Joined: May '08
Location: Germany
Age: 59 (M)
Posts: 6786
Slots are not rigged. They don't need to be rigged, cause they have a high house edge and a high variance anyway. So don't play them, unless you are forced to do so.
Joined: Mar '09
Location: Greece
Age: 47 (F)
Posts: 14136
So that means that unless you are into slot playing you can miss on these bonuses. Cause i doubt someone who wants to deposit into a casino to play blackjack for example would take a bonus with a playthrough restricted to slots.
Posted by mascona: Who can force me to play slots if I don't want to ? Give me please one example....
the whole idea of " free will" is controversial. not sure u'll understand it though
Well, I for one, choose not to believe in determinism, out of my own free will...
The problem is, however, I also do not believe in quantum mechanics. This leaves me without any scientific explanation, of how free will could even be possible. I sure hope someone will figure this one out before I die; it's the sort of thing that really would bug me, dying before I find out; like a book missing the last page...
Joined: May '09
Location: India
Age: 37 (M)
Posts: 4873
Posted by marqis: [QUOTE]Posted by SuperNoob: Well, I for one, choose not to believe in determinism, out of my own free will...
The problem is, however, I also do not believe in quantum mechanics. This leaves me without any scientific explanation, of how free will could even be possible. I sure hope someone will figure this one out before I die; it's the sort of thing that really would bug me, dying before I find out; like a book missing the last page...
haha i can understand. though i really admire skinner and his work, im not a hard determinist. philosophy is such a field, where everyone is right.
Posted by marqis: [QUOTE]Posted by SuperNoob: Well, I for one, choose not to believe in determinism, out of my own free will...
The problem is, however, I also do not believe in quantum mechanics. This leaves me without any scientific explanation, of how free will could even be possible. I sure hope someone will figure this one out before I die; it's the sort of thing that really would bug me, dying before I find out; like a book missing the last page...
haha i can understand. though i really admire skinner and his work, im not a hard determinist. philosophy is such a field, where everyone is right.
Indeed...
I'm somewhat familiar with his work, I even alluded to it, once or twice in the forum, when dealing with the subject of superstition (superstitious pigeons, operant conditioning), although I've not read any of his books.
I like his pigeon-guided missile idea...
On the subject of free will, I can't bring myself to believe in determinism. Some form of "uncertainty principle" seems like a requirement of nature itself, to me. And as soon as you have that, there is no reason anymore to conclude free will is impossible (or an illusion).
Also if determinism were correct, than in theory you could calculate the future, and with that calculation do something to change it, thereby proving determinism incorrect.
Yu right whole life is a gamble yu hear about people passing away that never smoked drank ate right and then get hit by a drunk driver plane crash etc wrong place at the wrong time
------------ Yu right whole life is a gamble yu hear about people passing away that never smoked drank ate right and then get hit by a drunk driver plane crash etc wrong place at the wrong time
Joined: May '09
Location: India
Age: 37 (M)
Posts: 4873
@marqis wht u r referring to is hard determinism. there are logical arguments against both free will and determinism, thats why im in favor of soft determinism acc to which both free will and determinism exist. and if you apply the valid argument u gave against determinism to poker, u can see how outcome is both determined and liable to change due to free will.
and concerning conditioning - if u take reward pathway and both classic conditioning (pavlov) and operant ( skinner), u'll see that all advertising, fashion, entertainment industry, sports industry, religion, drugs, gambling and many others are based on them. even freud's theories seem more sensible ( and less sick), if you replace 'sexual gratification/drive' with 'reward pathway' in his theories. though the paradox is proper understanding of these things make u less susceptible to determinism and makes ur free will more stronger.
Posted by SuperNoob: @marqis wht u r referring to is hard determinism. there are logical arguments against both free will and determinism, thats why im in favor of soft determinism acc to which both free will and determinism exist. and if you apply the valid argument u gave against determinism to poker, u can see how outcome is both determined and liable to change due to free will.
I am persuaded the most by what Immanuel Kant has to say about soft determinism:
From Wikipedia Immanuel Kant called it a "wretched subterfuge" and "word jugglery." Kant's argument turns on the view that, while all empirical phenomena must result from determining causes, human thought introduces something seemingly not found elsewhere in nature - the ability to conceive of the world in terms of how it ought to be, or how it might otherwise be. For Kant, subjective reasoning is necessarily distinct to how the world is empirically. Because of its capacity to distinguish "is" from "ought", reasoning can 'spontaneously' originate new events without being itself determined by what already exists. It is on this basis that Kant argues against a version of compatibilism whereby, e.g., the actions of the criminal should be comprehended as a blend of determining forces and choice thereby misusing the word 'free'. To take the compatibilist view, Kant proposes, is to deny the distinctly subjective capacity to re-think an intended course of action in terms of what ought to happen.
Although history has shown time and time again, that thinking "we" are somehow special, is a misconception, I feel he has a point here. We are somewhat "special" in this respect, or perhaps simply more pronounced in it than other species.
I must concede however that I can offer no explanation on how the physics would work for this "special" gift to be possible (and after having bothered to get a physics degree, that somewhat worries me). I'm afraid, it places me in the camp of metaphysical libertarianism.
This arguing of philosophers about free will strikes me as an intellectual exercise, rather than searching for fundamental truths. Something that science as a whole is affected by; all this experimenting, making models that fit, disproving them, and adjusting the model again for a better fit, may lead to accurate models, that are very useful (for predicting what will happen, calculations etc...), but seem often not to offer much in terms of truly and fundamentally understanding why things are the way they are...
What you end up with are a lot of theories that seem to fit the data, but no one really understands them. Just to be clear, it's not that I'm against doing this, it's just not all we should be doing...
Joined: May '08
Location: Lithuania
Age: 39 (M)
Posts: 10090
Posted by marqis:
Posted by SuperNoob: @marqis wht u r referring to is hard determinism. there are logical arguments against both free will and determinism, thats why im in favor of soft determinism acc to which both free will and determinism exist. and if you apply the valid argument u gave against determinism to poker, u can see how outcome is both determined and liable to change due to free will.
I am persuaded the most by what Immanuel Kant has to say about soft determinism:
From Wikipedia Immanuel Kant called it a "wretched subterfuge" and "word jugglery." Kant's argument turns on the view that, while all empirical phenomena must result from determining causes, human thought introduces something seemingly not found elsewhere in nature - the ability to conceive of the world in terms of how it ought to be, or how it might otherwise be. For Kant, subjective reasoning is necessarily distinct to how the world is empirically. Because of its capacity to distinguish "is" from "ought", reasoning can 'spontaneously' originate new events without being itself determined by what already exists. It is on this basis that Kant argues against a version of compatibilism whereby, e.g., the actions of the criminal should be comprehended as a blend of determining forces and choice thereby misusing the word 'free'. To take the compatibilist view, Kant proposes, is to deny the distinctly subjective capacity to re-think an intended course of action in terms of what ought to happen.
Although history has shown time and time again, that thinking "we" are somehow special, is a misconception, I feel he has a point here. We are somewhat "special" in this respect, or perhaps simply more pronounced in it than other species.
I must concede however that I can offer no explanation on how the physics would work for this "special" gift to be possible (and after having bothered to get a physics degree, that somewhat worries me). I'm afraid, it places me in the camp of metaphysical libertarianism.
This arguing of philosophers about free will strikes me as an intellectual exercise, rather than searching for fundamental truths. Something that science as a whole is affected by; all this experimenting, making models that fit, disproving them, and adjusting the model again for a better fit, may lead to accurate models, that are very useful (for predicting what will happen, calculations etc...), but seem often not to offer much in terms of truly and fundamentally understanding why things are the way they are...
What you end up with are a lot of theories that seem to fit the data, but no one really understands them. Just to be clear, it's not that I'm against doing this, it's just not all we should be doing...
u guys make my head hurt...therefore i have this to add:
