|
On July 05 2013 23:17 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 23:05 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 22:59 xM(Z wrote:On July 05 2013 22:19 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 21:52 xM(Z wrote:On July 05 2013 21:26 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 17:36 xM(Z wrote:this thread must not die. - assume for the sake of future arguments that the universe (for now) is both probabilistic and deterministic, that once a probability is rolled its outcome becomes deterministic. - the issue: dice roll -> decision making -> action taking since the decision making is determined by the dice roll it's not even worth discussing so the issue becomes dice roll -> action taking. statements like Brain Scans Can Reveal Your Decisions 7 Seconds Before You “Decide” don't say much about anything because The role of consciousness in decision making is also being clarified: some thinkers have suggested that it mostly serves to cancel certain actions initiated by the unconscious . if consciousness cancels the decision made by the dice roll then it's correct to say we have free will?. also, if dice roll = action taking then it's correct to assume that consciousness doesn't exist? (sort of a human life vs other life form debate) since consciousness is a relatively new evolutionary development, it is to be expected that prior to it, a dice roll would be equivalent with an action taken and also that residual action taking without its involvement would to be expected today. but think of the times when we will be pure consciousness and there will be no action determined by a dice roll. You are misrepresenting those quotes. Consciousness cancelling decisions by unconscious processes is just another process with the same basic properties. It is just a controller process that is designed to catch errors created by the baser process. Analogy would be, that you have old machine that produces toys, but sometimes it malfunctions and it produces a toxic goo. It is cheaper for you to create a system on top of the existing machine that just detects the goo and removes it from the assembly line instead of redesigning the old machine. Same goes in case of consciousness. Evolution is one big patchwork of fixes applied to even older fixes. It is easier to just patch overseer (consciousness) over the older systems to achieve the required cognitive goals instead of "evolving" whole new system. The ability of consciousness to cancel unconscious decisions is still based on the same physical process as those unconscious processes. It in no way introduces free will, it is still deterministic/probabilistic in the same way as the unconscious processes. To note, when I am talking about free will here I mean the common misconception of free will. The one where you have ability to decide differently in the same circumstances. Free will in the sense that your decisions are your own (the legalistic one) of course exists. your analogy implies a goal. as in, you want your machine to remove goo. can you then tell me what goal evolution might have?, why does it do patches?. then and only then it will make sense. First, you are again not putting any effort into actually understanding my point. Point of that analogy was not in the part that you decided to concentrate on, but in the fact that consciousness is just another chain in the process of decision-making that is in no way qualitatively different than the other parts. Try to understand that when person makes an analogy, not all details of that analogy need to fit the original scenario, just the relevant ones. That is the point of analogy and you completely missed that with your unrelated tangent about goals. Not even mentioning that you completely ignored my non-analogy argument that stands on its own without analogy and I used that analogy just to illustrate it. But I will address also your tangent. Evolution has a "goal", and here I am talking in a very abstract sense. The "goal" of evolution is to adapt a species to its environment. Consciousness fills specific purpose in that goal. When talking about evolution we often anthropomorphize it to make the communication easier, and there is nothing wrong with it as long as what we say can still be communicated without said anthropomorphic shortcut and still be valid. If you have issue with my use of it here, please point out where did my anthropomorphic account became inconsistent with the technical description that is behind it. On July 05 2013 22:01 xM(Z wrote:
can evolution itself be free will? No. Mostly because that question is meaningless. i addressed your point here, indirectly. at least it's how i see it since both of you were roughly on the same page On July 05 2013 21:39 xM(Z wrote:On July 05 2013 19:23 Tobberoth wrote:On July 05 2013 17:36 xM(Z wrote:
if consciousness cancels the decision made by the dice roll then it's correct to say we have free will?.
also, if dice roll = action taking then it's correct to assume that consciousness doesn't exist? (sort of a human life vs other life form debate)
If you believe that consciousness is physical (like the vast majority of people in this topic), it doesn't have any impact on free will. Let's say there's a "dice roll" decision made, and your consciousness cancels it. Why did you cancel it? Depends on the action, but any person has a reason for any decision, and that reason comes from their brain. Maybe they have tried the other thing before and it didn't work, maybe they are scared of the possible outcomes etc... anything should still be perfectly deterministic. then you'd have dualism between 2 physicalities, you and the environment with consciousness being some sort of feedback agent between those two. 1) why would that process unfold?, why is the dice being rolled in the first place? - because it just is (there is just no other answer as of yet, unless you believe in God and stuff) 2) to be able to break that subconscious > conscious > environment chain loop, somewhere along the way consciousness has to tell the environment to go fuck himself. for you to accept that as true, the consciousness needs to break the laws of what you call physical?, to change them?, to create new ones?; or you would just simply state that it happened because everything is physical, that consciousness gained access to a higher physical law or something?  physics is concepts in diapers. and your point seem to fit under 1) shit just happens. what else is there to say in that case? can you answer 2)?. what would it take for free will to exist or for you to acknowledge it exists? (and yes, i meant "Consciousness is newer in evolutionary terms") ps: yes, i understood your point and it is valid. i'm just saying that it's incomplete. To answer : "what would it take for free will to exist or for you to acknowledge it exists?", I need you to define "free will" as I already multiple times pointed out that the concept, as most people instinctively understand it, is flawed and meaningless. There is no point speculating about meaningless concepts. there is no way to reply to that if you can't even conceive that something different then the physical could exist  . it's as if 'physical' is your new god. how am i suppose to argue with that?. if i were to say that i bend spoons with my mind, with my consciousness, you'd just say that: based on the decision taken by subconscious the consciousness tapped into god knows what dark energy, physical dark energy, and bent the spoon
I agree with mcc
The definition of "free-will" is just completely weird. Even if I had 100% faith that god, unicorns and triple rainbows exist, I would still say that the all concept of free will doesn't make any sense. (check on of the previous post of mcc where he explains why)
|
On July 05 2013 23:23 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 23:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:
the idea that we have no control over our actions (determinism) That's not really the idea though. According to determinism, you're 100% in control of your actions. Problem is, what action you decide to do is based on a reason, and if you follow that logic far enough, it was predetermined before you were born what action you would do.
Yes, and since you have no direct (or for most instances, indirect) control over those determiners, you have no control over your actions. The inputs and the method of interpreting them are all outside of the control of the subject, hence the subject cannot be said to have any real control over the outputs which are based only on which inputs come in and how they are interpreted.
|
On July 05 2013 23:20 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 23:17 xM(Z wrote:On July 05 2013 23:05 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 22:59 xM(Z wrote:On July 05 2013 22:19 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 21:52 xM(Z wrote:On July 05 2013 21:26 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 17:36 xM(Z wrote:this thread must not die. - assume for the sake of future arguments that the universe (for now) is both probabilistic and deterministic, that once a probability is rolled its outcome becomes deterministic. - the issue: dice roll -> decision making -> action taking since the decision making is determined by the dice roll it's not even worth discussing so the issue becomes dice roll -> action taking. statements like Brain Scans Can Reveal Your Decisions 7 Seconds Before You “Decide” don't say much about anything because The role of consciousness in decision making is also being clarified: some thinkers have suggested that it mostly serves to cancel certain actions initiated by the unconscious . if consciousness cancels the decision made by the dice roll then it's correct to say we have free will?. also, if dice roll = action taking then it's correct to assume that consciousness doesn't exist? (sort of a human life vs other life form debate) since consciousness is a relatively new evolutionary development, it is to be expected that prior to it, a dice roll would be equivalent with an action taken and also that residual action taking without its involvement would to be expected today. but think of the times when we will be pure consciousness and there will be no action determined by a dice roll. You are misrepresenting those quotes. Consciousness cancelling decisions by unconscious processes is just another process with the same basic properties. It is just a controller process that is designed to catch errors created by the baser process. Analogy would be, that you have old machine that produces toys, but sometimes it malfunctions and it produces a toxic goo. It is cheaper for you to create a system on top of the existing machine that just detects the goo and removes it from the assembly line instead of redesigning the old machine. Same goes in case of consciousness. Evolution is one big patchwork of fixes applied to even older fixes. It is easier to just patch overseer (consciousness) over the older systems to achieve the required cognitive goals instead of "evolving" whole new system. The ability of consciousness to cancel unconscious decisions is still based on the same physical process as those unconscious processes. It in no way introduces free will, it is still deterministic/probabilistic in the same way as the unconscious processes. To note, when I am talking about free will here I mean the common misconception of free will. The one where you have ability to decide differently in the same circumstances. Free will in the sense that your decisions are your own (the legalistic one) of course exists. your analogy implies a goal. as in, you want your machine to remove goo. can you then tell me what goal evolution might have?, why does it do patches?. then and only then it will make sense. First, you are again not putting any effort into actually understanding my point. Point of that analogy was not in the part that you decided to concentrate on, but in the fact that consciousness is just another chain in the process of decision-making that is in no way qualitatively different than the other parts. Try to understand that when person makes an analogy, not all details of that analogy need to fit the original scenario, just the relevant ones. That is the point of analogy and you completely missed that with your unrelated tangent about goals. Not even mentioning that you completely ignored my non-analogy argument that stands on its own without analogy and I used that analogy just to illustrate it. But I will address also your tangent. Evolution has a "goal", and here I am talking in a very abstract sense. The "goal" of evolution is to adapt a species to its environment. Consciousness fills specific purpose in that goal. When talking about evolution we often anthropomorphize it to make the communication easier, and there is nothing wrong with it as long as what we say can still be communicated without said anthropomorphic shortcut and still be valid. If you have issue with my use of it here, please point out where did my anthropomorphic account became inconsistent with the technical description that is behind it. On July 05 2013 22:01 xM(Z wrote:
can evolution itself be free will? No. Mostly because that question is meaningless. i addressed your point here, indirectly. at least it's how i see it since both of you were roughly on the same page On July 05 2013 21:39 xM(Z wrote:On July 05 2013 19:23 Tobberoth wrote:On July 05 2013 17:36 xM(Z wrote:
if consciousness cancels the decision made by the dice roll then it's correct to say we have free will?.
also, if dice roll = action taking then it's correct to assume that consciousness doesn't exist? (sort of a human life vs other life form debate)
If you believe that consciousness is physical (like the vast majority of people in this topic), it doesn't have any impact on free will. Let's say there's a "dice roll" decision made, and your consciousness cancels it. Why did you cancel it? Depends on the action, but any person has a reason for any decision, and that reason comes from their brain. Maybe they have tried the other thing before and it didn't work, maybe they are scared of the possible outcomes etc... anything should still be perfectly deterministic. then you'd have dualism between 2 physicalities, you and the environment with consciousness being some sort of feedback agent between those two. 1) why would that process unfold?, why is the dice being rolled in the first place? - because it just is (there is just no other answer as of yet, unless you believe in God and stuff) 2) to be able to break that subconscious > conscious > environment chain loop, somewhere along the way consciousness has to tell the environment to go fuck himself. for you to accept that as true, the consciousness needs to break the laws of what you call physical?, to change them?, to create new ones?; or you would just simply state that it happened because everything is physical, that consciousness gained access to a higher physical law or something? physics is concepts in diapers. and your point seem to fit under 1) shit just happens. what else is there to say in that case? can you answer 2)?. what would it take for free will to exist or for you to acknowledge it exists? (and yes, i meant "Consciousness is newer in evolutionary terms") ps: yes, i understood your point and it is valid. i'm just saying that it's incomplete. To answer : "what would it take for free will to exist or for you to acknowledge it exists?", I need you to define "free will" as I already multiple times pointed out that the concept, as most people instinctively understand it, is flawed and meaningless. There is no point speculating about meaningless concepts. there is no way to reply to that if you can't even conceive that something different then the physical could exist . it's as if 'physical' is your new god. how am i suppose to argue with that?. if i were to say that i bend spoons with my mind, with my consciousness, you'd just say that: based on the decision taken by subconscious the consciousness tapped into god knows what dark energy, physical dark energy, and bent the spoon I asked you for definition so we are on the same page and you answer with accusing me of dogmatic physicalism ? Are you for real ?
yes, dogmatic physicalism pending scientific discoveries.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On July 05 2013 23:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 23:11 DertoQq wrote:On July 05 2013 23:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 23:02 Djzapz wrote:On July 05 2013 23:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 22:59 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 05 2013 22:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 22:49 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 22:26 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 05 2013 21:58 mcc wrote:
[quote]
Moral responsibility is a practical term for use in discussing human problems. When someone does something immoral voluntarily we say he has moral responsibility and that he needs to face consequences. That is just a way to avoid describing all the complex stuff that is actually hidden behind the concept. It is an useful concept in solving everyday problems, and it is a very real concept as it is based on biology, so saying there is no such thing is nonsensical as there is such a thing in the same vein as there is such a thing as sexual drive. my point is that we don't actually need it. I understand how it could be useful, but I think you can put a man in jail without condemning him morally, without trying to make him feel sinful or guilty. Every man always follows the course of action that he subconsciously or consciously considers the best at the given time. Some people become killers given the circumstances and that will put them into our jails to prevent them from doing it again or to warn others. Nietzsche mainly attributes the popularity of the concept of free will/ moral responsibility/sin to Christianity's influence in the western world edit: also please explain how moral responsibility is a concept based on biology because I can't see a way it is. O_o It is based on biology as we all feel, when someone does something wrong, moral outrage and it is not restricted by cultural borders, it is rather universal human feeling. The same goes for guilt. They are real existing feelings and fighting against the concepts is about as reasonable as fighting against windmills. You might argue that in some circumstances those feelings are not warranted or that we should not base our actions on them in some situations, but denying their existence is kind of unproductive. Of course there is no metaphysical moral responsibility, but there is the real human one. So we should put people in prison for doing something they couldn't help doing because it makes us feel better and satisfies an instinctual urge? We put people in prison because we consider them a danger or menace to society. And because it will discourage further transgressions of the same kind from society at large. Why not put all criminals in mental institutions? Because we're a practical society and that serves no practical purpose whatsoever. So the imprisonment of criminals (who have no control over their actions) is purely for pragmatic reasons? Thus, the justification for imprisonment is entirely pragmatism? Why then shouldn't we imprison potential criminals? Because everyone is a potential criminal. It wouldn't be very practical, would it ?=) Why don't everyone commit suicide ? this way the murder rate would decrease to 0% ! I found the perfect solution to everything ! Indeed. However, why not take known factors like race, education, income level, etc, and use those?
On July 05 2013 23:14 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
2. We are squeamish about imprisoning wrongly accused people, we also have 'instinctual urges' that result in an aversion to punishing people before the crime.
3. We would consider imprisoning before a crime an abuse of power, and it would lead to civil unrest, civil unrest is generally not pragmatic.
Chances are we probably do to some degree, but we try to steer away from that, and when we do we tend to keep it hushed up.
Mainly the people who are on the wrong end of those factors tend to get offended when they are singled out, and in general we empathize with that. Ultimately the goal is to keep society working smoothly, our empathy happens to be very practical tools for predicting other people's moods and behaviours. Generally having large demographics being pissed off leads to social dysfunction, which would not be practical.
|
On July 05 2013 23:31 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 23:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 23:11 DertoQq wrote:On July 05 2013 23:08 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 23:02 Djzapz wrote:On July 05 2013 23:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 22:59 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 05 2013 22:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 22:49 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 22:26 lebowskiguy wrote:
[quote]
my point is that we don't actually need it. I understand how it could be useful, but I think you can put a man in jail without condemning him morally, without trying to make him feel sinful or guilty. Every man always follows the course of action that he subconsciously or consciously considers the best at the given time. Some people become killers given the circumstances and that will put them into our jails to prevent them from doing it again or to warn others.
Nietzsche mainly attributes the popularity of the concept of free will/ moral responsibility/sin to Christianity's influence in the western world
edit: also please explain how moral responsibility is a concept based on biology because I can't see a way it is. O_o It is based on biology as we all feel, when someone does something wrong, moral outrage and it is not restricted by cultural borders, it is rather universal human feeling. The same goes for guilt. They are real existing feelings and fighting against the concepts is about as reasonable as fighting against windmills. You might argue that in some circumstances those feelings are not warranted or that we should not base our actions on them in some situations, but denying their existence is kind of unproductive. Of course there is no metaphysical moral responsibility, but there is the real human one. So we should put people in prison for doing something they couldn't help doing because it makes us feel better and satisfies an instinctual urge? We put people in prison because we consider them a danger or menace to society. And because it will discourage further transgressions of the same kind from society at large. Why not put all criminals in mental institutions? Because we're a practical society and that serves no practical purpose whatsoever. So the imprisonment of criminals (who have no control over their actions) is purely for pragmatic reasons? Thus, the justification for imprisonment is entirely pragmatism? Why then shouldn't we imprison potential criminals? Because everyone is a potential criminal. It wouldn't be very practical, would it ?=) Why don't everyone commit suicide ? this way the murder rate would decrease to 0% ! I found the perfect solution to everything ! Indeed. However, why not take known factors like race, education, income level, etc, and use those? Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 23:14 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
2. We are squeamish about imprisoning wrongly accused people, we also have 'instinctual urges' that result in an aversion to punishing people before the crime.
3. We would consider imprisoning before a crime an abuse of power, and it would lead to civil unrest, civil unrest is generally not pragmatic.
Chances are we probably do to some degree, but we try to steer away from that, and when we do we tend to keep it hushed up. Mainly the people who are on the wrong end of those factors tend to get offended when they are singled out, and in general we empathize with that. Ultimately the goal is to keep society working smoothly, our empathy happen to be very practical tools for predicting other people's moods and behaviours. Generally having large demographics being pissed off leads to social dysfunction, which would not be practical. I've just realized that this argument can't really go further unless we get pretty off-topic here.
|
On July 05 2013 22:12 lebowskiguy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 21:46 MiraMax wrote:On July 05 2013 21:33 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 05 2013 20:40 MiraMax wrote:
Either the choices are yours to make (in constant interaction with your environment, of course) or not (maybe you are a strong eliminitivist about intentionality). In any case, determinism or indeterminism should change nothing about your judgement.
the whole point is that control over your judgement is an illusion. Even brain scans show that you make choices 6-7 sec before you realize you did. If your judgment is just a natural phenomenon happening in a deterministic or probabilistic manner, talking about moral responsibility is absurd. That doesn't mean we should close prisons and free everyone inside, prisons exist (or should exist) because they are useful, not because the moral majority wants to punish the immoral minority. "choice", "free will" along with a lot of other words have historically inherited the suggestion of metaphysical depth. If we are just wheels in a cosmic clock then the concept of moral responsibility is just ridiculous. Consider the notion of creating a program that kills your hardware and then holding it "morally" responsible even if it could not possibly do anything else. Compatibilists always fail to address the standard argument against free will in a way that satisfies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_argument_against_free_will You simply claiming that moral responsibility becomes ridiculous doesn't make it so. How exactly would you go about showing that control over my judgment is an illusion? Could you devise a coherent scenario in which moral responsibility ever was warranted? Given your defintions I very much doubt it. But then you just seem to negate choice right away, irrespective of however the world was structured and we would need to have a completely different discussion. Furthermore, compatibilist think they conclusively answered the standard argument. It's by far the mainstream view among philosophers of the mind (people whose job it is to think about these things), but I guess they all just didn't hear about your killer argument, right!? oh so your pov is mainstream therefore it has to be true? Do you really want to get into a name dropping fest? Maybe you could start by providing a sufficient answer for the standard argument against free will instead of saying others have provided it; also please don't take this personally and get angry and do personal attacks because then the discussion will clearly deteriorate. On the judgement/illusion question: Isn't the fact that your conscious self realizes the decision after you have made it (about 7sec) a hint for you that you don't actually control it? Unless you put metaphysics into the equation then your brain is just another part of the universe and it obeys it's laws... Could I devise a coherent scenario in which moral responsibility is warranted? I genuinely only try to understand the way things around me work, I don't care too much about the necessity of pointing the moral finger on people. If there is no room for moral responsibility in this world then so be it.
First, I am not angry at all and it is also not at all my intention to insult you. If you can point out where I did so, I'll happily apologize. Go right ahead!
Second of all, I don't want to start name dropping nor did I drop any names, however, I meant to point out that it might be too hasty to label something as obviously absurd, if the majority of experts in the field disagree. This is an argument based on merit, not popularity. Don't you agree? You could still be right though that's why I would appreciate any actual argument.
The standard argument against free will is directed against libertarian free will: the ancient concept that he mind does not only transcend physics but even 'itself' by being able to "will what to will" out of nowhere. This concept is obviously flawed.
Compatibilist free will is "immune" to the standard argument since it's applicability merely entails that you can distinguish internal from external factors (some 'you' and some environment). To make a free decision is then to make a decision where your intentions are in line with your actions. Determinism does not and cannot negate intentions or actions or if it does, it would be up to you to show that. The fact that there is an unconscious 'you' further does not show that this part is any less 'you', just that your introspection is limited (by necessity). You cannot simply deny responsibility for your unconscious urges, because it is a well established fact that these can, in principle, be overriden. Furthermore the situation for a 'soul' would be even worse since here introspection is impossible almost by definition.
Now you can surely say compatibilist free will is not what you would call free will and we could have a semantic discussion in which neither you nor I are interested I guess. However, I cannot think of any more freedom I would ever care for or be interested in. If you disagree it's up to you to show what else would be needed for moral responsibility.
|
On July 05 2013 23:30 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 23:23 Tobberoth wrote:On July 05 2013 23:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:
the idea that we have no control over our actions (determinism) That's not really the idea though. According to determinism, you're 100% in control of your actions. Problem is, what action you decide to do is based on a reason, and if you follow that logic far enough, it was predetermined before you were born what action you would do. Yes, and since you have no direct (or for most instances, indirect) control over those determiners, you have no control over your actions. The inputs and the method of interpreting them are all outside of the control of the subject, hence the subject cannot be said to have any real control over the outputs which are based only on which inputs come in and how they are interpreted.
It doesn't matter. To the person making a decision, he is still in control. He can make whatever decision he wants, and it's up to him to weigh the options, and then pick a choice. He then has to stand for the choice he picked. In theory, it WOULD be possible to determine ahead of time what he will pick, but he doesn't know that and it doesn't affect his decision making which he is doing based on a ridiculous amount of inputs. The existance of jail, morality etc are all inputs in this and thus important. You can't say "He can't be punished because he wasn't responsible" since that will in turn become an input to everyone elses reasoning.
|
On July 05 2013 23:36 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 23:30 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 23:23 Tobberoth wrote:On July 05 2013 23:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:
the idea that we have no control over our actions (determinism) That's not really the idea though. According to determinism, you're 100% in control of your actions. Problem is, what action you decide to do is based on a reason, and if you follow that logic far enough, it was predetermined before you were born what action you would do. Yes, and since you have no direct (or for most instances, indirect) control over those determiners, you have no control over your actions. The inputs and the method of interpreting them are all outside of the control of the subject, hence the subject cannot be said to have any real control over the outputs which are based only on which inputs come in and how they are interpreted. It doesn't matter. To the person making a decision, he is still in control.
In what meaningful way can he/she be in control? They did not control the inputs, they did not control the processing of said inputs, so where do they suddenly get the ability to control the output?
but he doesn't know that and it doesn't affect his decision making which he is doing based on a ridiculous amount of inputs.
What he knows or doesn't know is irrelevant. And you're missing the point that every single one of those inputs is out of his control.
The existance of jail, morality etc are all inputs in this and thus important. You can't say "He can't be punished because he wasn't responsible" since that will in turn become an input to everyone elses reasoning.
This requires a discussion on the nature of morality, which doesn't really belong here.
|
On July 05 2013 23:31 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 23:20 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 23:17 xM(Z wrote:On July 05 2013 23:05 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 22:59 xM(Z wrote:On July 05 2013 22:19 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 21:52 xM(Z wrote:On July 05 2013 21:26 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 17:36 xM(Z wrote:this thread must not die. - assume for the sake of future arguments that the universe (for now) is both probabilistic and deterministic, that once a probability is rolled its outcome becomes deterministic. - the issue: dice roll -> decision making -> action taking since the decision making is determined by the dice roll it's not even worth discussing so the issue becomes dice roll -> action taking. statements like Brain Scans Can Reveal Your Decisions 7 Seconds Before You “Decide” don't say much about anything because The role of consciousness in decision making is also being clarified: some thinkers have suggested that it mostly serves to cancel certain actions initiated by the unconscious . if consciousness cancels the decision made by the dice roll then it's correct to say we have free will?. also, if dice roll = action taking then it's correct to assume that consciousness doesn't exist? (sort of a human life vs other life form debate) since consciousness is a relatively new evolutionary development, it is to be expected that prior to it, a dice roll would be equivalent with an action taken and also that residual action taking without its involvement would to be expected today. but think of the times when we will be pure consciousness and there will be no action determined by a dice roll. You are misrepresenting those quotes. Consciousness cancelling decisions by unconscious processes is just another process with the same basic properties. It is just a controller process that is designed to catch errors created by the baser process. Analogy would be, that you have old machine that produces toys, but sometimes it malfunctions and it produces a toxic goo. It is cheaper for you to create a system on top of the existing machine that just detects the goo and removes it from the assembly line instead of redesigning the old machine. Same goes in case of consciousness. Evolution is one big patchwork of fixes applied to even older fixes. It is easier to just patch overseer (consciousness) over the older systems to achieve the required cognitive goals instead of "evolving" whole new system. The ability of consciousness to cancel unconscious decisions is still based on the same physical process as those unconscious processes. It in no way introduces free will, it is still deterministic/probabilistic in the same way as the unconscious processes. To note, when I am talking about free will here I mean the common misconception of free will. The one where you have ability to decide differently in the same circumstances. Free will in the sense that your decisions are your own (the legalistic one) of course exists. your analogy implies a goal. as in, you want your machine to remove goo. can you then tell me what goal evolution might have?, why does it do patches?. then and only then it will make sense. First, you are again not putting any effort into actually understanding my point. Point of that analogy was not in the part that you decided to concentrate on, but in the fact that consciousness is just another chain in the process of decision-making that is in no way qualitatively different than the other parts. Try to understand that when person makes an analogy, not all details of that analogy need to fit the original scenario, just the relevant ones. That is the point of analogy and you completely missed that with your unrelated tangent about goals. Not even mentioning that you completely ignored my non-analogy argument that stands on its own without analogy and I used that analogy just to illustrate it. But I will address also your tangent. Evolution has a "goal", and here I am talking in a very abstract sense. The "goal" of evolution is to adapt a species to its environment. Consciousness fills specific purpose in that goal. When talking about evolution we often anthropomorphize it to make the communication easier, and there is nothing wrong with it as long as what we say can still be communicated without said anthropomorphic shortcut and still be valid. If you have issue with my use of it here, please point out where did my anthropomorphic account became inconsistent with the technical description that is behind it. On July 05 2013 22:01 xM(Z wrote:
can evolution itself be free will? No. Mostly because that question is meaningless. i addressed your point here, indirectly. at least it's how i see it since both of you were roughly on the same page On July 05 2013 21:39 xM(Z wrote:On July 05 2013 19:23 Tobberoth wrote:On July 05 2013 17:36 xM(Z wrote:
if consciousness cancels the decision made by the dice roll then it's correct to say we have free will?.
also, if dice roll = action taking then it's correct to assume that consciousness doesn't exist? (sort of a human life vs other life form debate)
If you believe that consciousness is physical (like the vast majority of people in this topic), it doesn't have any impact on free will. Let's say there's a "dice roll" decision made, and your consciousness cancels it. Why did you cancel it? Depends on the action, but any person has a reason for any decision, and that reason comes from their brain. Maybe they have tried the other thing before and it didn't work, maybe they are scared of the possible outcomes etc... anything should still be perfectly deterministic. then you'd have dualism between 2 physicalities, you and the environment with consciousness being some sort of feedback agent between those two. 1) why would that process unfold?, why is the dice being rolled in the first place? - because it just is (there is just no other answer as of yet, unless you believe in God and stuff) 2) to be able to break that subconscious > conscious > environment chain loop, somewhere along the way consciousness has to tell the environment to go fuck himself. for you to accept that as true, the consciousness needs to break the laws of what you call physical?, to change them?, to create new ones?; or you would just simply state that it happened because everything is physical, that consciousness gained access to a higher physical law or something? physics is concepts in diapers. and your point seem to fit under 1) shit just happens. what else is there to say in that case? can you answer 2)?. what would it take for free will to exist or for you to acknowledge it exists? (and yes, i meant "Consciousness is newer in evolutionary terms") ps: yes, i understood your point and it is valid. i'm just saying that it's incomplete. To answer : "what would it take for free will to exist or for you to acknowledge it exists?", I need you to define "free will" as I already multiple times pointed out that the concept, as most people instinctively understand it, is flawed and meaningless. There is no point speculating about meaningless concepts. there is no way to reply to that if you can't even conceive that something different then the physical could exist . it's as if 'physical' is your new god. how am i suppose to argue with that?. if i were to say that i bend spoons with my mind, with my consciousness, you'd just say that: based on the decision taken by subconscious the consciousness tapped into god knows what dark energy, physical dark energy, and bent the spoon I asked you for definition so we are on the same page and you answer with accusing me of dogmatic physicalism ? Are you for real ? yes, dogmatic physicalism pending scientific discoveries.
You still did not say what is free will. How can I answer your question about it when even you did not know what you are talking about ?
|
On July 05 2013 23:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 23:36 Tobberoth wrote:On July 05 2013 23:30 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 23:23 Tobberoth wrote:On July 05 2013 23:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:
the idea that we have no control over our actions (determinism) That's not really the idea though. According to determinism, you're 100% in control of your actions. Problem is, what action you decide to do is based on a reason, and if you follow that logic far enough, it was predetermined before you were born what action you would do. Yes, and since you have no direct (or for most instances, indirect) control over those determiners, you have no control over your actions. The inputs and the method of interpreting them are all outside of the control of the subject, hence the subject cannot be said to have any real control over the outputs which are based only on which inputs come in and how they are interpreted. It doesn't matter. To the person making a decision, he is still in control. In what meaningful way can he/she be in control? They did not control the inputs, they did not control the processing of said inputs, so where do they suddenly get the ability to control the output? Show nested quote +but he doesn't know that and it doesn't affect his decision making which he is doing based on a ridiculous amount of inputs. What he knows or doesn't know is irrelevant. And you're missing the point that every single one of those inputs is out of his control.Show nested quote +The existance of jail, morality etc are all inputs in this and thus important. You can't say "He can't be punished because he wasn't responsible" since that will in turn become an input to everyone elses reasoning. This requires a discussion on the nature of morality, which doesn't really belong here.
He controls the processing of the inputs as HE IS processing the inputs, no one else is. The fact that we can predict what he will do does not take it from him. This is the similar argument as impossibility of free will if god is omniscient. If god is omniscient, how can we have free will ? Ability to predict someone's decision does not take that decision from them. Just because I can predict movement of the moon, does not mean the moon does not actually does the moving, and so just because I can predict someone's decision does not mean he is not doing the deciding.
|
On July 05 2013 23:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 23:36 Tobberoth wrote:On July 05 2013 23:30 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 23:23 Tobberoth wrote:On July 05 2013 23:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:
the idea that we have no control over our actions (determinism) That's not really the idea though. According to determinism, you're 100% in control of your actions. Problem is, what action you decide to do is based on a reason, and if you follow that logic far enough, it was predetermined before you were born what action you would do. Yes, and since you have no direct (or for most instances, indirect) control over those determiners, you have no control over your actions. The inputs and the method of interpreting them are all outside of the control of the subject, hence the subject cannot be said to have any real control over the outputs which are based only on which inputs come in and how they are interpreted. It doesn't matter. To the person making a decision, he is still in control. In what meaningful way can he/she be in control? They did not control the inputs, they did not control the processing of said inputs, so where do they suddenly get the ability to control the output? Show nested quote +but he doesn't know that and it doesn't affect his decision making which he is doing based on a ridiculous amount of inputs. What he knows or doesn't know is irrelevant. And you're missing the point that every single one of those inputs is out of his control.Show nested quote +The existance of jail, morality etc are all inputs in this and thus important. You can't say "He can't be punished because he wasn't responsible" since that will in turn become an input to everyone elses reasoning. This requires a discussion on the nature of morality, which doesn't really belong here.
He's in control in the everyday sense, which is what the legal system is based on.
|
On July 05 2013 23:49 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 23:31 xM(Z wrote:On July 05 2013 23:20 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 23:17 xM(Z wrote:On July 05 2013 23:05 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 22:59 xM(Z wrote:On July 05 2013 22:19 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 21:52 xM(Z wrote:On July 05 2013 21:26 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 17:36 xM(Z wrote:
this thread must not die.
- assume for the sake of future arguments that the universe (for now) is both probabilistic and deterministic, that once a probability is rolled its outcome becomes deterministic.
- the issue: dice roll -> decision making -> action taking
since the decision making is determined by the dice roll it's not even worth discussing so the issue becomes dice roll -> action taking.
statements like[quote]don't say much about anything because[quote].
if consciousness cancels the decision made by the dice roll then it's correct to say we have free will?.
also, if dice roll = action taking then it's correct to assume that consciousness doesn't exist? (sort of a human life vs other life form debate)
since consciousness is a relatively new evolutionary development, it is to be expected that prior to it, a dice roll would be equivalent with an action taken and also that residual action taking without its involvement would to be expected today.
but think of the times when we will be pure consciousness and there will be no action determined by a dice roll. You are misrepresenting those quotes. Consciousness cancelling decisions by unconscious processes is just another process with the same basic properties. It is just a controller process that is designed to catch errors created by the baser process. Analogy would be, that you have old machine that produces toys, but sometimes it malfunctions and it produces a toxic goo. It is cheaper for you to create a system on top of the existing machine that just detects the goo and removes it from the assembly line instead of redesigning the old machine. Same goes in case of consciousness. Evolution is one big patchwork of fixes applied to even older fixes. It is easier to just patch overseer (consciousness) over the older systems to achieve the required cognitive goals instead of "evolving" whole new system. The ability of consciousness to cancel unconscious decisions is still based on the same physical process as those unconscious processes. It in no way introduces free will, it is still deterministic/probabilistic in the same way as the unconscious processes. To note, when I am talking about free will here I mean the common misconception of free will. The one where you have ability to decide differently in the same circumstances. Free will in the sense that your decisions are your own (the legalistic one) of course exists. your analogy implies a goal. as in, you want your machine to remove goo. can you then tell me what goal evolution might have?, why does it do patches?. then and only then it will make sense. First, you are again not putting any effort into actually understanding my point. Point of that analogy was not in the part that you decided to concentrate on, but in the fact that consciousness is just another chain in the process of decision-making that is in no way qualitatively different than the other parts. Try to understand that when person makes an analogy, not all details of that analogy need to fit the original scenario, just the relevant ones. That is the point of analogy and you completely missed that with your unrelated tangent about goals. Not even mentioning that you completely ignored my non-analogy argument that stands on its own without analogy and I used that analogy just to illustrate it. But I will address also your tangent. Evolution has a "goal", and here I am talking in a very abstract sense. The "goal" of evolution is to adapt a species to its environment. Consciousness fills specific purpose in that goal. When talking about evolution we often anthropomorphize it to make the communication easier, and there is nothing wrong with it as long as what we say can still be communicated without said anthropomorphic shortcut and still be valid. If you have issue with my use of it here, please point out where did my anthropomorphic account became inconsistent with the technical description that is behind it. On July 05 2013 22:01 xM(Z wrote:
can evolution itself be free will? No. Mostly because that question is meaningless. i addressed your point here, indirectly. at least it's how i see it since both of you were roughly on the same page On July 05 2013 21:39 xM(Z wrote:On July 05 2013 19:23 Tobberoth wrote:On July 05 2013 17:36 xM(Z wrote:
if consciousness cancels the decision made by the dice roll then it's correct to say we have free will?.
also, if dice roll = action taking then it's correct to assume that consciousness doesn't exist? (sort of a human life vs other life form debate)
If you believe that consciousness is physical (like the vast majority of people in this topic), it doesn't have any impact on free will. Let's say there's a "dice roll" decision made, and your consciousness cancels it. Why did you cancel it? Depends on the action, but any person has a reason for any decision, and that reason comes from their brain. Maybe they have tried the other thing before and it didn't work, maybe they are scared of the possible outcomes etc... anything should still be perfectly deterministic. then you'd have dualism between 2 physicalities, you and the environment with consciousness being some sort of feedback agent between those two. 1) why would that process unfold?, why is the dice being rolled in the first place? - because it just is (there is just no other answer as of yet, unless you believe in God and stuff) 2) to be able to break that subconscious > conscious > environment chain loop, somewhere along the way consciousness has to tell the environment to go fuck himself. for you to accept that as true, the consciousness needs to break the laws of what you call physical?, to change them?, to create new ones?; or you would just simply state that it happened because everything is physical, that consciousness gained access to a higher physical law or something? physics is concepts in diapers. and your point seem to fit under 1) shit just happens. what else is there to say in that case? can you answer 2)?. what would it take for free will to exist or for you to acknowledge it exists? (and yes, i meant "Consciousness is newer in evolutionary terms") ps: yes, i understood your point and it is valid. i'm just saying that it's incomplete. To answer : "what would it take for free will to exist or for you to acknowledge it exists?", I need you to define "free will" as I already multiple times pointed out that the concept, as most people instinctively understand it, is flawed and meaningless. There is no point speculating about meaningless concepts. there is no way to reply to that if you can't even conceive that something different then the physical could exist . it's as if 'physical' is your new god. how am i suppose to argue with that?. if i were to say that i bend spoons with my mind, with my consciousness, you'd just say that: based on the decision taken by subconscious the consciousness tapped into god knows what dark energy, physical dark energy, and bent the spoon I asked you for definition so we are on the same page and you answer with accusing me of dogmatic physicalism ? Are you for real ? yes, dogmatic physicalism pending scientific discoveries. You still did not say what is free will. How can I answer your question about it when even you did not know what you are talking about ?
i can not define a free will concept that would be outside your physicalism because your physicalism includes everything, includes infinity. you have to meet me halfway else there is no dialogue. i can come up with my own dogma that would make no sense what so ever to you and we will just agree to disagree forever.
but i'm not giving up!. i'll think of something.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On July 05 2013 23:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 23:36 Tobberoth wrote:On July 05 2013 23:30 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 23:23 Tobberoth wrote:On July 05 2013 23:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:
the idea that we have no control over our actions (determinism) That's not really the idea though. According to determinism, you're 100% in control of your actions. Problem is, what action you decide to do is based on a reason, and if you follow that logic far enough, it was predetermined before you were born what action you would do. Yes, and since you have no direct (or for most instances, indirect) control over those determiners, you have no control over your actions. The inputs and the method of interpreting them are all outside of the control of the subject, hence the subject cannot be said to have any real control over the outputs which are based only on which inputs come in and how they are interpreted. It doesn't matter. To the person making a decision, he is still in control. In what meaningful way can he/she be in control? They did not control the inputs, they did not control the processing of said inputs, so where do they suddenly get the ability to control the output? Show nested quote +but he doesn't know that and it doesn't affect his decision making which he is doing based on a ridiculous amount of inputs. What he knows or doesn't know is irrelevant. And you're missing the point that every single one of those inputs is out of his control.Show nested quote +The existance of jail, morality etc are all inputs in this and thus important. You can't say "He can't be punished because he wasn't responsible" since that will in turn become an input to everyone elses reasoning. This requires a discussion on the nature of morality, which doesn't really belong here.
It comes down to exactly how you define free will and control, but in the case of the pseudo-moral situation, it doesn't actually matter.
You could look at it in 2 ways, both of which you end up with the same conclusion.
First, assume there is free will with whatever definition you deem appropriate, then the wrongdoer exercises their freewill to commit a crime, members of society exercise their free will to punish said wrongdoer, very straight forward.
Second, assume there is no free will. The wrongdoer has no overall control over his actions, there was no other possible outcome other than him committing his crimes. However the result is still the same, society has no control over how they deal with the criminal, the systems that are in place dictate that the wrongdoer's actions will result in him going to prison via the legal system (which society has as much control over as the criminal has over his crimes, this is the crux).
Ultimately, no matter how you define free will and control, society has as much of it as the criminal does. If the criminal has done something morally wrong, society is morally correct in punishing him. If the criminal has done nothing morally wrong due to lack of control, society is also morally acquitted for the act of punishing him as it could not have happened any other way.
Even looking at the system simply, we can see that the behavioural patterns of society are already going to put the criminal in jail, it is both the pragmatic and the likely approach.
The existence or lack thereof of control doesn't actually effect the outcome.
|
On July 05 2013 23:58 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 23:49 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 23:31 xM(Z wrote:On July 05 2013 23:20 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 23:17 xM(Z wrote:On July 05 2013 23:05 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 22:59 xM(Z wrote:On July 05 2013 22:19 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 21:52 xM(Z wrote:On July 05 2013 21:26 mcc wrote:
[quote]
You are misrepresenting those quotes. Consciousness cancelling decisions by unconscious processes is just another process with the same basic properties. It is just a controller process that is designed to catch errors created by the baser process.
Analogy would be, that you have old machine that produces toys, but sometimes it malfunctions and it produces a toxic goo. It is cheaper for you to create a system on top of the existing machine that just detects the goo and removes it from the assembly line instead of redesigning the old machine. Same goes in case of consciousness. Evolution is one big patchwork of fixes applied to even older fixes. It is easier to just patch overseer (consciousness) over the older systems to achieve the required cognitive goals instead of "evolving" whole new system.
The ability of consciousness to cancel unconscious decisions is still based on the same physical process as those unconscious processes. It in no way introduces free will, it is still deterministic/probabilistic in the same way as the unconscious processes.
To note, when I am talking about free will here I mean the common misconception of free will. The one where you have ability to decide differently in the same circumstances. Free will in the sense that your decisions are your own (the legalistic one) of course exists. your analogy implies a goal. as in, you want your machine to remove goo. can you then tell me what goal evolution might have?, why does it do patches?. then and only then it will make sense. First, you are again not putting any effort into actually understanding my point. Point of that analogy was not in the part that you decided to concentrate on, but in the fact that consciousness is just another chain in the process of decision-making that is in no way qualitatively different than the other parts. Try to understand that when person makes an analogy, not all details of that analogy need to fit the original scenario, just the relevant ones. That is the point of analogy and you completely missed that with your unrelated tangent about goals. Not even mentioning that you completely ignored my non-analogy argument that stands on its own without analogy and I used that analogy just to illustrate it. But I will address also your tangent. Evolution has a "goal", and here I am talking in a very abstract sense. The "goal" of evolution is to adapt a species to its environment. Consciousness fills specific purpose in that goal. When talking about evolution we often anthropomorphize it to make the communication easier, and there is nothing wrong with it as long as what we say can still be communicated without said anthropomorphic shortcut and still be valid. If you have issue with my use of it here, please point out where did my anthropomorphic account became inconsistent with the technical description that is behind it. On July 05 2013 22:01 xM(Z wrote:
can evolution itself be free will? No. Mostly because that question is meaningless. i addressed your point here, indirectly. at least it's how i see it since both of you were roughly on the same page On July 05 2013 21:39 xM(Z wrote:On July 05 2013 19:23 Tobberoth wrote:On July 05 2013 17:36 xM(Z wrote:
if consciousness cancels the decision made by the dice roll then it's correct to say we have free will?.
also, if dice roll = action taking then it's correct to assume that consciousness doesn't exist? (sort of a human life vs other life form debate)
If you believe that consciousness is physical (like the vast majority of people in this topic), it doesn't have any impact on free will. Let's say there's a "dice roll" decision made, and your consciousness cancels it. Why did you cancel it? Depends on the action, but any person has a reason for any decision, and that reason comes from their brain. Maybe they have tried the other thing before and it didn't work, maybe they are scared of the possible outcomes etc... anything should still be perfectly deterministic. then you'd have dualism between 2 physicalities, you and the environment with consciousness being some sort of feedback agent between those two. 1) why would that process unfold?, why is the dice being rolled in the first place? - because it just is (there is just no other answer as of yet, unless you believe in God and stuff) 2) to be able to break that subconscious > conscious > environment chain loop, somewhere along the way consciousness has to tell the environment to go fuck himself. for you to accept that as true, the consciousness needs to break the laws of what you call physical?, to change them?, to create new ones?; or you would just simply state that it happened because everything is physical, that consciousness gained access to a higher physical law or something? physics is concepts in diapers. and your point seem to fit under 1) shit just happens. what else is there to say in that case? can you answer 2)?. what would it take for free will to exist or for you to acknowledge it exists? (and yes, i meant "Consciousness is newer in evolutionary terms") ps: yes, i understood your point and it is valid. i'm just saying that it's incomplete. To answer : "what would it take for free will to exist or for you to acknowledge it exists?", I need you to define "free will" as I already multiple times pointed out that the concept, as most people instinctively understand it, is flawed and meaningless. There is no point speculating about meaningless concepts. there is no way to reply to that if you can't even conceive that something different then the physical could exist . it's as if 'physical' is your new god. how am i suppose to argue with that?. if i were to say that i bend spoons with my mind, with my consciousness, you'd just say that: based on the decision taken by subconscious the consciousness tapped into god knows what dark energy, physical dark energy, and bent the spoon I asked you for definition so we are on the same page and you answer with accusing me of dogmatic physicalism ? Are you for real ? yes, dogmatic physicalism pending scientific discoveries. You still did not say what is free will. How can I answer your question about it when even you did not know what you are talking about ? i can not define a free will concept that would be outside your physicalism because your physicalism includes everything, includes infinity. you have to meet me halfway else there is no dialogue. i can come up with my own dogma that would make no sense what so ever to you and we will just agree to disagree forever. but i'm not giving up!. i'll think of something.
I am not limiting your definition, define it however you will. You are just dodging the answer as you have no answer.
|
On July 05 2013 23:54 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 23:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 23:36 Tobberoth wrote:On July 05 2013 23:30 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 23:23 Tobberoth wrote:On July 05 2013 23:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:
the idea that we have no control over our actions (determinism) That's not really the idea though. According to determinism, you're 100% in control of your actions. Problem is, what action you decide to do is based on a reason, and if you follow that logic far enough, it was predetermined before you were born what action you would do. Yes, and since you have no direct (or for most instances, indirect) control over those determiners, you have no control over your actions. The inputs and the method of interpreting them are all outside of the control of the subject, hence the subject cannot be said to have any real control over the outputs which are based only on which inputs come in and how they are interpreted. It doesn't matter. To the person making a decision, he is still in control. In what meaningful way can he/she be in control? They did not control the inputs, they did not control the processing of said inputs, so where do they suddenly get the ability to control the output? but he doesn't know that and it doesn't affect his decision making which he is doing based on a ridiculous amount of inputs. What he knows or doesn't know is irrelevant. And you're missing the point that every single one of those inputs is out of his control.The existance of jail, morality etc are all inputs in this and thus important. You can't say "He can't be punished because he wasn't responsible" since that will in turn become an input to everyone elses reasoning. This requires a discussion on the nature of morality, which doesn't really belong here. He controls the processing of the inputs as HE IS processing the inputs, no one else is. The fact that we can predict what he will do does not take it from him. This is the similar argument as impossibility of free will if god is omniscient. If god is omniscient, how can we have free will ? Ability to predict someone's decision does not take that decision from them. Just because I can predict movement of the moon, does not mean the moon does not actually does the moving, and so just because I can predict someone's decision does not mean he is not doing the deciding.
Ah, but let's go back to the original premise of the entire thread: humans are simply physical machines. Complicated computers, if you will. And computers do not control their hardware or software. The only control (in the sense that we are using it) that comes into play with computers is the user and builder. However, in the physicalist point of view, there exists no outside user or builder. The entirety of a human being is his/her hardware and software. They cannot control the processes because they do not control the hardware or software. They also do not control the inputs. They are simply running the processes, like a computer runs it's processes.
Let's leave aside the argument from the omniscient God POV for a second to focus on this. I don't want this being sidetracked here.
|
On July 06 2013 00:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 23:54 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 23:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 23:36 Tobberoth wrote:On July 05 2013 23:30 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 23:23 Tobberoth wrote:On July 05 2013 23:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:
the idea that we have no control over our actions (determinism) That's not really the idea though. According to determinism, you're 100% in control of your actions. Problem is, what action you decide to do is based on a reason, and if you follow that logic far enough, it was predetermined before you were born what action you would do. Yes, and since you have no direct (or for most instances, indirect) control over those determiners, you have no control over your actions. The inputs and the method of interpreting them are all outside of the control of the subject, hence the subject cannot be said to have any real control over the outputs which are based only on which inputs come in and how they are interpreted. It doesn't matter. To the person making a decision, he is still in control. In what meaningful way can he/she be in control? They did not control the inputs, they did not control the processing of said inputs, so where do they suddenly get the ability to control the output? but he doesn't know that and it doesn't affect his decision making which he is doing based on a ridiculous amount of inputs. What he knows or doesn't know is irrelevant. And you're missing the point that every single one of those inputs is out of his control.The existance of jail, morality etc are all inputs in this and thus important. You can't say "He can't be punished because he wasn't responsible" since that will in turn become an input to everyone elses reasoning. This requires a discussion on the nature of morality, which doesn't really belong here. He controls the processing of the inputs as HE IS processing the inputs, no one else is. The fact that we can predict what he will do does not take it from him. This is the similar argument as impossibility of free will if god is omniscient. If god is omniscient, how can we have free will ? Ability to predict someone's decision does not take that decision from them. Just because I can predict movement of the moon, does not mean the moon does not actually does the moving, and so just because I can predict someone's decision does not mean he is not doing the deciding. Ah, but let's go back to the original premise of the entire thread: humans are simply physical machines. Complicated computers, if you will. And computers do not control their hardware or software. The only control (in the sense that we are using it) that comes into play with computers is the user and builder. However, in the physicalist point of view, there exists no outside user or builder. The entirety of a human being is his/her hardware and software. They cannot control the processes because they do not control the hardware or software. They also do not control the inputs. They are simply running the processes, like a computer runs it's processes. Let's leave aside the argument from the omniscient God POV for a second to focus on this. I don't want this being sidetracked here.
It's been demonstrated mathematically, although it's not accepted by everyone, as a consequence of the Godel's incompleteness theorem that humans are not computers, or, better put, human thought is not algorithmical, that is you can not create a Turing machine that thinks like a human. It basically means that it's not possible to create a human AI based on an algorithm. Or it also means that we are not simply running processes, like a computer runs its processes.
Speculations say that human consciousness is some kind of quantic process happening in the neurons that we don't have the physics to describe yet.
This has profound consequences:
- Unless we create computers based on this speculated quantum phenomenon, we can not create an AI
- There is scientific room for "free will"
- We are far away from grasping the concept of "consciousness"
It's fascinating.
|
On July 05 2013 20:40 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 20:21 Rassy wrote:
"I don't see how fatalism should follow even in a fully deterministic universe nor how this should compromise my or anyone's moral responsibility"
Well if the universe is 100% deterministic there is no moral responsibility since there are no choises. Everything is predetermined.
Or do i see this to simplistic?, I read something about the universe beeing deterministic can still allow for free will but to me it made no sense. Maybe someone could explain. Why would you say that there would be "no choices" if the universe were deterministic, rather than: "It would mean that were you to run the universe again right from the beginning, then everybody would make exactly the same choices again." ? Do you see the difference in this phrasing. Either the choices are yours to make (in constant interaction with your environment, of course) or not (maybe you are a strong eliminitivist about intentionality). In any case, determinism or indeterminism should change nothing about your judgement. Let me ask you this: Suppose that 'real' free will or 'real' decision making would require some magic component and that we would just so happen to live in a world in which we had this magic component. If I were then to tell you that the problem remains, that were we to run this world again and again, then everybody would always take the same choices again since everybody would still act according to their nature. Would this take anything away from the freedom of decision making?
If I were then to tell you that the problem remains, that were we to run this world again and again, then everybody would always take the same choices again since everybody would still act according to their nature. Would this take anything away from the freedom of decision making
I could also have phrased it like you said, to me there basicly is no difference.
One implies the other
If everything is predetermined then there is no decission to make, at least i dont see how and nothing i have read since my post has convinced me otherwise
Moralty is somehow completely irrelevant for me. Its part of religious phylosophy, in wich i dont believe. To me there is no good or bad.
Like an apple falling from a tree to the earth. The apple does not make the decission to fall to the earth.
If we where to run this universe again and it would be completely identical, then there are obviously no decissions to be made. Something can only be a decission if there is indeed an alternative, but that is not the case if the same will always happen.
I dont know how determinism can hold up with quantum mechanics btw,the only option would be the "missing variables" theory wich basicly denies the existance of uncertainty.
|
On July 06 2013 00:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 23:54 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 23:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 23:36 Tobberoth wrote:On July 05 2013 23:30 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 23:23 Tobberoth wrote:On July 05 2013 23:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:
the idea that we have no control over our actions (determinism) That's not really the idea though. According to determinism, you're 100% in control of your actions. Problem is, what action you decide to do is based on a reason, and if you follow that logic far enough, it was predetermined before you were born what action you would do. Yes, and since you have no direct (or for most instances, indirect) control over those determiners, you have no control over your actions. The inputs and the method of interpreting them are all outside of the control of the subject, hence the subject cannot be said to have any real control over the outputs which are based only on which inputs come in and how they are interpreted. It doesn't matter. To the person making a decision, he is still in control. In what meaningful way can he/she be in control? They did not control the inputs, they did not control the processing of said inputs, so where do they suddenly get the ability to control the output? but he doesn't know that and it doesn't affect his decision making which he is doing based on a ridiculous amount of inputs. What he knows or doesn't know is irrelevant. And you're missing the point that every single one of those inputs is out of his control.The existance of jail, morality etc are all inputs in this and thus important. You can't say "He can't be punished because he wasn't responsible" since that will in turn become an input to everyone elses reasoning. This requires a discussion on the nature of morality, which doesn't really belong here. He controls the processing of the inputs as HE IS processing the inputs, no one else is. The fact that we can predict what he will do does not take it from him. This is the similar argument as impossibility of free will if god is omniscient. If god is omniscient, how can we have free will ? Ability to predict someone's decision does not take that decision from them. Just because I can predict movement of the moon, does not mean the moon does not actually does the moving, and so just because I can predict someone's decision does not mean he is not doing the deciding. Ah, but let's go back to the original premise of the entire thread: humans are simply physical machines. Complicated computers, if you will. And computers do not control their hardware or software. The only control (in the sense that we are using it) that comes into play with computers is the user and builder. However, in the physicalist point of view, there exists no outside user or builder. The entirety of a human being is his/her hardware and software. They cannot control the processes because they do not control the hardware or software. They also do not control the inputs. They are simply running the processes, like a computer runs it's processes. Let's leave aside the argument from the omniscient God POV for a second to focus on this. I don't want this being sidetracked here.
You are ignoring complexity and specifics of the system in question. What differentiates us from the (current) computers and rocks is autonomy. There is nothing magical in that autonomy, but it is a "design" feature that I have and rat has and bee has, and computer or rock do not have. That is because I have internal goals originating from evolution, whereas computer does not have them (unless we put it there). Once computer has internal goals all I said will also apply to it.
Human beings have control over those processes(to a degree), because they ARE those processes. I am not just my conscious self, I am my body. I am not running any processes, I am them.
The omniscient argument is extremely relevant as it is exactly the same issue. You are mistaking ability to predict someone's decisions for their inability to decide. You are also erroneously differentiating between self and body, there is no such distinction. That distinction is your assumption, but we do not share that assumption, and that is why there is no contradiction in my argument, but you see them there because you are projecting your assumption into my position.
|
On July 06 2013 00:15 Fran_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 00:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 23:54 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 23:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 23:36 Tobberoth wrote:On July 05 2013 23:30 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 23:23 Tobberoth wrote:On July 05 2013 23:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:
the idea that we have no control over our actions (determinism) That's not really the idea though. According to determinism, you're 100% in control of your actions. Problem is, what action you decide to do is based on a reason, and if you follow that logic far enough, it was predetermined before you were born what action you would do. Yes, and since you have no direct (or for most instances, indirect) control over those determiners, you have no control over your actions. The inputs and the method of interpreting them are all outside of the control of the subject, hence the subject cannot be said to have any real control over the outputs which are based only on which inputs come in and how they are interpreted. It doesn't matter. To the person making a decision, he is still in control. In what meaningful way can he/she be in control? They did not control the inputs, they did not control the processing of said inputs, so where do they suddenly get the ability to control the output? but he doesn't know that and it doesn't affect his decision making which he is doing based on a ridiculous amount of inputs. What he knows or doesn't know is irrelevant. And you're missing the point that every single one of those inputs is out of his control.The existance of jail, morality etc are all inputs in this and thus important. You can't say "He can't be punished because he wasn't responsible" since that will in turn become an input to everyone elses reasoning. This requires a discussion on the nature of morality, which doesn't really belong here. He controls the processing of the inputs as HE IS processing the inputs, no one else is. The fact that we can predict what he will do does not take it from him. This is the similar argument as impossibility of free will if god is omniscient. If god is omniscient, how can we have free will ? Ability to predict someone's decision does not take that decision from them. Just because I can predict movement of the moon, does not mean the moon does not actually does the moving, and so just because I can predict someone's decision does not mean he is not doing the deciding. Ah, but let's go back to the original premise of the entire thread: humans are simply physical machines. Complicated computers, if you will. And computers do not control their hardware or software. The only control (in the sense that we are using it) that comes into play with computers is the user and builder. However, in the physicalist point of view, there exists no outside user or builder. The entirety of a human being is his/her hardware and software. They cannot control the processes because they do not control the hardware or software. They also do not control the inputs. They are simply running the processes, like a computer runs it's processes. Let's leave aside the argument from the omniscient God POV for a second to focus on this. I don't want this being sidetracked here. It's been demonstrated mathematically, although it's not accepted by everyone, as a consequence of the Godel's incompleteness theorem that humans are not computers, or, better put, human thought is not algorithmical, that is you can not create a Turing machine that thinks like a human. It basically means that it's not possible to create a human AI based on an algorithm. Or it also means that we are not simply running processes, like a computer runs its processes. Speculations say that human consciousness is some kind of quantic process happening in the neurons that we don't have the physics to describe yet. This has profound consequences: - Unless we create computers based on this speculated quantum phenomenon, we can not create an AI - There is scientific room for "free will" - We are far away from grasping the concept of "consciousness" It's fascinating.
Please do not spread wrong information about Godel's theorem. It proved nothing of a kind as you just said. What you wrote are complete fabrications.
|
On July 06 2013 00:23 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 00:15 Fran_ wrote:On July 06 2013 00:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 23:54 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 23:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 23:36 Tobberoth wrote:On July 05 2013 23:30 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 23:23 Tobberoth wrote:On July 05 2013 23:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:
the idea that we have no control over our actions (determinism) That's not really the idea though. According to determinism, you're 100% in control of your actions. Problem is, what action you decide to do is based on a reason, and if you follow that logic far enough, it was predetermined before you were born what action you would do. Yes, and since you have no direct (or for most instances, indirect) control over those determiners, you have no control over your actions. The inputs and the method of interpreting them are all outside of the control of the subject, hence the subject cannot be said to have any real control over the outputs which are based only on which inputs come in and how they are interpreted. It doesn't matter. To the person making a decision, he is still in control. In what meaningful way can he/she be in control? They did not control the inputs, they did not control the processing of said inputs, so where do they suddenly get the ability to control the output? but he doesn't know that and it doesn't affect his decision making which he is doing based on a ridiculous amount of inputs. What he knows or doesn't know is irrelevant. And you're missing the point that every single one of those inputs is out of his control.The existance of jail, morality etc are all inputs in this and thus important. You can't say "He can't be punished because he wasn't responsible" since that will in turn become an input to everyone elses reasoning. This requires a discussion on the nature of morality, which doesn't really belong here. He controls the processing of the inputs as HE IS processing the inputs, no one else is. The fact that we can predict what he will do does not take it from him. This is the similar argument as impossibility of free will if god is omniscient. If god is omniscient, how can we have free will ? Ability to predict someone's decision does not take that decision from them. Just because I can predict movement of the moon, does not mean the moon does not actually does the moving, and so just because I can predict someone's decision does not mean he is not doing the deciding. Ah, but let's go back to the original premise of the entire thread: humans are simply physical machines. Complicated computers, if you will. And computers do not control their hardware or software. The only control (in the sense that we are using it) that comes into play with computers is the user and builder. However, in the physicalist point of view, there exists no outside user or builder. The entirety of a human being is his/her hardware and software. They cannot control the processes because they do not control the hardware or software. They also do not control the inputs. They are simply running the processes, like a computer runs it's processes. Let's leave aside the argument from the omniscient God POV for a second to focus on this. I don't want this being sidetracked here. It's been demonstrated mathematically, although it's not accepted by everyone, as a consequence of the Godel's incompleteness theorem that humans are not computers, or, better put, human thought is not algorithmical, that is you can not create a Turing machine that thinks like a human. It basically means that it's not possible to create a human AI based on an algorithm. Or it also means that we are not simply running processes, like a computer runs its processes. Speculations say that human consciousness is some kind of quantic process happening in the neurons that we don't have the physics to describe yet. This has profound consequences: - Unless we create computers based on this speculated quantum phenomenon, we can not create an AI - There is scientific room for "free will" - We are far away from grasping the concept of "consciousness" It's fascinating. Please do not spread wrong information about Godel's theorem. It proved nothing of a kind as you just said. What you wrote are complete fabrications.
Please read more carefully.
I clearly mentioned it is a consequence (very long one for that matters) of the Godel's theorem, not the Godel's theorem itself. But if what you say is true, it would be very easy for you to prove Roger Penrose's proof wrong. Please do so.
Here's where you can find the mathematical proof of the theorem:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/187100.Shadows_of_the_Mind
I eagerly await your counter proof with trepidation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
