San Diego microbrews >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LA microbrews

Like I've never even had an LA microbrew or heard about them. Yet I've had tons of stuff from Colorado, Oregon, San Diego, and a few from San Fran area.

Yes. I'm planning on moving north and south as well, but that will require getting LA off the ground first. San Diego is a more saturated market so it will be a little harder breaking in.

This is the general perception, and for the most part, true. LA is about 5 to 10 years behind where most of the premier beer cities (Portland, Seattle, Denver, San Diego, Philadelphia, etc) are. However, we are quickly catching up. Stuff coming out of smog city, Eagle Rock, Beachwood BBQ, Highland Park Brewery, and golden road rivals the best stuff those other cities can put out. That's not counting stuff in Orange County like the Bruery.

The one thing we don't have is large production breweries capable of producing a lot of beer like a stone, ballast point, or modern times in SD. Golden Road is really the only one set up like that and they're only 2 old but in that length of time they've done some amazing things.

Just downtown LA has something like 5 projects slated for finishing construction in the next 12 months. One of those, iron triangle, has a lot of money behind it and will probably rival golden road for biggest production capacity. So, we're getting there =)

Discussing publicly would probably bring some regs to the forum.

well first, let's define our terms. what are you classifying as "free will"?

is taking N people and subjecting them to the same stimuli/information/etc. and watching them do vastly different things an example of free will? if not, why?

also please provide a definition of free will in general so we can know what we're discussing. i'll then work from there.

100%. entertainment value level: pincus

still hoping we someday get the answer of exactly how a pincus is different from a FSD

DosXX, next time my wife and I get down to LA, I'll see if we can get on board your bus. Sounds cool.

Side note beer question: What's up with the distribution of Colorado beers into California? Is it market based or brewey-size based? One of my favorite beers is the Left Hand Milk Stout from Left Hand Brewing in CO. I could get it when I was in Boston and in the Midwest, but not in the bay area. Can you buy Left Hand in LA? I know we can get other CO beers up here, so I'm not sure if Left Hand is just a smaller brewery that doesn't want to distribute to a highly clogged bay area market, or if it's some other reason.

I sent BBB a PM. If he likes he can post it here and his response.

I can't think of an outcome that wouldn't ultimately end up in a public discussion, so might as well just do it now?

Haven't seen Private Joker in a while or much from bakku. Essentially, BBB is the sole active mod on this forum. If you want to talk about how things could be better, he's the guy to chat with. On the good side, he's a reasonable person. I don't think he does anything to be personal, so why not chat it out?

My premise is that we know extremely little and so to draw a conclusion such as "we should not be responsible for our own actions because all action is preordained" is a huge leap in logic. Some points to consider:

1. We know all matter consists of atoms. We also know that the experience of human consciousness and resultant action exists. However, we cannot directly map out the path by which this bunch of atoms results in what we know as the human consciousness. Additionally, there are certainly many things (forces perhaps, maybe even forms of matter, types of energy, etc) in the universe we do not understand or have not yet discovered. Because we cannot map out the path by which atomic interactions result in consciousness (or recreate it in a lab), it may or may not be true that they do in fact generate that result.

2. Physical systems in nature generally result in a predictable state of equilibrium. Organic matter, however, results in complete chaos. This system might result in combining other atoms to form automobiles, decks of cards, reproducing itself, or sending objects to the moon. It is completely unpredictable compared with any non-organic physical system.

3. There is a very large finite number of combinations of atomic particles that the human brain consists of. However, there is an even larger number of possible outcomes when it is considered that a person has the ability to affect through "will" a much larger number of atoms than he or she consists of. Atomic reactions follow the laws of physics, so for each combination of atoms within the human brain, there should be a specific, predictable, outcome. There should be no more possible outcomes than there are possible combinations of atoms within the human brain. How is it that there are more?

4. As I stated above, organic systems have some unique characteristics compared with other physical systems, namely that they are chaotic. Just because organic matter is directed by an intangible consciousness, it does not necessarily follow that all matter is directed by a similar consciousness. If it is not, that may explain why the characteristics are different.

Actually I dont think any of your threads were locked. It's a new concept the mods around here have been working on. Its called the BigBadBabar.

Dont feel bad though, a thread being locked or BBB'd can look a lot the same. They function the same way, are done for the exact same reasons, and no one can explain how they're different but you can be certain they are not the same at all

So while it may look to the layman that your threads are being locked dont worry. They're just be BigBadBabar'd

Guys. There is water falling from the sky. Do you know anything about it?

DosXX

lolol A+

No, free will would mean that the exact same person, when subjected to the same stimuli, could have taken a different action. The basic definition is given in the first paragraph of the Coyne article.

Regarding some of CrazyLond's points - I do think there is a difference between organic and inorganic matter, but I don't see how that goes into the consideration of free will, unless you also mean to imply that a blade of grass has free will because it is also organic matter. Honestly don't even understand most of the other points you are trying to make.

I am currently experiencing this miracle as well. Is God punishing me?

Sent from my SM-G900P using 2+2 Forums

It doesn't rain in the casino.

Yeah just let me know when you're down here.

Short answer, I don't know. Long answer it's mostly dependent on getting distribution. This isn't my expertise, but I don't think the breweries have a huge day - they are mostly dependent on the distribution and whether the distributor is willing to go into a new market. The reasons a distributor may or may not move into a market are beyond me.

POTY candidate.

chillrob-> i feel like i've now read enough of this stuff based on the links you provided and additional reading on my own to discuss this at a decent level. i'm sure you have read much more than i, so if there are things i've missed, please don't hesitate to let me know.

mods-> if this is too far off the no content thread, i can repost in philosophy.

my take:

- this is complete and utter bullsh*t. rarely do i come into a topic that i haven't previously thought about before and after reading a lot about it, come to that conclusion (assuming ofc that the topic is of interest and relates to science in some way).

- there's many many bones to pick but here's the 2 biggest points to demonstrate how ludicrous the bologna that is provided regarding the "proof" that there is no free will truly is.

first, when discussing a topic of interest, it's usually best to provide a testable hypothesis. instead, what coyne did was start from a supposition and then CREATE THE DEFINITION SUCH THAT: A) THE TESTING OF WHICH IS FLAT OUT IMPOSSIBLE, AND B) THE ONUS FOR PROVING THAT TEST IS ON THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD DISAGREE WITH HIM.

that is just stupid beyond belief. i can't believe this guy is an evolutionary biologist with a degree from harvard and VERY smart writing on his area of expertise. the fact that somebody so logically inclined and simply intelligent could come up with the stuff i bolded above. there's nothing to say about that other than it's just terrible science and extremely poor philosophy. it has no bearing being discussed further since coyne (whether by design or not...though in his case ofc it wasn't his fault lol...he didn't choose it) made it absolutely impossible to have an intellectual conversation.

further, he made it impossible to discuss crime and punishment by hand waiving over the fact that punishment as retribution is the only punishment that isn't feasible under this model (Since people can't choose what to do). BUT-> punishment IS necessary to FORM the brain's sense of justice and to feed into the choice-making electrical impulses that then take in this observation when making the choice. so we can't even argue that point b/c saying "well, if a criminal didn't commit the crime, he wouldn't be punished" b/c he WAS DEFINITELY GOING to commit the crime based on his upbringing/mind/etc.

the hilarious analogy that popped into my mind when reading his many articles that basically reiterate the same basic points and premise was: this is like religious zealots asking for proof of the NON-existence of god. oh, you dont' have any...well, there you go. god exists. the reality is that coyne's proposition and subsequent framing of the problem is even worse than that, but i've rambled on enough about point 1. let's move on to point 2.

this is even more egregious if you can believe it (and i barely believe it coming from a FREAKING EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS FOR SCIENCE'S SAKE!!! seriously how did he not discuss this?!!?!).

coyne: people have brains. their brains are made of of molecules and function via electrical impulses that we have no real control over (ex the quantum variance associated with all subatomic particles' existence and functionality). here's the thing i've now read him repeat again and again:

my issue is that those SAME things (that make up a computer, and he likened our brains to a biological computer) LED TO CONSCIOUSNESS IN ONLY A SUBSET OF BEINGS (arguably chimps, dolphins, humans, and a few others. but DEFINITELY humans). computers (functioning the same way as his purported viewpoint of our minds) cannot (currently) be programmed to display consciousness despite working the same way. so how is it possible that a collection of molecules/electrical impulses DOES NOT result in free will BUT DOES result in consciousness?

if consciousness can arise, then my contention would be that free will instantaneously arises simultaneously.

i'm also familiar with many discussions on similar trains of thought such as the sliced bread analogy for time travel (And i'm surprised coyne didn't try to use this in some way to further his examples; however, the time travel discussion doesn't really inform whether there's free will or not as it happens "after" the "choice" has been made or the "action" taken).

anyways, i'm not sure we can even have an intelligent discussion on this since the premise of the original author eliminates that possibility. i'm going to try to say this in a non-insulting way (though obviously given that statement you know the rest of this sentence won't be that nice lol), but i think his articles are geared towards people who don't typically think rationally and can't abstract from given information. similar to highly religious people when discussing the existence of god. you can't engage him and you can't disprove him following his precepts.

that kind of stuff pisses me off a bit (as you can probably tell from my post here). so anyways, there's my take on it. maybe i missed something. maybe i've made an incorrect assumption somewhere. so if so, please let me know and i'll revisit my thoughts on the matter.

Personally I think "consciousness" is also an illusion, along with "free will". Not sure right now what Coyne thinks.

I agree that the lack of free will cannot be proven or disproven. Neither can the existence of free will. IMO, the burden of proof is on those who believe in the existence of free will, not the determinists. It makes more sense to believe that something does not exist if we have no proof of it, and if speculation that the thing exists presents no help in predictions. For that same reason, I don't believe in a supreme being.

The fact that most people believe they have free will is not really any evidence for it, in my opinion. Most people also believe deeply that there must be a god, and most poker players believe crazy things about the movements of random pieces of paper.

Human brains are imperfect, and "designed" by evolution to find patterns, whether they exist or not. The human brain may have also evolved to mistakenly believe in free will. It certainly is a more optimistic viewpoint, and likely those who tend to believe they have real choices in life were likelier to be more successful and to have more offspring. Personally I have not been very successful in life, and my athiest, materialist, determinist genes are dying out with me!

But consciousness does exist, we experience it, along with free will. To me, this is self evident and so to argue that these things are just an illusion resulting from atomic interactions is the position that needs to be proven.

It's like making an argument that gravity is not a real force in itself but is really a result of atomic interactions with one another. Prove it!

What's the argument that consciousness doesn't exist?

Self evident to you maybe, but not to me (and I believe not to most scientists either, although I am not a scientist but a mere ecomomist, a dismal scientist). To most people, the existence of supernatural forces and of a supreme being are also self-evident.

I don't have to "prove" the existence of free will. There is no evidence for it, its postulation makes no predictions, therefore there is no reason to believe in it. It's up to you to prove it's existence to me.

Where's a good argument that it does exist? I'm not sure there is even a good definition for it.

I have read Daniel Dennett's "Consciousness Explained", but most of it just didn't make sense / ring true to me. Can't really remember specific details now.