Sociopath Community

"In many ways, the notion of choice and chaos being real is akin to thinking magic isn't trickery and voodoo isn't science."

You seem very confused, our best models of reality, and by extension models that forward determinism and predict the future rely on chaos theory. This does de-facto mean that the computing power needed to accurately model a closed dynamic system over a long period is larger the the system itself. Discussing determinism vs free-will is as far away from real science as you will get and is more the realm of philosophers and other pseudo-scientists.

Don't dabble in educating others about what is true vs not true when your own idea of reality rests on a house of cards. Next time don't skip that physics class.

Chaos isn't the same thing as chaos theory. 

In this case, by "chaos" I mean things closer to randomness and disorder. Chaos theory itself attempts to dispel the myth.

The only real barrier I have is a feeling of obligation to live up to the extremely high standards set by myself and by the expectations of those around me.

Your chaos sounds a lot like entropy. :P

Oh I wasn't aware we where using your definition of "chaos" and not the generally accepted one. This is in part why discussing things on here is so fruitless, the  understanding and knowledge of a topic doesn't seem to impact the confidence or frequency of a poster. Claiming chaos is akin to voodoo is reckless and totally uneducated.

It's a Webster definition too: 

complete confusion and disorder : a state in which behavior and events are not controlled by anything

The word has a meaning outside of just physics, and this one predates yours by multiple centuries. In effect, I'm saying "behaviors and events that are not controlled by anything are a myth, much like how voodoo and magic were once seen as mystical". The "akin" is more about the nature of comparison than saying chaos is voodoo. 

"So what does the word inevitable add? What does it mean more than determined? If we wanna get clear on this, we have to see what "inevitable" means. It means unavoidable."

"What's happened on this planet over the last four billion years has been an explosion of avoiding. Avoiding disillusion, avoiding being eaten, avoiding starving to death."

"You avoid something by anticipating it, and taking corrective measures."

"What we have to understand is that free will is our capacity to see probable futures...futures that seem like they're gonna happen, in time so that something else happens instead."

"But what you can do is change what you thought the future would be into something else."

Dennett is an ideologist who uses flawed arguments to spearhead philosophical arguments for free will. Anticipation, calculation, etc., do not factor determinism out of human behavior.

Dennett claims to argue from a biological point-of-view. Nothing he brings to the table is a biologically-valid argument. He uses the example of a person avoiding a brick, and thus changing their future. The survival instinct...knowing what a brick and velocity is via experience...the motor cortex activity that results from seeing the brick approaching, the signals from the hypothalamus, hippocampi, amydalae, cerebellum, visual cortex, and so forth, all result in dodging the brick.

In the hypothetical brick situation, there could have been only one outcome. Physiology does not behave randomly.

(Physicist in the video brings up solid points about molecular determinism)

"Sure there are varieties of free will...the traditional varieties...which, who cares whether we've got them. The varieties that matter...the varieties of free will worth wanting, as I have said...are perfectly compatible with determinism."

This statement says so much about how he is willing to use slippery slopes to defend his position.

"We're not deluded about our sense of our own capacity. We are determined to be the masters of our fate. To a surprising and gratifying degree."

As you can see, he is very emotionally invested in the idea of free will.

Keep trying to save face and change the initial conditions of your post (wink wink). When you're talking about physical determinism and modeling reality, assuming you're using the standard definition of chaos and not some vague definition which fits your post should not be too much to ask. Chaos is most often refereed to as measurement of disorder and entropy.

Again this boils down to the fact that you're discussing things confined to a field of real science without conforming to the norms of that field or understanding the basics.

No really, I meant that version of "chaos" from that being the go-to definition outside of physics from areas like pop culture and history, and I don't see how that's difficult to grasp from the context of what was typed even after the clarification, but I see how badly you need this to feel like some sort of victory so I'll let you have this one. 

Most areas of science are admittedly not my strongsuit, but these views still make sense to me on a conceptually philisophical level. These are merely beliefs based on my observations and ruminations that can be subject to change when confronted with superior evidence.