|
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.
First read my EDIT to that post, if you did not yet, although it does not have much bearing on your response.
The definitions are basically ok. But you are still, even though you deny it, projecting this strange notion that I am separate from my brain. I am not and thus the whole concept that you hold is meaningless. I cannot control my brain as it is part of me, the concept of me having control over my brain is meaningless as it does not correspond to anything in reality. I am however controlling my actions and decisions. And that is what we were discussing. I have no idea how controlling my brain came into it.
|
On July 06 2013 00:51 Tarot wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 00:49 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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?
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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.
Well, my intention is to receive a concession where the fact that physicalism means a complete lack of choice and control and then move on to other juicy topics. See if maybe we can get pull some contradictions out of this whole thing.
|
On July 06 2013 00:51 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 00:44 mcc wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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.
The problem is that no one is agreeing with you that something being random means it has free will. It's in fact the opposite. If we assume that flipping a coin is random (even though it isn't), there's no will in it at all. If your decisions are made by causes you can't control or random events you can't control, there's still no free will.
|
On July 06 2013 00:28 doubleupgradeobbies! 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. 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.
So this weird definition is purely made to be able to hold humans accountable.
Well then i am done with this whole subject, science should not have the aim to tell humans what or what not to do, and if phylosophy is only interested in this, then i am no longer interested in phylosophy.
Am not angry btw, even though it might seem so reading my text, just a bit disapointed (lol)
I have huge respect for everyone in this thread and everyones personal vieuw!, but its not something i can identify with.
|
On July 06 2013 00:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 00:51 Tarot wrote:On July 06 2013 00:49 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Well, my intention is to receive a concession where the fact that physicalism means a complete lack of choice and control and then move on to other juicy topics. See if maybe we can get pull some contradictions out of this whole thing.
On July 06 2013 00:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 00:51 Tarot wrote:On July 06 2013 00:49 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Well, my intention is to receive a concession where the fact that physicalism means a complete lack of choice and control and then move on to other juicy topics. See if maybe we can get pull some contradictions out of this whole thing.
Right, and if you define choice the way you do, then by definition, physicialism means a lack of choice... I don't really care how you define it, as long as you don't start mixing what we mean when we say 'choice' in everyday language and your definition of 'choice'. So then going with your definition, what would your argument be?
|
Everything is physical in nature. Even the experiences that you have, the memories you store and the interpretations you make are all products of physical interactions. Everyone experiences differently and has a different mind because the physical make up of each individual's brain is absolutely unique. Even if you had a perfectly made clone, 100% the same it still would be different, and become increasingly divergent as time goes on. If you consider all the forces that are acting on each atom from every source then you can see that just by standing in a different location can change the physical composition. Since the brain is a huge complex structure even the tiniest variation can produce a different outcome. This is in the same vein as chaos theory.
If two observers would experience the exact same thing the resulting experience, physical process, would be different. Hence two people can get similar, or even vastly different, experiences of what could be an objective outside event.
Think about it, all sensory input is based on physical interaction via the fundamental forces. Your conscious experience, or mind, has to be based on the same principles. Otherwise how would the physical sensory input be transferred and interpreted? Without it you would not be able to sense anything, much like the concept of a soul. If all the senses are physical how can a soul even be aware of anything after death? Your conscious mind arises from the physical nature of the world and attempts to interpret it in its favor. Emotions, memories, reactions, everything you are can be physically measured and quantified, when you die, you die and even if you had a "soul" there would be no actual way for it to hold all that physical data in its non-physical form. If anyone suggests otherwise then it means that there is a transfer, and if there is one it must be measurable (by that I mean ideally, and not considering technological level).
|
On July 06 2013 00:56 mcc 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. First read my EDIT to that post, if you did not yet, although it does not have much bearing on your response. The definitions are basically ok. But you are still, even though you deny it, projecting this strange notion that I am separate from my brain. I am not and thus the whole concept that you hold is meaningless. I cannot control my brain as it is part of me, the concept of me having control over my brain is meaningless as it does not correspond to anything in reality. I am however controlling my actions and decisions. And that is what we were discussing. I have no idea how controlling my brain came into it.
P1: Actions and decisions are determined entirely by the brain.
P2: Your consciousness (heretofore referred to as "you") is entirely a byproduct of the brain.
P3: You did not choose your brain, nor did you have any control over the state that it is in.
C: You do not have any control over your actions and decisions.
If you are not separate from your brain, if there is no outside "you", then your actions are determined by the brain. If you did not choose that brain, and cannot choose to change that brain, then you cannot be said to control your actions. The brain cannot be said to control those actions, as the brain did not choose its form. Just like the computer cannot be said to control it's actions because the computer did not choose its form. Your actions and decisions are just as much your brain as you are your brain. If you did not choose the brain, than you did not choose the actions it takes.
It is virtually impossible to discuss this topic without using the words: "you" and the word: "brain" separately. However, if you understand that I am already accepting the idea that you are your brain and therefore "you" is synonymous with "brain" than the language itself shouldn't be a problem here.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
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.
To clarify, I'm not saying it doesn't matter, I'm actually saying more than that, that the 2 models are actually equivalent.
If you read the post I made after that it's more clear, I'm saying that the 2 models are actually equivalent in that scope. The 2 models don't come to the same conclusion because it doesn't matter, but rather that 1 model is just a simplified model of the other, the same issues are actually being addressed under the 2 models in a slightly different context.
On July 06 2013 01:04 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 00:28 doubleupgradeobbies! 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. 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. So this weird definition is purely made to be able to hold humans accountable. Well then i am done with this whole subject, science should not have the aim to tell humans what or what not to do, and if phylosophy is only interested in this, then i am no longer interested in phylosophy. Am not angry btw, even though it might seem so reading my text, just a bit disapointed (lol) I have huge respect for everyone in this thread and everyones personal vieuw!, but its not something i can identify with.
On a related note, I'm not saying that the simplified model exists to hold humans accountable, it's purpose is to construct a model of how the situation works that is consistent with the overall physicalist view, but less needlessly complex to understand. The fact that we choose to use that model to determine our course of action is merely how we choose to use it (or how the deterministic universe determines we will use it :p).
The fact that it is not only compatible with, but entirely identical in practice to the non-determinist/free will model of the situation is kinda cool (though probably not a coincidence).
|
On July 06 2013 01:04 Tarot wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 00:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 00:51 Tarot wrote:On July 06 2013 00:49 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Well, my intention is to receive a concession where the fact that physicalism means a complete lack of choice and control and then move on to other juicy topics. See if maybe we can get pull some contradictions out of this whole thing. Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 00:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 00:51 Tarot wrote:On July 06 2013 00:49 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Well, my intention is to receive a concession where the fact that physicalism means a complete lack of choice and control and then move on to other juicy topics. See if maybe we can get pull some contradictions out of this whole thing. Right, and if you define choice the way you do, then by definition, physicialism means a lack of choice... I don't really care how you define it, as long as you don't start mixing what we mean when we say 'choice' in everyday language and your definition of 'choice'. So then going with your definition, what would your argument be?
What do we mean when we say "choice" in everyday language and how is it any different than the accepted definition of the word?
|
On July 06 2013 00:44 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 21:51 mcc wrote: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. 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.
Your problem, and that of sc2superfan101, is that you see yourself as an conscious homunculus sitting in a body. That is an illusion. You are your whole body. And that your body when put before a decision has a lot of alternatives, the fact that it chooses one deterministically based on your internal state does not change the fact that you chose that alternative. How would you want to decide differently, other than based on your internal state ? That concept is absolutely nonsensical. To have free will you have to decide based on your internal state (product of your genes and experiences) otherwise it would not be you deciding. The definition of free will I use does not try to avoid the problem, it recognizes that the problem is just an illusion.
Choice is not defined by lack of predictability. Choice is defined as being able to pick from many alternatives. You can, there are many situations where you can choose from many alternatives, but of course you choose only one. Someone else in your position might choose something else, that means there was choice. Your problem is that you move the point of choice from body-environment interface to homunculus-rest interface and thus all your discomfort with the situation arises, because if you consider yourself just that small homunculus inside your head, then it is true that you have very little choice.
|
On July 06 2013 00:57 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 00:51 xM(Z wrote:On July 06 2013 00:44 mcc wrote: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:[quote] 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. 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. The problem is that no one is agreeing with you that something being random means it has free will. It's in fact the opposite. If we assume that flipping a coin is random (even though it isn't), there's no will in it at all. If your decisions are made by causes you can't control or random events you can't control, there's still no free will.
It's not even that complicated. Heisenberg's law basically just tells us what we can measure and what we can't. It doesn't say that there is a random process behind it, just that our observations cannot ever find any better way to describe it.
I have no problem with my mind "only" being a beautifully complex process which I can observe while it solves problems and draws conclusions. Hell, it's fucking awesome.
|
On July 06 2013 00:57 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 00:51 xM(Z wrote:On July 06 2013 00:44 mcc wrote: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:[quote] 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. 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. The problem is that no one is agreeing with you that something being random means it has free will. It's in fact the opposite. If we assume that flipping a coin is random (even though it isn't), there's no will in it at all. If your decisions are made by causes you can't control or random events you can't control, there's still no free will.
you are going backwards. it's not about you controlling anything, at this stage.
50% is semantics and 50% unproven scientific facts. i'm fine with that since i cant convince you otherwise until science proves that randomness isn't free will. (HA - see what i did there!)
|
"Someone else in your position might choose something else, that means there was choice."
Its like saying, the apple has a choise to fall to the earth, since if it was a baloon it could go up.
This argument makes no sense at all to me, sry
I realy see it verry simple, if i will make the same decission/choose the same option if we would run this universe 1 million times, then to me it is not a decission. The decission is an ilusion.
|
On July 06 2013 01:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 01:04 Tarot wrote:On July 06 2013 00:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 00:51 Tarot wrote:On July 06 2013 00:49 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Well, my intention is to receive a concession where the fact that physicalism means a complete lack of choice and control and then move on to other juicy topics. See if maybe we can get pull some contradictions out of this whole thing. On July 06 2013 00:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 00:51 Tarot wrote:On July 06 2013 00:49 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Well, my intention is to receive a concession where the fact that physicalism means a complete lack of choice and control and then move on to other juicy topics. See if maybe we can get pull some contradictions out of this whole thing. Right, and if you define choice the way you do, then by definition, physicialism means a lack of choice... I don't really care how you define it, as long as you don't start mixing what we mean when we say 'choice' in everyday language and your definition of 'choice'. So then going with your definition, what would your argument be? What do we mean when we say "choice" in everyday language and how is it any different than the accepted definition of the word?
There's choice as in, you have two options and you pick one. That's a choice, right there, which you made. Whether or not the choice was predetermined doesn't change the fact that you made a choice: it just means that you would always have made that choice just that way.
From the perspective of a determinist, choice is more a term for the act of picking between choices, it's not a term concerned with free will since such a thing doesn't exist.
|
On July 06 2013 00:51 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 00:44 mcc wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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.
You missed the point. I agreed that if you define free will as you did then free will exists also in the brain (as part of the universe). Of course I should add that your definition does not at all correspond with any concept of free will that we have. But since definitions are arbitrary I took you definition and using your definition free will exists. Basically it is something like if you say that from now on we will call plums apples, I will agree that then apples are blue.
|
On July 06 2013 01:12 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 01:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 01:04 Tarot wrote:On July 06 2013 00:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 00:51 Tarot wrote:On July 06 2013 00:49 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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.
[quote]
I haven't said a single thing about the ability to predict...
[quote]
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. Well, my intention is to receive a concession where the fact that physicalism means a complete lack of choice and control and then move on to other juicy topics. See if maybe we can get pull some contradictions out of this whole thing. On July 06 2013 00:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 00:51 Tarot wrote:On July 06 2013 00:49 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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.
[quote]
I haven't said a single thing about the ability to predict...
[quote]
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. Well, my intention is to receive a concession where the fact that physicalism means a complete lack of choice and control and then move on to other juicy topics. See if maybe we can get pull some contradictions out of this whole thing. Right, and if you define choice the way you do, then by definition, physicialism means a lack of choice... I don't really care how you define it, as long as you don't start mixing what we mean when we say 'choice' in everyday language and your definition of 'choice'. So then going with your definition, what would your argument be? What do we mean when we say "choice" in everyday language and how is it any different than the accepted definition of the word? There's choice as in, you have two options and you pick one. That's a choice, right there, which you made. Whether or not the choice was predetermined doesn't change the fact that you made a choice: it just means that you would always have made that choice just that way. From the perspective of a determinist, choice is more a term for the act of picking between choices, it's not a term concerned with free will since such a thing doesn't exist.
Okay so the problem here is a conflating of two separate definitions. The "choice" between two things: (apples or oranges) is different from the "choice" a person makes between those two things (I will choose apples over oranges). If you're saying: we have choices, therefore we have the ability to choose... well that's just pretty word-games. It doesn't actually make any argument, and the only way it does is to fallaciously conflate two separate definitions:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/choice
the act of choosing : selection <finding it hard to make a choice>
a number and variety to choose among <a plan with a wide choice of options>
See how those are completely different meanings, basically, completely different terms? Conflating them is the mistake you are all making.
Determinism is irrelevant to the argument I'm making (it is only peripherally connected, and not causal to any point). Physicalism implies determinism, but the other way around: "determinism implies physicalism" is not a true statement.
|
On July 06 2013 01:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 01:12 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 01:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 01:04 Tarot wrote:On July 06 2013 00:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 00:51 Tarot wrote:On July 06 2013 00:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 00:46 Tarot wrote:On July 06 2013 00:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 00:37 mcc wrote:
[quote]
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. Well, my intention is to receive a concession where the fact that physicalism means a complete lack of choice and control and then move on to other juicy topics. See if maybe we can get pull some contradictions out of this whole thing. On July 06 2013 00:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 00:51 Tarot wrote:On July 06 2013 00:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 00:46 Tarot wrote:On July 06 2013 00:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 00:37 mcc wrote:
[quote]
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. Well, my intention is to receive a concession where the fact that physicalism means a complete lack of choice and control and then move on to other juicy topics. See if maybe we can get pull some contradictions out of this whole thing. Right, and if you define choice the way you do, then by definition, physicialism means a lack of choice... I don't really care how you define it, as long as you don't start mixing what we mean when we say 'choice' in everyday language and your definition of 'choice'. So then going with your definition, what would your argument be? What do we mean when we say "choice" in everyday language and how is it any different than the accepted definition of the word? There's choice as in, you have two options and you pick one. That's a choice, right there, which you made. Whether or not the choice was predetermined doesn't change the fact that you made a choice: it just means that you would always have made that choice just that way. From the perspective of a determinist, choice is more a term for the act of picking between choices, it's not a term concerned with free will since such a thing doesn't exist. Okay so the problem here is a conflating of two separate definitions. The "choice" between two things: (apples or oranges) is different from the "choice" a person makes between those two things (I will choose apples over oranges). If you're saying: we have choices, therefore we have the ability to choose... well that's just pretty word-games. It doesn't actually make any argument, and the only way it does is to fallaciously conflate two separate definitions: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/choicethe act of choosing : selection <finding it hard to make a choice>
a number and variety to choose among <a plan with a wide choice of options> See how those are completely different meanings, basically, completely different terms? Conflating them is the mistake you are all making. Determinism is irrelevant to the argument I'm making (it is only peripherally connected, and not causal to any point). Physicalism implies determinism, but the other way around: "determinism implies physicalism" is not a true statement.
Sure, let's go with your definition. So what's your argument?
|
On July 06 2013 01:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 01:12 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 01:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 01:04 Tarot wrote:On July 06 2013 00:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 00:51 Tarot wrote:On July 06 2013 00:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 00:46 Tarot wrote:On July 06 2013 00:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 00:37 mcc wrote:
[quote]
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. Well, my intention is to receive a concession where the fact that physicalism means a complete lack of choice and control and then move on to other juicy topics. See if maybe we can get pull some contradictions out of this whole thing. On July 06 2013 00:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 00:51 Tarot wrote:On July 06 2013 00:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 00:46 Tarot wrote:On July 06 2013 00:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 00:37 mcc wrote:
[quote]
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. Well, my intention is to receive a concession where the fact that physicalism means a complete lack of choice and control and then move on to other juicy topics. See if maybe we can get pull some contradictions out of this whole thing. Right, and if you define choice the way you do, then by definition, physicialism means a lack of choice... I don't really care how you define it, as long as you don't start mixing what we mean when we say 'choice' in everyday language and your definition of 'choice'. So then going with your definition, what would your argument be? What do we mean when we say "choice" in everyday language and how is it any different than the accepted definition of the word? There's choice as in, you have two options and you pick one. That's a choice, right there, which you made. Whether or not the choice was predetermined doesn't change the fact that you made a choice: it just means that you would always have made that choice just that way. From the perspective of a determinist, choice is more a term for the act of picking between choices, it's not a term concerned with free will since such a thing doesn't exist. Okay so the problem here is a conflating of two separate definitions. The "choice" between two things: (apples or oranges) is different from the "choice" a person makes between those two things (I will choose apples over oranges). If you're saying: we have choices, therefore we have the ability to choose... well that's just pretty word-games. It doesn't actually make any argument, and the only way it does is to fallaciously conflate two separate definitions: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/choicethe act of choosing : selection <finding it hard to make a choice>
a number and variety to choose among <a plan with a wide choice of options> See how those are completely different meanings, basically, completely different terms? Conflating them is the mistake you are all making. Determinism is irrelevant to the argument I'm making (it is only peripherally connected, and not causal to any point). Physicalism implies determinism, but the other way around: "determinism implies physicalism" is not a true statement.
I'm not making a mistake in conflicting those terms. You can have a hard time making a choice, even if that choice is predetermined, because you aren't aware it's predetermined, and in fact, the process of you having a hard time choosing is part of that very predetermination. See, the point here is that from a determinist view, the fact that you're presented with a choice is predetermined, what choice you will make is predetermined, how hard it will be for you to make that choice is predetermined... but the process you're doing, is still a choice. You're presented with two options, you ponder about it, and you pick one. That's a choice, by the first definition you listed.
|
On July 06 2013 01:15 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 00:51 xM(Z wrote:On July 06 2013 00:44 mcc wrote: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:[quote] 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. 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. You missed the point. I agreed that if you define free will as you did then free will exists also in the brain (as part of the universe). Of course I should add that your definition does not at all correspond with any concept of free will that we have. But since definitions are arbitrary I took you definition and using your definition free will exists. Basically it is something like if you say that from now on we will call plums apples, I will agree that then apples are blue.
finally, you saw my dilemma. i've been saying that in the past 4 replies.
until you sketch a definition of free will all i can do is paint your apples.
|
On July 06 2013 00:55 Fran_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 00:35 mcc wrote: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:
[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. 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.
I won't , I am not going to waste time on every book someone on the internet says I should. I think it is more than telling it is not scientific article but a pop-science book and that his ideas are not very accepted in neurology. Now I even very much doubt there is actual proof in the book. But if it is accessible anywhere for free I am willing to discuss it with you.
Not every formal model gives insight into reality. Some have absolutely no relation to it at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
