| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Iain" |
| Date: |
16 Sep 2005 04:56:43 AM |
| Object: |
Free Will is of a Hollow Debate |
What mean we by "free will"? People always say "The ability to make our
own decisions" and "are we responsible", etc, etc.
They also tie it in with predetermination or lack of it. This is
irrelevant; Even if there is no predetermination, this does not entail
free will, because minds could still be randomly unfree instead of
predeterminedly unfree.
At some point, there is always a level of abstraction so low that we
cannot control it -- just as a computer cannot control what version of
machine code it uses, however much you program it to do so. We can loop
back unto ourselves and control our own emotions, just as a Windows
application can change operating system settings(at a level below it),
but for the whole thing to function there must come an uncontrolable
level of operation that we cannot control. One could say this is
comparable to the unchanging bits of government, like our British Queen
or written constitutions of republics.
This does not free us from responsibility. Blair cannot blame his
actions on Her Majesty. If some unavoidable chain of events made
someone evil enough to do something, they are nonetheless evil,
whatever you take evil to be.
The phrase "free will is an illusion" is silly. There is no illusion,
only a mind and its functions.
~Iain
.
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Will is of a Hollow Debate |
16 Sep 2005 05:30:51 AM |
|
|
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126864603.326986.159330@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What mean we by "free will"? People always say "The ability to make our
own decisions" and "are we responsible", etc, etc.
They also tie it in with predetermination or lack of it. This is
irrelevant; Even if there is no predetermination, this does not entail
free will, because minds could still be randomly unfree instead of
predeterminedly unfree.
At some point, there is always a level of abstraction so low that we
cannot control it -- just as a computer cannot control what version of
machine code it uses, however much you program it to do so. We can loop
back unto ourselves and control our own emotions, just as a Windows
application can change operating system settings(at a level below it),
but for the whole thing to function there must come an uncontrolable
level of operation that we cannot control. One could say this is
comparable to the unchanging bits of government, like our British Queen
or written constitutions of republics.
This does not free us from responsibility. Blair cannot blame his
actions on Her Majesty. If some unavoidable chain of events made
someone evil enough to do something, they are nonetheless evil,
whatever you take evil to be.
The phrase "free will is an illusion" is silly. There is no illusion,
only a mind and its functions.
Well said!
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Will is of a Hollow Debate |
16 Sep 2005 10:31:19 PM |
|
|
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1126864603.326986.159330
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
What mean we by "free will"? People always say "The ability to make our
own decisions" and "are we responsible", etc, etc.
They also tie it in with predetermination or lack of it. This is
irrelevant; Even if there is no predetermination, this does not entail
free will, because minds could still be randomly unfree instead of
predeterminedly unfree.
That's right. They could be random, but they aren't.
Predictability is entirely germane to the question of free will. The
doctrine of free will is nothing more than a denial of determinism, as
applied to human behavior. Determinism is the doctrine that all events are
predictable from the basic laws of physics. Most of human behavior is not
predictable from the laws of physics. Thus, free will exists.
At the same time, however, much of that same behavior *is* predictable
given certain other information, e.g., the values, interests, and goals of
the agent. Hence the behavior is not random either.
At some point, there is always a level of abstraction so low that we
cannot control it -- just as a computer cannot control what version of
machine code it uses, however much you program it to do so. We can loop
back unto ourselves and control our own emotions, just as a Windows
application can change operating system settings(at a level below it),
but for the whole thing to function there must come an uncontrolable
level of operation that we cannot control.
That analogy is more apt than you might have supposed. The behavior of a
computer cannot be predicted from the laws of physics either. Regardless of
how it is constructed electronically, and regardless of the microcode
controlling that hardware, its behavior is only predictable based on the
running program. It is platform-independent. Hence the fact that the
microcode cannot be altered with software is irrelevant; the machine's
behavior is not determined by it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Will is of a Hollow Debate |
17 Sep 2005 02:25:49 AM |
|
|
"Publius" <m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_oKdnS1FifqaE7beRVn-2A@comcast.com...
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1126864603.326986.159330
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
What mean we by "free will"? People always say "The ability to make our
own decisions" and "are we responsible", etc, etc.
They also tie it in with predetermination or lack of it. This is
irrelevant; Even if there is no predetermination, this does not entail
free will, because minds could still be randomly unfree instead of
predeterminedly unfree.
That's right. They could be random, but they aren't.
Predictability is entirely germane to the question of free will. The
doctrine of free will is nothing more than a denial of determinism,
An abjectly arbitrary denial, I might add.
as
applied to human behavior. Determinism is the doctrine that all events are
predictable from the basic laws of physics. Most of human behavior is not
predictable from the laws of physics. Thus, free will exists.
Whoa! Please provide evidence supporting this claim! Are you claiming that
human behavior is MAGIC?
At the same time, however, much of that same behavior *is* predictable
given certain other information, e.g., the values, interests, and goals of
the agent. Hence the behavior is not random either.
At what point does magic enter into it?
At some point, there is always a level of abstraction so low that we
cannot control it -- just as a computer cannot control what version of
machine code it uses, however much you program it to do so. We can loop
back unto ourselves and control our own emotions, just as a Windows
application can change operating system settings(at a level below it),
but for the whole thing to function there must come an uncontrolable
level of operation that we cannot control.
That analogy is more apt than you might have supposed. The behavior of a
computer cannot be predicted from the laws of physics either.
WTF? Computers are magic too?
Regardless of
how it is constructed electronically, and regardless of the microcode
controlling that hardware, its behavior is only predictable based on the
running program.
Which obeys the laws of physics.
It is platform-independent. Hence the fact that the
microcode cannot be altered with software is irrelevant; the machine's
behavior is not determined by it.
What the hell are you talking about?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Will is of a Hollow Debate |
17 Sep 2005 12:11:48 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:7ZqdncXFiftmWbbeRVn-hw@io.com:
Predictability is entirely germane to the question of free will. The
doctrine of free will is nothing more than a denial of determinism,
An abjectly arbitrary denial, I might add.
Au contraire. The denial is entirely empirical. You cannot predict which
movie some randomly-selected individual will go to next, no matter how
exhaustively you examine his brain, his genetics, or his childhood, and
no matter how competent you are in quantum theory.
Determinism is the doctrine that all
events are predictable from the basic laws of physics. Most of human
behavior is not predictable from the laws of physics. Thus, free will
exists.
Whoa! Please provide evidence supporting this claim! Are you claiming
that human behavior is MAGIC?
Er, that is called the fallacy of black and white thinking. I.e., if
human behavior is not deterministic, it must be magic. There are other
alternatives. BTW, the burden of proof rests with the determinist, since
he is the one making the affirmative assertion. If you hold to the
determinist thesis, then it is up to you to produce the evidence for your
claim that human behavior can be predicted accurately and consistently
from the laws of physics.
WTF? Computers are magic too?
Not at all. But their behavior while running an app cannot be predicted
from Ohm's Law.
Regardless of
how it is constructed electronically, and regardless of the microcode
controlling that hardware, its behavior is only predictable based on
the running program.
Which obeys the laws of physics.
Indeed they do. But a system obeying the laws of physics and being
deterministic are two different things.
It is platform-independent. Hence the fact that the
microcode cannot be altered with software is irrelevant; the
machine's behavior is not determined by it.
What the hell are you talking about?
Are you asking what platform-independent means?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Will is of a Hollow Debate |
17 Sep 2005 04:31:14 PM |
|
|
"Publius" <m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:n8CdnSxU-pnJ07HeRVn-2A@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:7ZqdncXFiftmWbbeRVn-hw@io.com:
Predictability is entirely germane to the question of free will. The
doctrine of free will is nothing more than a denial of determinism,
An abjectly arbitrary denial, I might add.
Au contraire. The denial is entirely empirical. You cannot predict which
movie some randomly-selected individual will go to next, no matter how
exhaustively you examine his brain, his genetics, or his childhood, and
no matter how competent you are in quantum theory.
Sorry no. I and all my friends can predict exactly what I'll order at a
seafood restaurant. The chicken.
That being the case, what reason do I have for believing my other decisions
are not as equally determined.
Determinism is the doctrine that all
events are predictable from the basic laws of physics. Most of human
behavior is not predictable from the laws of physics. Thus, free will
exists.
Whoa! Please provide evidence supporting this claim! Are you claiming
that human behavior is MAGIC?
Er, that is called the fallacy of black and white thinking. I.e., if
human behavior is not deterministic, it must be magic.
If something acts contrary to the laws of physics, it's magic. Otherwise,
it's physics.
There are other
alternatives.
To physics? That would be magic.
BTW, the burden of proof rests with the determinist, since
he is the one making the affirmative assertion.
You're the one claiming that some things operate contrary to the laws of
physics. Please demonstrate this.
If you hold to the
determinist thesis, then it is up to you to produce the evidence for your
claim that human behavior can be predicted accurately and consistently
from the laws of physics.
You are claiming that human behavior is contrary to the laws of physics.
Please support this claim.
WTF? Computers are magic too?
Not at all. But their behavior while running an app cannot be predicted
from Ohm's Law.
The laws of physics is a PLURAL. The operations of a computer that depend on
Ohm's law CAN be predicted by Ohm's law.
Regardless of
how it is constructed electronically, and regardless of the microcode
controlling that hardware, its behavior is only predictable based on
the running program.
Which obeys the laws of physics.
Indeed they do. But a system obeying the laws of physics and being
deterministic are two different things.
No. Either a system obeys the laws of physics, or it's magic. Take your
pick.
It is platform-independent. Hence the fact that the
microcode cannot be altered with software is irrelevant; the
machine's behavior is not determined by it.
What the hell are you talking about?
Are you asking what platform-independent means?
I'm saying this platform-independant stuff is irrelevant.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Will is of a Hollow Debate |
17 Sep 2005 07:16:00 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:9OqdnZFf29uCFrHeRVn-hQ@io.com:
Au contraire. The denial is entirely empirical. You cannot predict
which movie some randomly-selected individual will go to next, no
matter how exhaustively you examine his brain, his genetics, or his
childhood, and no matter how competent you are in quantum theory.
Sorry no. I and all my friends can predict exactly what I'll order at
a seafood restaurant. The chicken.
That being the case, what reason do I have for believing my other
decisions are not as equally determined.
You overlooked the qualifiers. Your friends can very likely do that. But
they don't do it by examining your brain or your genetics. They can do it
because they know you; they know what you like and don't like. They can
learn those things about you by observing you over time, but not by
analyzing your brain.
The question was, "Can behavior be predicted *from the laws of physics* ---
remember?
Er, that is called the fallacy of black and white thinking. I.e., if
human behavior is not deterministic, it must be magic.
If something acts contrary to the laws of physics, it's magic.
Otherwise, it's physics.
Who said anything about behavior being contrary to the laws of physics?
Human behavior is certainly consistent with the laws of physics. It is just
not predictable from them. Just as a hurricane is consistent with the
principles of meteorology, but not predictable from them, and the emergence
of elephants is consistent with the principles of evolution, but not
predictable by them. Those are all examples of systems which are causal,
but not deterministic.
You are claiming that human behavior is contrary to the laws of
physics. Please support this claim.
I made no such claim.
Are you asking what platform-independent means?
I'm saying this platform-independant stuff is irrelevant.
It is, eh? A computer program may behave identically, even though running
on radically different hardware. Indeed, one may port the program to a
machine built from ropes and pulleys. That would seem to suggest that the
behavior of the program is substantially independent of the hardware.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Will is of a Hollow Debate |
20 Sep 2005 02:01:53 AM |
|
|
"Publius" <m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LZ6dnbQJWoddLLHeRVn-vw@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:9OqdnZFf29uCFrHeRVn-hQ@io.com:
Au contraire. The denial is entirely empirical. You cannot predict
which movie some randomly-selected individual will go to next, no
matter how exhaustively you examine his brain, his genetics, or his
childhood, and no matter how competent you are in quantum theory.
Sorry no. I and all my friends can predict exactly what I'll order at
a seafood restaurant. The chicken.
That being the case, what reason do I have for believing my other
decisions are not as equally determined.
You overlooked the qualifiers. Your friends can very likely do that. But
they don't do it by examining your brain or your genetics. They can do it
because they know you; they know what you like and don't like. They can
learn those things about you by observing you over time, but not by
analyzing your brain.
Excuse me, you included "or his childhood". I obviously assumed then that
knowledge of the person's past behaviors was included among your qualifiers.
The question was, "Can behavior be predicted *from the laws of
physics* ---
remember?
No. I remember phrases like "or his childhood". It's right up there, you
didn't snip the paragraph.
Are you trying to assert that the laws of physics allow molecules in brains
to do things apart from the laws of physics? Yes or no.
Er, that is called the fallacy of black and white thinking. I.e., if
human behavior is not deterministic, it must be magic.
If something acts contrary to the laws of physics, it's magic.
Otherwise, it's physics.
Who said anything about behavior being contrary to the laws of physics?
Human behavior is certainly consistent with the laws of physics. It is
just
not predictable from them.
If it's not determined, then that means something is functioning contrary to
physical law.
Just as a hurricane is consistent with the
principles of meteorology, but not predictable from them, and the
emergence
of elephants is consistent with the principles of evolution, but not
predictable by them. Those are all examples of systems which are causal,
but not deterministic.
Then something is not obeying physical law.
You are claiming that human behavior is contrary to the laws of
physics. Please support this claim.
I made no such claim.
If human behavior is not deterministic, then it is contrary to physical law.
Please understand, I am arguing under the premise of a Newtonian universe
for the sake of simplicity. I ignore quantum effects because the addition of
a randomizing factor does not affect the arguments about free will. My
simplification does have an issue concerning the predictability of events.
In the Newtonian clockwork universe, all events are the inevitable result of
an inevitable chain of cause and effect. When you add QM to that universe,
you get a clockwork operation modified by random input. Neither of these
situations is friendly to the concept of free will.
Are you asking what platform-independent means?
I'm saying this platform-independant stuff is irrelevant.
It is, eh? A computer program may behave identically, even though running
on radically different hardware. Indeed, one may port the program to a
machine built from ropes and pulleys. That would seem to suggest that the
behavior of the program is substantially independent of the hardware.
And the relevance of this is...?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Will is of a Hollow Debate |
20 Sep 2005 03:03:34 AM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:wrKdnfFT65hrLrLeRVn-hw@io.com:
You overlooked the qualifiers. Your friends can very likely do that.
But they don't do it by examining your brain or your genetics. They
can do it because they know you; they know what you like and don't
like. They can learn those things about you by observing you over
time, but not by analyzing your brain.
Excuse me, you included "or his childhood". I obviously assumed then
that knowledge of the person's past behaviors was included among your
qualifiers.
The reference to childhood was intended as denial of so-called
"sociological determinism" (behavior is determined by features of early
childhood environment), not simply observation of past behavior. A
meaningful determinism must postulate that behavior is determined by
factors external to the agent.
Are you trying to assert that the laws of physics allow molecules in
brains to do things apart from the laws of physics? Yes or no.
No. But the behavior of the organism is not predictable from the behavior
of molecules (or any other structures) in the brain. The brain generates
an electromagnetic field which organizes itself into a dynamic,
exceedingly complex information structure from stored data along with
data incoming from the environment. The current state of that information
structure --- not the current physical state of the brain --- determines
behavior. Trying to understand and predict behavior by analysis of the
brain is like trying to understand and predict the 9th Symphony being
broadcast from a radio station by examining the circuit diagram of the
transmitter.
The brain has to be able to generate a field of the required type. But
once it is "up and running," the detailed structure of that field is a
complex function of past experiences and the current sensory environment.
There is no simple or constant correlation between brain states and
behavior.
Just as a hurricane is consistent with the
principles of meteorology, but not predictable from them, and the
emergence
of elephants is consistent with the principles of evolution, but not
predictable by them. Those are all examples of systems which are
causal, but not deterministic.
Then something is not obeying physical law.
You are claiming that human behavior is contrary to the laws of
physics. Please support this claim.
I made no such claim.
If human behavior is not deterministic, then it is contrary to
physical law.
No. There is no requirement that law-governed systems be deterministic.
That is an unwarranted metaphysical assumption, and there are all kinds
of systems that refute it, such as those I mentioned.
It is, eh? A computer program may behave identically, even though
running on radically different hardware. Indeed, one may port the
program to a machine built from ropes and pulleys. That would seem to
suggest that the behavior of the program is substantially independent
of the hardware.
And the relevance of this is...?
It means you will have a hard time predicting the behavior of the
software from physical laws governing the hardware.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "1Z" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Will is of a Hollow Debate |
21 Sep 2005 05:59:43 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
If it's not determined, then that means something is functioning contrary to
physical law.
Physical law does not have to be deterministic, and, as currently
understood,m
it isn't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Will is of a Hollow Debate |
21 Sep 2005 02:57:39 PM |
|
|
"1Z" <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127300383.071136.239750@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
If it's not determined, then that means something is functioning contrary
to
physical law.
Physical law does not have to be deterministic, and, as currently
understood,m
it isn't.
Yes. I use a clockwork Newtonian universe for simplicity when dealing with
physical law as regards free will.
I use it because the existence of QM doesn't really change the thrust of the
arguments. It's my understanding that QM throws a randomizing wrench into
the Newtonian universe. But when discussing free will, being a slave to a
random number generator is no different from being slave to a deterministic
universe. At no point does "free" enter the picture.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "1Z" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Will is of a Hollow Debate |
27 Sep 2005 07:31:29 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
But when discussing free will, being a slave to a
random number generator is no different from being slave to a deterministic
universe.
You cannot be a slave to yourself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Will is of a Hollow Debate |
27 Sep 2005 01:15:25 PM |
|
|
"1Z" <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127824289.876071.181860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
But when discussing free will, being a slave to a
random number generator is no different from being slave to a
deterministic
universe.
You cannot be a slave to yourself.
So you consider yourself to be nothing more than a random number generator?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "1Z" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Will is of a Hollow Debate |
28 Sep 2005 05:28:01 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"1Z" <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127824289.876071.181860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
But when discussing free will, being a slave to a
random number generator is no different from being slave to a
deterministic
universe.
You cannot be a slave to yourself.
So you consider yourself to be nothing more than a random number generator?
's better than a slave.
I suppose I might just be a ghost-in-the-machine ....but that would
require magic, wouldn't it ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Will is of a Hollow Debate |
28 Sep 2005 02:04:35 PM |
|
|
"1Z" <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127903281.699243.250130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"1Z" <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127824289.876071.181860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
But when discussing free will, being a slave to a
random number generator is no different from being slave to a
deterministic
universe.
You cannot be a slave to yourself.
So you consider yourself to be nothing more than a random number
generator?
's better than a slave.
So you take credit for random numbers.
I suppose I might just be a ghost-in-the-machine ....but that would
require magic, wouldn't it ?
Yes it would, that's why it doesn't exist.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "1Z" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Will is of a Hollow Debate |
30 Sep 2005 07:05:02 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"1Z" <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127903281.699243.250130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"1Z" <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127824289.876071.181860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
But when discussing free will, being a slave to a
random number generator is no different from being slave to a
deterministic
universe.
You cannot be a slave to yourself.
So you consider yourself to be nothing more than a random number
generator?
's better than a slave.
So you take credit for random numbers.
They are part of what makes up my mentality , just as random genetic
mutations are part of what makes up my physiology.
I suppose I might just be a ghost-in-the-machine ....but that would
require magic, wouldn't it ?
Yes it would, that's why it doesn't exist.
OK. So I am not a ghost-in-the-machine. So I am made up of everything
physically constitutes me. So I can't be a "slave" to any of the
indeterministic or deterministic processes that comprise me, since
you can't be a slave to yourself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Will is of a Hollow Debate |
30 Sep 2005 01:14:47 PM |
|
|
"1Z" <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128081902.755999.303340@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"1Z" <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127903281.699243.250130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"1Z" <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127824289.876071.181860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
But when discussing free will, being a slave to a
random number generator is no different from being slave to a
deterministic
universe.
You cannot be a slave to yourself.
So you consider yourself to be nothing more than a random number
generator?
's better than a slave.
So you take credit for random numbers.
They are part of what makes up my mentality , just as random genetic
mutations are part of what makes up my physiology.
I suppose I might just be a ghost-in-the-machine ....but that would
require magic, wouldn't it ?
Yes it would, that's why it doesn't exist.
OK. So I am not a ghost-in-the-machine. So I am made up of everything
physically constitutes me. So I can't be a "slave" to any of the
indeterministic or deterministic processes that comprise me, since
you can't be a slave to yourself.
If your definition of free will includes what computers do, then I will
agree that we have free will according to that definition.
However, I submit that such a definition is non-standard.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Will is of a Hollow Debate |
30 Sep 2005 03:22:56 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:Ra-dnR7EtosLHaDeRVn-ig@io.com...
"1Z" <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128081902.755999.303340@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"1Z" <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127903281.699243.250130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"1Z" <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127824289.876071.181860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
But when discussing free will, being a slave to a
random number generator is no different from being slave to a
deterministic
universe.
You cannot be a slave to yourself.
So you consider yourself to be nothing more than a random number
generator?
's better than a slave.
So you take credit for random numbers.
They are part of what makes up my mentality , just as random genetic
mutations are part of what makes up my physiology.
I suppose I might just be a ghost-in-the-machine ....but that would
require magic, wouldn't it ?
Yes it would, that's why it doesn't exist.
OK. So I am not a ghost-in-the-machine. So I am made up of everything
physically constitutes me. So I can't be a "slave" to any of the
indeterministic or deterministic processes that comprise me, since
you can't be a slave to yourself.
If your definition of free will includes what computers do, then I will
agree that we have free will according to that definition.
The human mind is infinitely more complex than any computer. A computer is
not a living organism, it only does what it's operator instructs it to do,
it's a calculator. You ARE the computer, the operator, the programs and the
programmer, and you are a dynamic living, growing organism at the same time.
All that is outside of you are projections of your own self programming.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "1Z" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Will is of a Hollow Debate |
03 Oct 2005 09:43:07 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
If your definition of free will includes what computers do,
What an AI *could* do. Not what the computer on my desk is doing.
then I will
agree that we have free will according to that definition.
However, I submit that such a definition is non-standard.
What could FW consist of other than determinism, indeterminism,
or a mixture? Your "standard" Fw seems to require a fourth option.
But nobody can say what it is. How can you define something in terms
of the undefinable ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Will is of a Hollow Debate |
03 Oct 2005 05:33:10 PM |
|
|
"1Z" <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128350587.524087.19200@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
If your definition of free will includes what computers do,
What an AI *could* do. Not what the computer on my desk is doing.
then I will
agree that we have free will according to that definition.
However, I submit that such a definition is non-standard.
What could FW consist of other than determinism, indeterminism,
or a mixture? Your "standard" Fw seems to require a fourth option.
But nobody can say what it is. How can you define something in terms
of the undefinable ?
You phrased the problem quite handily.
Free will is not supposed to be either deterministic, or random, since a
person cannot be held responsible for deterministic events or random events.
The appeal to free will demands some other alternative. It seems we both
agree that there doesn't appear to be one.
Thus, we can be justified in concluding that free will is an assumption, but
doesn't actually exist.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "1Z" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Will is of a Hollow Debate |
19 Sep 2005 08:32:05 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Publius" <m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:n8CdnSxU-pnJ07HeRVn-2A@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:7ZqdncXFiftmWbbeRVn-hw@io.com:
Predictability is entirely germane to the question of free will. The
doctrine of free will is nothing more than a denial of determinism,
An abjectly arbitrary denial, I might add.
Au contraire. The denial is entirely empirical. You cannot predict which
movie some randomly-selected individual will go to next, no matter how
exhaustively you examine his brain, his genetics, or his childhood, and
no matter how competent you are in quantum theory.
Sorry no. I and all my friends can predict exactly what I'll order at a
seafood restaurant. The chicken.
That being the case, what reason do I have for believing my other decisions
are not as equally determined.
1) the subjective impression that one can make free choices
2) the evidence for indeterminism in physics.
Determinism is the doctrine that all
events are predictable from the basic laws of physics. Most of human
behavior is not predictable from the laws of physics. Thus, free will
exists.
Whoa! Please provide evidence supporting this claim! Are you claiming
that human behavior is MAGIC?
Er, that is called the fallacy of black and white thinking. I.e., if
human behavior is not deterministic, it must be magic.
If something acts contrary to the laws of physics, it's magic. Otherwise,
it's physics.
If the laws of physics are indeterministic (and the current one are
indeed)
then indeterminism neednot be magic.
There are other
alternatives.
To physics? That would be magic.
BTW, the burden of proof rests with the determinist, since
he is the one making the affirmative assertion.
You're the one claiming that some things operate contrary to the laws of
physics. Please demonstrate this.
Physics is not necessarily deterministic and currently isn't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Will is of a Hollow Debate |
20 Sep 2005 12:56:25 AM |
|
|
"1Z" <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127136725.103890.180490@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Publius" <m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:n8CdnSxU-pnJ07HeRVn-2A@comcast.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:7ZqdncXFiftmWbbeRVn-hw@io.com:
Predictability is entirely germane to the question of free will. The
doctrine of free will is nothing more than a denial of determinism,
An abjectly arbitrary denial, I might add.
Au contraire. The denial is entirely empirical. You cannot predict
which
movie some randomly-selected individual will go to next, no matter how
exhaustively you examine his brain, his genetics, or his childhood, and
no matter how competent you are in quantum theory.
Sorry no. I and all my friends can predict exactly what I'll order at a
seafood restaurant. The chicken.
That being the case, what reason do I have for believing my other
decisions
are not as equally determined.
1) the subjective impression that one can make free choices
What impression? Point to the part of decision making where free choices
happen. I can't find it. I weigh preferences against options and reach
conclusions. I could program a computer to do that.
For instance: I never chose to not like seafood. That is a preference
imposed upon me by circumstances beyond my control. It now heavily biases my
food choices. When I weigh my food preferences against the food options
before me, I must operate under an arbitrarily imposed bias against seafood.
I could write a program to choose food for me, and I would give seafood a
strong negative weighting.
Again, why should I assume any of my other choices are not equally
determined by biases that are beyond my control.
2) the evidence for indeterminism in physics.
If you're talking QM, I fail to see how that allows for free choices. It
seems to be a randomizer, if anything, and random isn't free.
Determinism is the doctrine that all
events are predictable from the basic laws of physics. Most of human
behavior is not predictable from the laws of physics. Thus, free will
exists.
Whoa! Please provide evidence supporting this claim! Are you claiming
that human behavior is MAGIC?
Er, that is called the fallacy of black and white thinking. I.e., if
human behavior is not deterministic, it must be magic.
If something acts contrary to the laws of physics, it's magic. Otherwise,
it's physics.
If the laws of physics are indeterministic (and the current one are
indeed)
then indeterminism neednot be magic.
Here's where I have a problem. In one view, we have a Newtonian clockwork
universe that is called deterministic because we should in theory be able to
predict with absolute certainty the outcome of any chain of cause and
effect. The introduction of QM effects to that Newtonian universe certainly
screws up the predictive aspect of the universe, but it does not affect the
way the laws of physics operate. It's a randomizing factor thrown into a
clockwork machine. If an atom decays at a completely indeterminate time, the
clockwork mechanism of the universe accomodates the debris of that
unexpected decay with clockwork precision.
What do you call a deterministic universe modified by random quantum
effects? It's not deterministic, but it's not completely random either. And
for macro-scale purposes, the universe is Newtonian. I strongly suspect that
quantum effects do not seriously influence mental activity, and even if they
did, it would be a randomizing effect, and not a magic wand that allows
things to proceed outside the laws of physics.
There are other
alternatives.
To physics? That would be magic.
BTW, the burden of proof rests with the determinist, since
he is the one making the affirmative assertion.
You're the one claiming that some things operate contrary to the laws of
physics. Please demonstrate this.
Physics is not necessarily deterministic and currently isn't.
I have to assume you're talking about QM. Please demonstrate that QM has
anything to do with making a choice.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "1Z" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Will is of a Hollow Debate |
21 Sep 2005 06:18:27 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"1Z" <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
That being the case, what reason do I have for believing my other
decisions
are not as equally determined.
1) the subjective impression that one can make free choices
What impression? Point to the part of decision making where free choices
happen. I can't find it. I weigh preferences against options and reach
conclusions. I could program a computer to do that.
You *can* choose to live your life like a robot; you *can* choose
to live it randomly , like Luke Reinhardt's Dice Man.
For instance: I never chose to not like seafood. That is a preference
imposed upon me by circumstances beyond my control. It now heavily biases my
food choices. When I weigh my food preferences against the food options
before me, I must operate under an arbitrarily imposed bias against seafood.
I could write a program to choose food for me, and I would give seafood a
strong negative weighting.
Again, why should I assume any of my other choices are not equally
determined by biases that are beyond my control.
Aha...you're *assuming* it ? Haven't you tried overcoming a bias,
towards
candy or cigarettes or something ?
2) the evidence for indeterminism in physics.
If you're talking QM, I fail to see how that allows for free choices. It
seems to be a randomizer, if anything, and random isn't free.
http://www.geocities.com/peterdjones/det_darwin.html
If something acts contrary to the laws of physics, it's magic. Otherwise,
it's physics.
If the laws of physics are indeterministic (and the current one are
indeed)
then indeterminism neednot be magic.
Here's where I have a problem. In one view, we have a Newtonian clockwork
universe that is called deterministic because we should in theory be able to
predict with absolute certainty the outcome of any chain of cause and
effect. The introduction of QM effects to that Newtonian universe certainly
screws up the predictive aspect of the universe, but it does not affect the
way the laws of physics operate.
Yes it does. They are indeterministic now.
It's a randomizing factor thrown into a
clockwork machine. If an atom decays at a completely indeterminate time, the
clockwork mechanism of the universe accomodates the debris of that
unexpected decay with clockwork precision.
No it doesn't, because the knock-on effects will be subject to
indetemrinism
too. Consider a nuclear chain reaction.
What do you call a deterministic universe modified by random quantum
effects? It's not deterministic, but it's not completely random either. And
for macro-scale purposes, the universe is Newtonian.
Not uniformly
http://www.geocities.com/peterdjones/phy_smqm.html#randomness
I strongly suspect that
quantum effects do not seriously influence mental activity, and even if they
did, it would be a randomizing effect, and not a magic wand that allows
things to proceed outside the laws of physics.
I suspect differently on both scores. Suspicion, is of course, not
proof.
There are other
alternatives.
To physics? That would be magic.
BTW, the burden of proof rests with the determinist, since
he is the one making the affirmative assertion.
You're the one claiming that some things operate contrary to the laws of
physics. Please demonstrate this.
Physics is not necessarily deterministic and currently isn't.
I have to assume you're talking about QM. Please demonstrate that QM has
anything to do with making a choice.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Will is of a Hollow Debate |
21 Sep 2005 02:53:58 PM |
|
|
"1Z" <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1127301507.506197.141480@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Here's where I have a problem. In one view, we have a Newtonian
clockwork universe that is called deterministic because we should in
theory be able to predict with absolute certainty the outcome of any
chain of cause and effect. The introduction of QM effects to that
Newtonian universe certainly screws up the predictive aspect of the
universe, but it does not affect the way the laws of physics operate.
Yes it does. They are indeterministic now.
I don't get it. In one thread, you're arguing for determinism, and in
another, arguing against it.
??
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Will is of a Hollow Debate |
21 Sep 2005 03:13:04 PM |
|
|
"1Z" <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127301507.506197.141480@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"1Z" <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
That being the case, what reason do I have for believing my other
decisions
are not as equally determined.
1) the subjective impression that one can make free choices
What impression? Point to the part of decision making where free choices
happen. I can't find it. I weigh preferences against options and reach
conclusions. I could program a computer to do that.
You *can* choose to live your life like a robot; you *can* choose
to live it randomly , like Luke Reinhardt's Dice Man.
I choose to live it as if I have free will, but with the knowledge that I
don't.
For instance: I never chose to not like seafood. That is a preference
imposed upon me by circumstances beyond my control. It now heavily biases
my
food choices. When I weigh my food preferences against the food options
before me, I must operate under an arbitrarily imposed bias against
seafood.
I could write a program to choose food for me, and I would give seafood a
strong negative weighting.
Again, why should I assume any of my other choices are not equally
determined by biases that are beyond my control.
Aha...you're *assuming* it ? Haven't you tried overcoming a bias,
towards
candy or cigarettes or something ?
Why would I do that? Ah yes, because a competing imposed bias motivates me
to do it.
2) the evidence for indeterminism in physics.
If you're talking QM, I fail to see how that allows for free choices. It
seems to be a randomizer, if anything, and random isn't free.
http://www.geocities.com/peterdjones/det_darwin.html
Guy writes a strawman and then knocks it down. This is supposed to convince
me of something?
Tell me how being a slave to a random number generator is better than being
slave to a deterministic universe.
If something acts contrary to the laws of physics, it's magic.
Otherwise,
it's physics.
If the laws of physics are indeterministic (and the current one are
indeed)
then indeterminism neednot be magic.
Here's where I have a problem. In one view, we have a Newtonian clockwork
universe that is called deterministic because we should in theory be able
to
predict with absolute certainty the outcome of any chain of cause and
effect. The introduction of QM effects to that Newtonian universe
certainly
screws up the predictive aspect of the universe, but it does not affect
the
way the laws of physics operate.
Yes it does. They are indeterministic now.
No. Gravity does not reverse direction, Ohm's law does not change, the
surface tension of water remains the same.
It's a randomizing factor thrown into a
clockwork machine. If an atom decays at a completely indeterminate time,
the
clockwork mechanism of the universe accomodates the debris of that
unexpected decay with clockwork precision.
No it doesn't, because the knock-on effects will be subject to
indetemrinism
too. Consider a nuclear chain reaction.
What do you call a deterministic universe modified by random quantum
effects? It's not deterministic, but it's not completely random either.
And
for macro-scale purposes, the universe is Newtonian.
Not uniformly
http://www.geocities.com/peterdjones/phy_smqm.html#randomness
I strongly suspect that
quantum effects do not seriously influence mental activity, and even if
they
did, it would be a randomizing effect, and not a magic wand that allows
things to proceed outside the laws of physics.
I suspect differently on both scores. Suspicion, is of course, not
proof.
I have the evidence that we have never detected anything operating contrary
to physical law.
There are other
alternatives.
To physics? That would be magic.
BTW, the burden of proof rests with the determinist, since
he is the one making the affirmative assertion.
You're the one claiming that some things operate contrary to the laws
of
physics. Please demonstrate this.
Physics is not necessarily deterministic and currently isn't.
I have to assume you're talking about QM. Please demonstrate that QM has
anything to do with making a choice.
(crickets)
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Will is of a Hollow Debate |
21 Sep 2005 03:47:45 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote
Why would I do that? Ah yes, because a competing imposed bias motivates me
to do it.
Yes there are circumstances and influences, but *if* YOU did it, it would be
YOU doing it, if not, it is YOU making the choice to NOT do it. In each case
your subsequent life would be different, affected by your own choice and
action.
Why is it more appealling to you to think that you are simply responding
robotically than to perceive that you are making a constant series of
choices?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "1Z" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Will is of a Hollow Debate |
27 Sep 2005 06:54:33 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"1Z" <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127301507.506197.141480@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"1Z" <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
That being the case, what reason do I have for believing my other
decisions
are not as equally determined.
1) the subjective impression that one can make free choices
What impression? Point to the part of decision making where free choices
happen. I can't find it. I weigh preferences against options and reach
conclusions. I could program a computer to do that.
You *can* choose to live your life like a robot; you *can* choose
to live it randomly , like Luke Reinhardt's Dice Man.
I choose to live it as if I have free will, but with the knowledge that I
don't.
That is back-to-front. You don't *know* htat you don't have FW, you
just assume it. And in assuming it, you don't live your life as though
you had FW; you insist that there must be external causes for all your
decisions, even when you
can't say what they are.
For instance: I never chose to not like seafood. That is a preference
imposed upon me by circumstances beyond my control. It now heavily biases
my
food choices. When I weigh my food preferences against the food options
before me, I must operate under an arbitrarily imposed bias against
seafood.
I could write a program to choose food for me, and I would give seafood a
strong negative weighting.
Again, why should I assume any of my other choices are not equally
determined by biases that are beyond my control.
Aha...you're *assuming* it ? Haven't you tried overcoming a bias,
towards
candy or cigarettes or something ?
Why would I do that? Ah yes, because a competing imposed bias motivates me
to do it.
Or because you just decided to. Again, you are just assuming
determinism.
2) the evidence for indeterminism in physics.
If you're talking QM, I fail to see how that allows for free choices. It
seems to be a randomizer, if anything, and random isn't free.
http://www.geocities.com/peterdjones/det_darwin.html
Guy writes a strawman and then knocks it down. This is supposed to convince
me of something?
You don't have any better arguments than the so-called straw-men which
I
have indeed knocked down.
Tell me how being a slave to a random number generator is better than being
slave to a deterministic universe.
You cannot be a "slave" to your own neurology, since it *is* you.
Or do you think you are a ghost in the machine ?
Here's where I have a problem. In one view, we have a Newtonian clockwork
universe that is called deterministic because we should in theory be able
to
predict with absolute certainty the outcome of any chain of cause and
effect. The introduction of QM effects to that Newtonian universe
certainly
screws up the predictive aspect of the universe, but it does not affect
the
way the laws of physics operate.
Yes it does. They are indeterministic now.
No. Gravity does not reverse direction, Ohm's law does not change, the
surface tension of water remains the same.
That is a silly response.
They are indterministic in the sense that they allow more than one
possible outcome to a situation, not in the sense that nothin is
impossible.
I strongly suspect that
quantum effects do not seriously influence mental activity, and even if
they
did, it would be a randomizing effect, and not a magic wand that allows
things to proceed outside the laws of physics.
I suspect differently on both scores. Suspicion, is of course, not
proof.
I have the evidence that we have never detected anything operating contrary
to physical law.
Irrelevant, since physical law is indeterministic.
You're the one claiming that some things operate contrary to the laws
of
physics. Please demonstrate this.
Physics is not necessarily deterministic and currently isn't.
I have to assume you're talking about QM. Please demonstrate that QM has
anything to do with making a choice.
Ome more time:-
http://www.geocities.com/peterdjones/det_darwin.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Will is of a Hollow Debate |
27 Sep 2005 01:31:50 PM |
|
|
"1Z" <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127822073.845316.39710@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"1Z" <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127301507.506197.141480@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"1Z" <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
That being the case, what reason do I have for believing my other
decisions
are not as equally determined.
1) the subjective impression that one can make free choices
What impression? Point to the part of decision making where free
choices
happen. I can't find it. I weigh preferences against options and reach
conclusions. I could program a computer to do that.
You *can* choose to live your life like a robot; you *can* choose
to live it randomly , like Luke Reinhardt's Dice Man.
I choose to live it as if I have free will, but with the knowledge that I
don't.
That is back-to-front. You don't *know* htat you don't have FW, you
just assume it.
No, I have lines of evidence:
1. I do not get to choose my preferences, my preferences determine my
choices, thus I do not get to determine my choices.
2. If we are bringing in QM, the choices I make are random, thus I do not
determine my choices.
And in assuming it, you don't live your life as though
you had FW; you insist that there must be external causes for all your
decisions, even when you
can't say what they are.
No, I live my life as I fucking said I live my life. You don't fucking get
to tell me how I live my fucking life, dipshit.
For instance: I never chose to not like seafood. That is a preference
imposed upon me by circumstances beyond my control. It now heavily
biases
my
food choices. When I weigh my food preferences against the food
options
before me, I must operate under an arbitrarily imposed bias against
seafood.
I could write a program to choose food for me, and I would give
seafood a
strong negative weighting.
Again, why should I assume any of my other choices are not equally
determined by biases that are beyond my control.
Aha...you're *assuming* it ? Haven't you tried overcoming a bias,
towards
candy or cigarettes or something ?
Why would I do that? Ah yes, because a competing imposed bias motivates
me
to do it.
Or because you just decided to. Again, you are just assuming
determinism.
You are assuming free will. I am assuming physical law.
2) the evidence for indeterminism in physics.
If you're talking QM, I fail to see how that allows for free choices.
It
seems to be a randomizer, if anything, and random isn't free.
http://www.geocities.com/peterdjones/det_darwin.html
Guy writes a strawman and then knocks it down. This is supposed to
convince
me of something?
You don't have any better arguments than the so-called straw-men which
I
have indeed knocked down.
Tell me how being a slave to a random number generator is better than
being
slave to a deterministic universe.
You cannot be a "slave" to your own neurology, since it *is* you.
Or do you think you are a ghost in the machine ?
So you do not deny that we are nothing more than robots pursuing our
programming, and the only thing that makes our decisions ours is the fact
that a given robot brain issues a given programmed choice.
I don't think that satisfies any definition of free will I've ever heard.
Here's where I have a problem. In one view, we have a Newtonian
clockwork
universe that is called deterministic because we should in theory be
able
to
predict with absolute certainty the outcome of any chain of cause and
effect. The introduction of QM effects to that Newtonian universe
certainly
screws up the predictive aspect of the universe, but it does not
affect
the
way the laws of physics operate.
Yes it does. They are indeterministic now.
No. Gravity does not reverse direction, Ohm's law does not change, the
surface tension of water remains the same.
That is a silly response.
They are indterministic in the sense that they allow more than one
possible outcome to a situation, not in the sense that nothin is
impossible.
Yes, QM allows for more than one possible random outcome.
I strongly suspect that
quantum effects do not seriously influence mental activity, and even
if
they
did, it would be a randomizing effect, and not a magic wand that
allows
things to proceed outside the laws of physics.
I suspect differently on both scores. Suspicion, is of course, not
proof.
I have the evidence that we have never detected anything operating
contrary
to physical law.
Irrelevant, since physical law is indeterministic.
No. Gravity does not reverse direction, Ohm's law does not change, the
surface tension of water remains the same.
You're the one claiming that some things operate contrary to the
laws
of
physics. Please demonstrate this.
Physics is not necessarily deterministic and currently isn't.
I have to assume you're talking about QM. Please demonstrate that QM
has
anything to do with making a choice.
Ome more time:-
http://www.geocities.com/peterdjones/det_darwin.html
And again, I refuse to try to decode the author's crappy fractured grammer.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "1Z" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Will is of a Hollow Debate |
28 Sep 2005 05:42:47 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"1Z" <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127822073.845316.39710@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"1Z" <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127301507.506197.141480@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"1Z" <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
That being the case, what reason do I have for believing my other
decisions
are not as equally determined.
1) the subjective impression that one can make free choices
What impression? Point to the part of decision making where free
choices
happen. I can't find it. I weigh preferences against options and reach
conclusions. I could program a computer to do that.
You *can* choose to live your life like a robot; you *can* choose
to live it randomly , like Luke Reinhardt's Dice Man.
I choose to live it as if I have free will, but with the knowledge that I
don't.
That is back-to-front. You don't *know* htat you don't have FW, you
just assume it.
No, I have lines of evidence:
1. I do not get to choose my preferences, my preferences determine my
choices, thus I do not get to determine my choices.
People other than you can and do re-arrange their preferences.
2. If we are bringing in QM, the choices I make are random, thus I do not
determine my choices.
I have explained why they are not in "Darwin and Buridan"
And in assuming it, you don't live your life as though
you had FW; you insist that there must be external causes for all your
decisions, even when you
can't say what they are.
No, I live my life as I fucking said I live my life. You don't fucking get
to tell me how I live my fucking life, dipshit.
The charming insight into your life that I have received so far
tells me that you have deicded to live as though determinism is true.
For instance: I never chose to not like seafood. That is a preference
imposed upon me by circumstances beyond my control. It now heavily
biases
my
food choices. When I weigh my food preferences against the food
options
before me, I must operate under an arbitrarily imposed bias against
seafood.
I could write a program to choose food for me, and I would give
seafood a
strong negative weighting.
Again, why should I assume any of my other choices are not equally
determined by biases that are beyond my control.
Aha...you're *assuming* it ? Haven't you tried overcoming a bias,
towards
candy or cigarettes or something ?
Why would I do that? Ah yes, because a competing imposed bias motivates
me
to do it.
Or because you just decided to. Again, you are just assuming
determinism.
You are assuming free will. I am assuming physical law.
Physical law does not have to be deterministic.
2) the evidence for indeterminism in physics.
If you're talking QM, I fail to see how that allows for free choices.
It
seems to be a randomizer, if anything, and random isn't free.
http://www.geocities.com/peterdjones/det_darwin.html
Guy writes a strawman and then knocks it down. This is supposed to
convince
me of something?
You don't have any better arguments than the so-called straw-men which
I
have indeed knocked down.
Tell me how being a slave to a random number generator is better than
being
slave to a deterministic universe.
You cannot be a "slave" to your own neurology, since it *is* you.
Or do you think you are a ghost in the machine ?
So you do not deny that we are nothing more than robots pursuing our
programming, and the only thing that makes our decisions ours is the fact
that a given robot brain issues a given programmed choice.
I think there is a non-magical explanantion for our actions. It doesn't
amount to slavery, because slavery means external control.
I don't think that satisfies any definition of free will I've ever heard.
It satisfies the criteria for Alternative Possibilities and Ultimate
Origination which are common in the literature.
I strongly suspect that
quantum effects do not seriously influence mental activity, and even
if
they
did, it would be a randomizing effect, and not a magic wand that
allows
things to proceed outside the laws of physics.
I suspect differently on both scores. Suspicion, is of course, not
proof.
I have the evidence that we have never detected anything operating
contrary
to physical law.
Irrelevant, since physical law is indeterministic.
No. Gravity does not reverse direction, Ohm's law does not change, the
surface tension of water remains the same.
Indeterminism still doesn't mean "anything goes"
You're the one claiming that some things operate contrary to the
laws
of
physics. Please demonstrate this.
Physics is not necessarily deterministic and currently isn't.
I have to assume you're talking about QM. Please demonstrate that QM
has
anything to do with making a choice.
Ome more time:-
http://www.geocities.com/peterdjones/det_darwin.html
And again, I refuse to try to decode the author's crappy fractured grammer.
Aha, the old argument by "nya, nya nya, I'm not listening".
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Will is of a Hollow Debate |
28 Sep 2005 07:52:43 PM |
|
|
"1Z" <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127904167.668568.157010@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"1Z" <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127822073.845316.39710@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"1Z" <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127301507.506197.141480@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"1Z" <peterdjones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
That being the case, what reason do I have for believing my
other
decisions
are not as equally determined.
1) the subjective impression that one can make free choices
What impression? Point to the part of decision making where free
choices
happen. I can't find it. I weigh preferences against options and
reach
conclusions. I could program a computer to do that.
You *can* choose to live your life like a robot; you *can* choose
to live it randomly , like Luke Reinhardt's Dice Man.
I choose to live it as if I have free will, but with the knowledge
that I
don't.
That is back-to-front. You don't *know* htat you don't have FW, you
just assume it.
No, I have lines of evidence:
1. I do not get to choose my preferences, my preferences determine my
choices, thus I do not get to determine my choices.
People other than you can and do re-arrange their preferences.
In response to other preferences. The fact that you keep bringing up people
deciding stuff about their preferences means you don't understand what I'm
saying.
2. If we are bringing in QM, the choices I make are random, thus I do not
determine my choices.
I have explained why they are not in "Darwin and Buridan"
You're wrong.
And in assuming it, you don't live your life as though
you had FW; you insist that there must be external causes for all your
decisions, even when you
can't say what they are.
No, I live my life as I fucking said I live my life. You don't fucking
get
to tell me how I live my fucking life, dipshit.
The charming insight into your life that I have received so far
tells me that you have deicded to live as though determinism is true.
Why?
For instance: I never chose to not like seafood. That is a
preference
imposed upon me by circumstances beyond my control. It now heavily
biases
my
food choices. When I weigh my food preferences against the food
options
before me, I must operate under an arbitrarily imposed bias against
seafood.
I could write a program to choose food for me, and I would give
seafood a
strong negative weighting.
Again, why should I assume any of my other choices are not equally
determined by biases that are beyond my control.
Aha...you're *assuming* it ? Haven't you tried overcoming a bias,
towards
candy or cigarettes or something ?
Why would I do that? Ah yes, because a competing imposed bias
motivates
me
to do it.
Or because you just decided to. Again, you are just assuming
determinism.
You are assuming free will. I am assuming physical law.
Physical law does not have to be deterministic.
Random is no better.
2) the evidence for indeterminism in physics.
If you're talking QM, I fail to see how that allows for free
choices.
It
seems to be a randomizer, if anything, a | | | | | | | | | | | | |
