|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
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.
To put it simply, for physicalists the control that is ascribed to a person, and consequently the responsibility for those actions is merely a simplified model.
Your computer analogy is a pertinent one. The computer does not ultimately have control over it's hardware/physical phenomena going on in it's operation. However it is in practice useful to think of the computer having control over it's program flow. Indeed I would hazard to say the overwhelming majority if not all programmers/HDL configurers think of their program as controlling the computer and it's resources.
They don't do this because they think the computer has some kind of free will, they do this because it is a simplified model that is in practice perfectly consistent (or very nearly) with thinking of the physical phenomena that goes on inside a computer as a whole, except much much easier, by eliminating from the model all aspects that they are not in the act of modifying.
The same principle applies to human responsibility. Physicalists apply the assumption of free will, or better put, they define for the sake of pragmatism a set of, essentially deterministic, behaviours/phenomena as free will in such a way that is perfectly consistent, but doesn't require the scope of a purely deterministic (or probabilistic world). So that the decision of what to do with the criminal is easier to make while obtaining the same conclusion as if you didn't use the simplified model.
That is to say, they could look at the entire situation from the point of view of social, psychological, evolutionary and biological (or even more fundamental) factors that determine what should occur to the criminal, but the assumption of control (even if illusionary in their view) will provide the same results as their strictly formal system, and be much easier to navigate.
|
On July 06 2013 00:21 mcc 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. 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.
The level of complexity has not been shown to be relevant here. A brand-new computer has just as much a lack of control over it's processes as an abacus does. Those internal goals, are, again, not under your control. You did not choose those goals. They are the software, if you will. Without an outside user, there is no control.
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.
A computer is it's processes and it's physical body. It still doesn't have control. The fact that you "are those processes" does not necessitate that you have control over the processes.
You are mistaking ability to predict someone's decisions for their inability to decide.
I haven't said a single thing about the ability to predict...
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.
No... I have said that if self and body are the same then the self cannot be said to have any control over anything it does, as it has no control over the body it is. If you are your body, you did not choose your body. If you are your brain, you did not choose your brain. Without any outside influence or external control, the lack of choice in anything involving what your brain is directly means a lack of control over the actions taken by said brain. Only by differentiating between self and body (spiritualism) can we be said to have choice.
|
I'm just going to put this here, as there seems to be some bizarre arguments regarding free will vs determinism (to the point that people seem to be arguing against their stated position). Read at your own discretion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
|
On July 06 2013 00:27 Fran_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 00:23 mcc wrote: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
First, post the proof, not the book, if you want me to show how it is wrong. That is not a link to the text.
Anyway I have no need to actually debate with whatever Penrose wrote. I could point out that not only does "not everyone" agree with him, basically no one does. But the main point is that Godel's theorem pertains to formal system and thus has no bearing on the reality without empirical evidence. Does Penrose have empirically backed formal model of human mind that he can create such a proof, no he does not. The only thing that he could prove was that human mind as he thinks it works cannot be simulated by computers.
People should realize that formal proofs alone have basically no relevance on what is real or not.
|
On July 06 2013 00:01 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 23:58 xM(Z wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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.
i said like 3 times that i can't do it, i'm not dodging anything.
my definition of free will seen from you eyes - Free will is the ability of agents to make choices unconstrained by infinity. that is GG
but hey, lets play your game. my free will = your randomization.
|
On July 06 2013 00:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 00:21 mcc 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. 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. The level of complexity has not been shown to be relevant here. A brand-new computer has just as much a lack of control over it's processes as an abacus does. Those internal goals, are, again, not under your control. You did not choose those goals. They are the software, if you will. Without an outside user, there is no control. Show nested quote +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. A computer is it's processes and it's physical body. It still doesn't have control. The fact that you "are those processes" does not necessitate that you have control over the processes. Show nested quote +You are mistaking ability to predict someone's decisions for their inability to decide. I haven't said a single thing about the ability to predict... Show nested quote +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. No... I have said that if self and body are the same then the self cannot be said to have any control over anything it does, as it has no control over the body it is. If you are your body, you did not choose your body. If you are your brain, you did not choose your brain. Without any outside influence or external control, the lack of choice in anything involving what your brain is directly means a lack of control over the actions taken by said brain. Only by differentiating between self and body (spiritualism) can we be said to have choice.
Ok, I see your point, then you have meaningless definition of control and discussion is over.
EDIT: To expand on why discussion is over. If I use your definition of control, I agree (in principle) with what you said. It just does not matter to me in the slightest as that is definition of control that is completely useless, because it does not correspond with anything in the universe and is thus an empty word.
|
Belief in God is not the same as belief in unicorns, santa claus and the easter bunny. Why?
How many grownups do you know that believe in God, santa claus and the easter bunny? If you can count more than 10 adults that do believe in the latter two you must be in an insane asylum. There are plenty of rational adults that believe in God, but not the other beings being compared with God.
How many of the people that believe in God came to that belief in their adult life? How about the other two?
How many books have been written about the evils of believing in santa claus and the easter bunny? How about belief in God?
If you're going to argue God doesn't exist, please use a better argument!
|
On July 06 2013 00:37 Webinator wrote:
Belief in God is not the same as belief in unicorns, santa claus and the easter bunny. Why?
How many grownups do you know that believe in God, santa claus and the easter bunny? If you can count more than 10 adults that do believe in the latter two you must be in an insane asylum. There are plenty of rational adults that believe in God, but not the other beings being compared with God.
How many of the people that believe in God came to that belief in their adult life? How about the other two?
How many books have been written about the evils of believing in santa claus and the easter bunny? How about belief in God?
If you're going to argue God doesn't exist, please use a better argument!
If you exclude cultural and societal pressure and history, it's identical. There's no more reason to believe in gods than unicorns, since both rely 100% on faith.
|
On July 06 2013 00:37 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 00:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 00:21 mcc 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. 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. The level of complexity has not been shown to be relevant here. A brand-new computer has just as much a lack of control over it's processes as an abacus does. Those internal goals, are, again, not under your control. You did not choose those goals. They are the software, if you will. Without an outside user, there is no control. 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. A computer is it's processes and it's physical body. It still doesn't have control. The fact that you "are those processes" does not necessitate that you have control over the processes. You are mistaking ability to predict someone's decisions for their inability to decide. I haven't said a single thing about the ability to predict... 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. No... I have said that if self and body are the same then the self cannot be said to have any control over anything it does, as it has no control over the body it is. If you are your body, you did not choose your body. If you are your brain, you did not choose your brain. Without any outside influence or external control, the lack of choice in anything involving what your brain is directly means a lack of control over the actions taken by said brain. Only by differentiating between self and body (spiritualism) can we be said to have choice. Ok, I see your point, then you have meaningless definition of control and discussion is over.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/control
relevant definitions:
to exercise restraining or directing influence over
How can you be said to exercise restraining or directing influence over your brain when you are your brain and you did not choose your brain?
to have power over
How can you be said to have power over your brain when you are your brain and you did not choose your brain.
I am literally using the only definitions of control that have anything to do with the discussion. Perhaps you are the one using a meaningless (and inaccurate) definition.
|
On July 06 2013 00:37 Webinator wrote:
Belief in God is not the same as belief in unicorns, santa claus and the easter bunny. Why?
How many grownups do you know that believe in God, santa claus and the easter bunny? If you can count more than 10 adults that do believe in the latter two you must be in an insane asylum. There are plenty of rational adults that believe in God, but not the other beings being compared with God.
How many of the people that believe in God came to that belief in their adult life? How about the other two?
How many books have been written about the evils of believing in santa claus and the easter bunny? How about belief in God?
If you're going to argue God doesn't exist, please use a better argument!
It's not an argument, he just rightfully points out that there's no difference between believing in Santa, Unicorns or God. All 3 have no actual evidence going for them and people who believe in them believe through faith.
Otherwise rational people carry God into the adult life because that part of their belief system is irrational and faith-based. It doesn't suggest that there's no God, it just says that it's the same as any other funky belief, like the belief in Odin or any other myth/legend/cute story.
|
On July 06 2013 00:37 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 00:01 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 23:58 xM(Z wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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:[quote] 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. i said like 3 times that i can't do it, i'm not dodging anything. my definition of free will seen from you eyes - Free will is the ability of agents to make choices unconstrained by infinity. that is GG
What does that even mean ? Explain.
On July 06 2013 00:37 xM(Z wrote:
but hey, lets play your game. my free will = your randomization.
Ignoring first part of your post until you make it clear I have to say then that free will exists to some extent as we know random events happen in universe.
|
On July 05 2013 21:51 mcc 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.
That is because you might be deterministic, but it is still you who took the action (for example to murder someone). You being deterministic does not change the fact that you (the entity that is your body) by internal (not externally coerced) processes undertook an action. You are still making decisions based on your internal state and external input, it is just that those decisions are theoretically predictable. Determinism does not take away moral responsibility and not even free will (the reasonable definition of one). The only thing it takes away from you is possibility that you will in the absolutely same set of circumstances make different decision than the one you made. But what would that even mean ? That is why the common concept of free will is absolutely nonsensical. What would that even mean to take different action in the same circumstances ? How could that be, the only way for it to happen is to throw some kind of magical dice, but how is that free will. Why all of this is such an issue for our minds to process is because we have illusion of free decision-making. That is because we have absolutely no introspection into the actual workings of our minds (since that is evolutionarily not necessary and would cause more problems than benefits). But our conscious mind still wants to have consistent model of "self" and thus illusion of nearly absolute control is born. Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 20:21 Rassy wrote:
"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 "
Hmm this is kinda interesting,consciousness seems to be a relativly new development and it seems to still devellop.
Apearently (i have not tried this myself but i read about this theory) if you study old texts from the greek and roman you can see that they have a less develloped consciousness, based on how they are writing. It is more descriptive of events and it contains less personal experiences with the notion of a self.(again, i am no expert on this so i might be wrong) That seems to be bogus, that can be easily explained by different styles of writing, etc. Consciousness is newer in evolutionary terms, but it is very old compared to human civilization.
To me "free will" means options,choises.having an alternative.
I dont know why phylosophy redefines "free will" in a way almost noone would think of it, i find phylosophys defination not reasonable at all, it basicly tries to avoid a problem it can not explain.
If everything is predetermined there is no choise,the choise is an illusion. To me this is like 1+1=2, and i think you agree with this reading your post.
Then why is it so important to keep insisting there is free will? and define free will in such a way that it is possible in a deterministic universe?
Is it only to be able to hold humans morally accountable?
If thats the case then i find it completely absurd.
The part about consciousness develloping is not entirly bogus btw, and it is more then simply different styles of writing.
Style of writing says something about how humans percieve the world and themselves,i will try find some links as it is quiet interesting. One thing i vaguely remember is that in old texts the " I " (as in " I go to work") is seldomly used wich some people say is an indication that the selfconsciousness is less develloped at that time.
|
United States24568 Posts
On July 06 2013 00:37 Webinator wrote:
Belief in God is not the same as belief in unicorns, santa claus and the easter bunny. Why?
How many grownups do you know that believe in God, santa claus and the easter bunny? If you can count more than 10 adults that do believe in the latter two you must be in an insane asylum. There are plenty of rational adults that believe in God, but not the other beings being compared with God.
How many of the people that believe in God came to that belief in their adult life? How about the other two?
How many books have been written about the evils of believing in santa claus and the easter bunny? How about belief in God?
If you're going to argue God doesn't exist, please use a better argument!
I have a problem with the philosophy that you should believe something because many other people believe in it.
I do think you should take something more seriously if many people believe in it (you don't need to spend that much time pondering the existence of the Easter Bunny), though.
The idea that "many people believe in God so you should too" is a dangerous groupthink mentality that should be avoided, not just in the case of God, but in other aspects of life.
Finally, discussing how to argue/prove God doesn't exist is pretty silly considering it can't really be done. Ironically, the best arguments against the existance of God are probably the same in nature as the best arguments against the existance of Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny, and the argument works really well in the latter two cases.
|
On July 06 2013 00:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 00:37 mcc wrote:On July 06 2013 00:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 00:21 mcc 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:
[quote]
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. The level of complexity has not been shown to be relevant here. A brand-new computer has just as much a lack of control over it's processes as an abacus does. Those internal goals, are, again, not under your control. You did not choose those goals. They are the software, if you will. Without an outside user, there is no control. 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. A computer is it's processes and it's physical body. It still doesn't have control. The fact that you "are those processes" does not necessitate that you have control over the processes. You are mistaking ability to predict someone's decisions for their inability to decide. I haven't said a single thing about the ability to predict... 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. No... I have said that if self and body are the same then the self cannot be said to have any control over anything it does, as it has no control over the body it is. If you are your body, you did not choose your body. If you are your brain, you did not choose your brain. Without any outside influence or external control, the lack of choice in anything involving what your brain is directly means a lack of control over the actions taken by said brain. Only by differentiating between self and body (spiritualism) can we be said to have choice. Ok, I see your point, then you have meaningless definition of control and discussion is over. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/controlrelevant definitions: to exercise restraining or directing influence overHow can you be said to exercise restraining or directing influence over your brain when you are your brain and you did not choose your brain? to have power overHow can you be said to have power over your brain when you are your brain and you did not choose your brain. I am literally using the only definitions of control that have anything to do with the discussion. Perhaps you are the one using a meaningless (and inaccurate) definition.
Why even bother arguing this? As doubleupgradeobbies already pointed out, it doesn't matter
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.
|
On July 06 2013 00:46 Tarot wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 00:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 00:37 mcc wrote:On July 06 2013 00:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 00:21 mcc 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:
[quote]
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. The level of complexity has not been shown to be relevant here. A brand-new computer has just as much a lack of control over it's processes as an abacus does. Those internal goals, are, again, not under your control. You did not choose those goals. They are the software, if you will. Without an outside user, there is no control. 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. A computer is it's processes and it's physical body. It still doesn't have control. The fact that you "are those processes" does not necessitate that you have control over the processes. You are mistaking ability to predict someone's decisions for their inability to decide. I haven't said a single thing about the ability to predict... 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. No... I have said that if self and body are the same then the self cannot be said to have any control over anything it does, as it has no control over the body it is. If you are your body, you did not choose your body. If you are your brain, you did not choose your brain. Without any outside influence or external control, the lack of choice in anything involving what your brain is directly means a lack of control over the actions taken by said brain. Only by differentiating between self and body (spiritualism) can we be said to have choice. Ok, I see your point, then you have meaningless definition of control and discussion is over. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/controlrelevant definitions: to exercise restraining or directing influence overHow can you be said to exercise restraining or directing influence over your brain when you are your brain and you did not choose your brain? to have power overHow can you be said to have power over your brain when you are your brain and you did not choose your brain. I am literally using the only definitions of control that have anything to do with the discussion. Perhaps you are the one using a meaningless (and inaccurate) definition. Why even bother arguing this? As doubleupgradeobbies already pointed out, it doesn't matter Show nested quote +
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.
Why even bother? Because I like arguing about stuff like this. It is both informative and challenging.
I already said that I'm not pursuing the prisoner line anymore because that relies getting into a discussion of the nature of morality that doesn't really belong here.
|
Mind being physical does not mean our minds are equivalent to supercomputers.
I think it's pretty damn safe to say we don't fully understand how the mind works. However, it is obvious that the mind has at least strong roots in the brain, and I don't hold any other metaphysical beliefs.
It just doesn't make any sense for me to think there more than the physical, and I also know about it, just because I don't understand how it is possible. Believe me though, I find consciousness pretty unsettling.
On July 06 2013 00:37 Webinator wrote:
Belief in God is not the same as belief in unicorns, santa claus and the easter bunny. Why?
How many grownups do you know that believe in God, santa claus and the easter bunny? If you can count more than 10 adults that do believe in the latter two you must be in an insane asylum. There are plenty of rational adults that believe in God, but not the other beings being compared with God.
How many of the people that believe in God came to that belief in their adult life? How about the other two?
How many books have been written about the evils of believing in santa claus and the easter bunny? How about belief in God?
If you're going to argue God doesn't exist, please use a better argument!
I think you are committing a worse mistake. Rational people believing something often times can be related to it being logical, but to assume that is not only illogical it's dangerous. A belief should get no extra protection from scrutiny because it is commonly held.
|
On July 06 2013 00:44 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 00:37 xM(Z wrote:On July 06 2013 00:01 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 23:58 xM(Z wrote: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:
[quote]
i addressed your point here, indirectly. at least it's how i see it since both of you were roughly on the same page
[quote]
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. i said like 3 times that i can't do it, i'm not dodging anything. my definition of free will seen from you eyes - Free will is the ability of agents to make choices unconstrained by infinity. that is GG What does that even mean ? Explain. Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 00:37 xM(Z wrote:
but hey, lets play your game. my free will = your randomization.
Ignoring first part of your post until you make it clear I have to say then that free will exists to some extent as we know random events happen in universe.
come on, it couldn't have been that easy.
if free will exists at macro levels why the same wouldn't hold true at micro levels? (macro = universe, micro = brain). it's what people at LHC do. they study the micro universe as it applies to the macro universe.
|
On July 06 2013 00:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 00:46 Tarot wrote:On July 06 2013 00:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 00:37 mcc wrote:On July 06 2013 00:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 00:21 mcc 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:
[quote]
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. The level of complexity has not been shown to be relevant here. A brand-new computer has just as much a lack of control over it's processes as an abacus does. Those internal goals, are, again, not under your control. You did not choose those goals. They are the software, if you will. Without an outside user, there is no control. 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. A computer is it's processes and it's physical body. It still doesn't have control. The fact that you "are those processes" does not necessitate that you have control over the processes. You are mistaking ability to predict someone's decisions for their inability to decide. I haven't said a single thing about the ability to predict... 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. No... I have said that if self and body are the same then the self cannot be said to have any control over anything it does, as it has no control over the body it is. If you are your body, you did not choose your body. If you are your brain, you did not choose your brain. Without any outside influence or external control, the lack of choice in anything involving what your brain is directly means a lack of control over the actions taken by said brain. Only by differentiating between self and body (spiritualism) can we be said to have choice. Ok, I see your point, then you have meaningless definition of control and discussion is over. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/controlrelevant definitions: to exercise restraining or directing influence overHow can you be said to exercise restraining or directing influence over your brain when you are your brain and you did not choose your brain? to have power overHow can you be said to have power over your brain when you are your brain and you did not choose your brain. I am literally using the only definitions of control that have anything to do with the discussion. Perhaps you are the one using a meaningless (and inaccurate) definition. Why even bother arguing this? As doubleupgradeobbies already pointed out, it doesn't matter
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.
Why even bother? Because I like arguing about stuff like this. It is both informative and challenging. I already said that I'm not pursuing the prisoner line anymore because that relies getting into a discussion of the nature of morality that doesn't really belong here.
So what is your argument? I saw your human as physical machines premise but didn't see what you were trying to argue.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On July 06 2013 00:37 Webinator wrote:
Belief in God is not the same as belief in unicorns, santa claus and the easter bunny. Why?
How many grownups do you know that believe in God, santa claus and the easter bunny? If you can count more than 10 adults that do believe in the latter two you must be in an insane asylum. There are plenty of rational adults that believe in God, but not the other beings being compared with God.
How many of the people that believe in God came to that belief in their adult life? How about the other two?
How many books have been written about the evils of believing in santa claus and the easter bunny? How about belief in God?
If you're going to argue God doesn't exist, please use a better argument!
Last I checked, most people don't consider the popularity of an idea as the main determinant of it's accuracy.
There is far more discussion about whether or not there is a God than there is of whether or not santa or the easter bunny exist. People in their adult life are naturally going to consider the question of the existence of God more because there is simply a greater volume of dialogue on it than on serious discussions regarding the existence or lack thereof of Santa/Easter bunny.
The church/faith of Santa/Easter bunny are also not given a privileged position in politics, taxes, and politicians don't tend to use it as a justification for decisions that should be made by more rational means. Naturally people are going to complain about it less than something that has vastly more influence on the world.
Both of these essentially boil down to the fact that the churches/belief networks of major religions are bigger, better organised and have more influence than minor religions/other beliefs, naturally there is going to be more dialogue regarding these.
It doesn't necessarily imply that the evidence for them are stronger than the evidence for any of the other belief.
|
On July 06 2013 00:35 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 00:27 Fran_ wrote:On July 06 2013 00:23 mcc wrote: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:
[quote]
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 First, post the proof, not the book, if you want me to show how it is wrong. That is not a link to the text. Anyway I have no need to actually debate with whatever Penrose wrote. I could point out that not only does "not everyone" agree with him, basically no one does. But the main point is that Godel's theorem pertains to formal system and thus has no bearing on the reality without empirical evidence. Does Penrose have empirically backed formal model of human mind that he can create such a proof, no he does not. The only thing that he could prove was that human mind as he thinks it works cannot be simulated by computers. People should realize that formal proofs alone have basically no relevance on what is real or not.
The proof is in the book and it's about a hundred pages long. Enjoy. Before dismissing it and speaking for "everyone", you should at least try to understand it.
But to steer away from your boring and unjustified bitterness (since you simply got my post spectacularly wrong), is Penrose's model true? It hasn't been proved false yet and, like every formal model does, it helps understanding reality and gives insight into the empirical world. Penrose' model takes free will away from mysticism and religion, and plants it firmly in the scientific realm, offering hope to understand and describe consciousness and free will in scientific terms. It's worth exploring.
And again, it's very fascinating, deserves to be discussed without big egos involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
