any less guilty than I am...
EDIT:
Also:
Wow dude you are a contentious dick, aren't you?
EDIT2: You realize it was extremely hard for me not to just respond to your entire post with "You are retarded so I refuse to answer because you will probably find a way turn the argument around to make me look stupid. ". Lucky for you, I chose to respect your argument, since, unlike Eggbert, you provided something with the semblance of evidence to support your point. (even though it was pretty much buried beyond recognition among your insults)
but the thing is, we only need to realize that an omniscient being would be able to perfectly predict something that would happen in the world given a set of initial conditions. imagine the world to be a mathematical system with an equation. someone with perfect knowledge would be able to see that there will only be one possible outcome. i think that your potential is basically how many variations one sees as possible as one goes farther away from perfect knowledge? that would make sense with your arguments.
people "think" that they are going against their instincts. your example can be simplified to
person x wants to do y to get z -> person does y -> person feels bad -> person repents
so we can see that it can be
i want to kill you so you get out of my life -> i kill you -> i feel bad -> i repent
but then we wonder "why would i feel bad?"
and we see that it's because of the environment around me at birth - i was raised in an environment that taught killing as bad -> therefore, i feel bad and repent.
basically, i see potential as "the number of possible outcomes available given by an imperfect amount of knowledge - as the amount of knowledge decreases, the potential increases". for example, boys see themselves as being able to fly, while in actuality, hey have no ability to do so due to their environment and genes. as knowledge increases we realize that that outcome is false; therefore, we can see that you never had potential to fly. therefore, as knowledge reaches infinity, we can see that more and more possible outcomes to false, and that people only can have one outcome.
