|
On July 06 2013 01:29 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 01:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:[quote] 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:[quote] 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.
and you, science can only show how decisions are made before volition but the building up of neurons could still be randomized(= free will)
|
On July 06 2013 01:29 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 01:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:[quote] 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:[quote] 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.
I agree with mcc on this one and I would like to offer an alternative view of free will physically based but that doesn't involve determinism.
Let's assume for the sake of argument (and this is pure speculation), that consciousness is the product of some kind of quantum process happening in the brain. Now, let's assume we are also able to perfectly model this process, having all information we can calculate the set of choices that can be made and the probability associated to each choice (like we can calculate the probability of a particle to be in a certain position). In this scenario, the actual choice is not predetermined, we can not tell which choice will be made: free will would be somehow in the reduction process that collapses all possible choices in the one that is actually made. This process can also in theory be modeled and described scientifically.
Bear in mind that this suggestion is very loose, it just offers an alternative.
|
On July 06 2013 01:33 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 01:29 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 01:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
Why even bother arguing this? As doubleupgradeobbies already pointed out, it doesn't matter
[quote] 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:
[quote]
Why even bother arguing this? As doubleupgradeobbies already pointed out, it doesn't matter
[quote] 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. and you, science can only show how decisions are made before volition but the building up of neurons could still be randomized(= free will)
So I made a decision based on random buildup of neurons. That's sure a lot of free will, especially the part with the "will" in random neuron fluctuations.
|
On July 06 2013 01:32 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 00:55 Fran_ wrote: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:
[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. 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.
Understood. Please, don't also waste time on talking on the internet about things you don't know since you are not willing to educate yourself on this particular subject. Don't accuse someone to spread false information if you don't know anything about that information. You clearly misunderstood my original post, it happens, i would have preferred a more mature reply though. Thanks for your understanding.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
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.
Firstly, Physicalism doesn't imply determinism, it implies either determinism or a probabilistic universe, or some combination, but all of which rules out free will (depending on exactly how you define it).
Determinism does actually imply physicalism, though not directly. Since it is deterministic, by definition the effects outside our original definition of physicalism are measurable, predictable and repeatable, this makes them empirical. Anything empirical we can in theory measure and add to our understanding of physics, so as long as determinism holds, everything outside our physicalist understanding can eventually be added into the physicalist view. Ultimately physicalist just means everything can be explained with physics, and physics happens to be able to explain (theoretically) anything that's empirical.
I'm not actually sure what argument your trying to make but I'd kinda like to know which definition of choice you are going by.
|
On July 06 2013 01:34 Fran_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 01:29 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 01:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
Why even bother arguing this? As doubleupgradeobbies already pointed out, it doesn't matter
[quote] 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:
[quote]
Why even bother arguing this? As doubleupgradeobbies already pointed out, it doesn't matter
[quote] 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. I agree with mcc on this one and I would like to offer an alternative view of free will physically based but that doesn't involve determinism. Let's assume for the sake of argument (and this is pure speculation), that consciousness is the product of some kind of quantum process happening in the brain. Now, let's assume we are also able to perfectly model this process, having all information we can calculate the set of choices that can be made and the probability associated to each choice (like we can calculate the probability of a particle to be in a certain position). In this scenario, the actual choice is not predetermined, we can not tell which choice will be made: free will would be somehow in the reduction process that collapses all possible choices in the one that is actually made. This process can also in theory be modeled and described scientifically. Bear in mind that this suggestion is very loose, it just offers an alternative.
I like this idea since it is similar to my own ideas about consciousness and free will.
Lets just try to understand free will, and not think of the consequences it has for morality.
I feel people come in this discussion with a bias, since they want keep moral responsability alive at all cost.
Am also curious to a response to my previous post about the apple and the baloon.
Imo you realy can not say there is free will simply because someone else would have taken a different path when in the same position.
|
On July 06 2013 01:29 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 01:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:[quote] 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:[quote] 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.
You're completely missing the point here:
First I am not talking about determinism. I cannot possibly make this any clearer. I am not talking about determinsm. We are discussing physicalism, which is distinct from determinism.
Second: Having choices is different from making choices. That's the point of the two definitions. Having choices simply means that there are multiple options available. Making choices is choosing between those options. If you cannot be said to have made the choice between those options, then the amount of choices that exist or the fact that one option was picked is irrelevant. If I program a robot that can only pick up apples, but I put apples and oranges in front of it, it cannot be said to have a choice. It can only "choose" apples. The fact that oranges are there to be picked up is irrelevant to whether or not it chooses to pick up the apple. It doesn't choose the apple over the orange, the availability of both is irrelevant because it has not been programmed to make a decision, it has only been programmed to pick up apples.
If your programming (brain) is capable of only doing one thing in a given situation (as physicalism implies), then the brain cannot be said to have made a choice. It has not made a choice between options, it has simply done what it was programmed to do.
|
On July 06 2013 01:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 00:56 mcc 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. 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.
I disagree with P3, and even if I did I would say that C does not follow P1-3. So there you have it. The problem is till that your definition of control is meaningless to me and I have different one. For me the fact that I could not choose my brain has absolutely no relation to control, it does not in any way figure into that. For me control over my actions means that all my actions are internally determined at the time of making the decision/action (to a degree). They are, they depend purely on my internal configuration. But as I said if I used your concept of control, then I would I agree with you, I just find that concept useless. So we actually agree, and as I said nothing more to discuss.
|
On July 06 2013 01:35 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 01:33 xM(Z wrote:On July 06 2013 01:29 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 01:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. and you, science can only show how decisions are made before volition but the building up of neurons could still be randomized(= free will) So I made a decision based on random buildup of neurons. That's sure a lot of free will, especially the part with the "will" in random neuron fluctuations.
 you are not worthy of a will.
if i'm the observer of that random neuron fluctuation then i affect it. qed
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On July 06 2013 01:33 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 01:29 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 01:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
Why even bother arguing this? As doubleupgradeobbies already pointed out, it doesn't matter
[quote] 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:
[quote]
Why even bother arguing this? As doubleupgradeobbies already pointed out, it doesn't matter
[quote] 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. and you, science can only show how decisions are made before volition but the building up of neurons could still be randomized(= free will)
This is what noone is agreeing with you on. randomized = not predictable eg not deterministic.
But 'will' implies you get some say in the outcome. Random by definition rules out free will just as much as determinism.
In determinism the pre existing conditions 'decide' what will happen, you don't get a say.
With random chance, a number of possibilities will occur with a predetermined statistical likelihood, whatever is going to happen happens, you still don't get a say.
|
On July 06 2013 01:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 01:29 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 01:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
Why even bother arguing this? As doubleupgradeobbies already pointed out, it doesn't matter
[quote] 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:
[quote]
Why even bother arguing this? As doubleupgradeobbies already pointed out, it doesn't matter
[quote] 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. You're completely missing the point here: First I am not talking about determinism. I cannot possibly make this any clearer. I am not talking about determinsm. We are discussing physicalism, which is distinct from determinism. Second: Having choices is different from making choices. That's the point of the two definitions. Having choices simply means that there are multiple options available. Making choices is choosing between those options. If you cannot be said to have made the choice between those options, the the amount of choices that exist or the fact that one option was picked is irrelevant. If I program a robot that can only pick up apples, but I put apples and oranges in front of it, it cannot be said to have a choice. It can only choose apples. The fact that oranges are there to be picked up is irrelevant to whether or not it chooses to pick up the apple. It doesn't choose the apple over the orange, the availability of both is irrelevant because it has not been programmed to make a decision, it has only been programmed to pick up apples. If your programming (brain) is capable of only doing one thing in a given situation (as physicalism implies), then the brain cannot be said to have made a choice. It has not made a choice between options, it has simply done what it was programmed to do.
Right, the difference here is that the robot can only pick up apples, a human can pick up either. A robot doesn't have a process where it wonders if it should pick up the orange or the apple. It simply picks up the apple. A human wonders if it should pick up the orange or the apple and DECIDES on the apple, for some reason. That reason could be that he likes apples more than oranges. Or maybe the apple has a nicer color. There could be a billion reasons why he decided to pick up the apple, but he DID decide it, so it was a choice.
|
On July 06 2013 01:40 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 01:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 00:56 mcc 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. 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. I disagree with P3, and even if I did I would say that C does not follow P1-3. So there you have it. The problem is till that your definition of control is meaningless to me and I have different one. For me the fact that I could not choose my brain has absolutely no relation to control, it does not in any way figure into that. For me control over my actions means that all my actions are internally determined at the time of making the decision/action (to a degree). They are, they depend purely on my internal configuration. But as I said if I used your concept of control, then I would I agree with you, I just find that concept useless. So we actually agree, and as I said nothing more to discuss.
Your definition of control is completely made up... it has no actual basis in the literal meaning of the word.
|
On July 06 2013 01:38 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 01:34 Fran_ wrote:On July 06 2013 01:29 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 01:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. I agree with mcc on this one and I would like to offer an alternative view of free will physically based but that doesn't involve determinism. Let's assume for the sake of argument (and this is pure speculation), that consciousness is the product of some kind of quantum process happening in the brain. Now, let's assume we are also able to perfectly model this process, having all information we can calculate the set of choices that can be made and the probability associated to each choice (like we can calculate the probability of a particle to be in a certain position). In this scenario, the actual choice is not predetermined, we can not tell which choice will be made: free will would be somehow in the reduction process that collapses all possible choices in the one that is actually made. This process can also in theory be modeled and described scientifically. Bear in mind that this suggestion is very loose, it just offers an alternative. I like this idea since it is similar to my own ideas about consciousness and free will. Lets just try to understand free will, and not think of the consequences it has for morality. I feel people come in this discussion with a bias, since they want keep moral responsability alive at all cost. Am also curious to a response to my previous post about the apple and the baloon. Imo you realy can not say there is free will simply because someone else would have choosen a different path when in the same position.
I'm not against keeping moral responsibility alive, it's a useful "tool" after all. I like the idea of taking free will away from religion though and give it a rightful place in the scientific landscape.
|
On July 06 2013 01:43 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 01:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 01:29 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 01:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. You're completely missing the point here: First I am not talking about determinism. I cannot possibly make this any clearer. I am not talking about determinsm. We are discussing physicalism, which is distinct from determinism. Second: Having choices is different from making choices. That's the point of the two definitions. Having choices simply means that there are multiple options available. Making choices is choosing between those options. If you cannot be said to have made the choice between those options, the the amount of choices that exist or the fact that one option was picked is irrelevant. If I program a robot that can only pick up apples, but I put apples and oranges in front of it, it cannot be said to have a choice. It can only choose apples. The fact that oranges are there to be picked up is irrelevant to whether or not it chooses to pick up the apple. It doesn't choose the apple over the orange, the availability of both is irrelevant because it has not been programmed to make a decision, it has only been programmed to pick up apples. If your programming (brain) is capable of only doing one thing in a given situation (as physicalism implies), then the brain cannot be said to have made a choice. It has not made a choice between options, it has simply done what it was programmed to do. Right, the difference here is that the robot can only pick up apples, a human can pick up either. A robot doesn't have a process where it wonders if it should pick up the orange or the apple. It simply picks up the apple. A human wonders if it should pick up the orange or the apple and DECIDES on the apple, for some reason. That reason could be that he likes apples more than oranges. Or maybe the apple has a nicer color. There could be a billion reasons why he decided to pick up the apple, but he DID decide it, so it was a choice.
Yes, we go back to my initial argument: a robot (as we can build it now) is an algorithm, so it has no free will and can not have human consciousness. Its action are strictly predetermined and can be modeled through a Turing machine.
Could we in the future build machines not based on algorithms but modeling the same quantum processes happening in the human brain?
|
On July 06 2013 01:43 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 01:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 01:29 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 01:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. You're completely missing the point here: First I am not talking about determinism. I cannot possibly make this any clearer. I am not talking about determinsm. We are discussing physicalism, which is distinct from determinism. Second: Having choices is different from making choices. That's the point of the two definitions. Having choices simply means that there are multiple options available. Making choices is choosing between those options. If you cannot be said to have made the choice between those options, the the amount of choices that exist or the fact that one option was picked is irrelevant. If I program a robot that can only pick up apples, but I put apples and oranges in front of it, it cannot be said to have a choice. It can only choose apples. The fact that oranges are there to be picked up is irrelevant to whether or not it chooses to pick up the apple. It doesn't choose the apple over the orange, the availability of both is irrelevant because it has not been programmed to make a decision, it has only been programmed to pick up apples. If your programming (brain) is capable of only doing one thing in a given situation (as physicalism implies), then the brain cannot be said to have made a choice. It has not made a choice between options, it has simply done what it was programmed to do. Right, the difference here is that the robot can only pick up apples, a human can pick up either. A robot doesn't have a process where it wonders if it should pick up the orange or the apple. It simply picks up the apple. A human wonders if it should pick up the orange or the apple and DECIDES on the apple, for some reason. That reason could be that he likes apples more than oranges. Or maybe the apple has a nicer color. There could be a billion reasons why he decided to pick up the apple, but he DID decide it, so it was a choice.
The human can't pick up either. Whether he picks one or the other is entirely based on factors outside his/her control, thus the actual "choosing" is outside his/her control. The brain has already determined what it will pick up. (Good Lord, if you think this means I'm talking about determinism, I'm going to scream). The history and physical make-up of the brain necessitate that one will be picked. The robot has been programmed to pick up apples. So have you. The programming is just more complex in you, but it still results in the same thing: you pick up apples because you have been programmed to do so, not because you have made a choice to do so.
If your brain reacts favorably to the "nicer color" and thus picks the one with a nicer color... that was simple programming which was outside your control. If the brain prefers apples over oranges and thus picks up the apple, that was simple programming which was outside your control. There was no actual choice. At best there was the illusion of choice.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On July 06 2013 01:46 Fran_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 01:43 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 01:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 01:29 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 01:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. You're completely missing the point here: First I am not talking about determinism. I cannot possibly make this any clearer. I am not talking about determinsm. We are discussing physicalism, which is distinct from determinism. Second: Having choices is different from making choices. That's the point of the two definitions. Having choices simply means that there are multiple options available. Making choices is choosing between those options. If you cannot be said to have made the choice between those options, the the amount of choices that exist or the fact that one option was picked is irrelevant. If I program a robot that can only pick up apples, but I put apples and oranges in front of it, it cannot be said to have a choice. It can only choose apples. The fact that oranges are there to be picked up is irrelevant to whether or not it chooses to pick up the apple. It doesn't choose the apple over the orange, the availability of both is irrelevant because it has not been programmed to make a decision, it has only been programmed to pick up apples. If your programming (brain) is capable of only doing one thing in a given situation (as physicalism implies), then the brain cannot be said to have made a choice. It has not made a choice between options, it has simply done what it was programmed to do. Right, the difference here is that the robot can only pick up apples, a human can pick up either. A robot doesn't have a process where it wonders if it should pick up the orange or the apple. It simply picks up the apple. A human wonders if it should pick up the orange or the apple and DECIDES on the apple, for some reason. That reason could be that he likes apples more than oranges. Or maybe the apple has a nicer color. There could be a billion reasons why he decided to pick up the apple, but he DID decide it, so it was a choice. Yes, we go back to my initial argument: a robot (as we can build it now) is an algorithm, so it has no free will and can not have human consciousness. Its action are strictly predetermined and can be modeled through a Turing machine. Could we in the future build machines not based on algorithms but modeling the same quantum processes happening in the human brain?
Those could well still be algorithms, but we already do build machines that model the same quantum processes, it's called having a baby 
|
On July 06 2013 01:12 Rassy wrote:"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.
Ok, answer me this then, how would it work, based on what would you pick different action in the same circumstances ? Because you picked it first time because you thought it was the correct action to take, why would you pick something else at the next try ? If nothing changed why would you think it is not a correct action to take ? Basically you are saying that you want your actions to mean nothing ? Because if in the same circumstances you do not pick the same action it means you are no deciding based on anything rational or even emotional, you are just picking something based on nothing. Because if it would be based on something you would not change your pick next time around.
|
On July 06 2013 01:48 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 01:46 Fran_ wrote:On July 06 2013 01:43 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 01:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 01:29 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 01:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. You're completely missing the point here: First I am not talking about determinism. I cannot possibly make this any clearer. I am not talking about determinsm. We are discussing physicalism, which is distinct from determinism. Second: Having choices is different from making choices. That's the point of the two definitions. Having choices simply means that there are multiple options available. Making choices is choosing between those options. If you cannot be said to have made the choice between those options, the the amount of choices that exist or the fact that one option was picked is irrelevant. If I program a robot that can only pick up apples, but I put apples and oranges in front of it, it cannot be said to have a choice. It can only choose apples. The fact that oranges are there to be picked up is irrelevant to whether or not it chooses to pick up the apple. It doesn't choose the apple over the orange, the availability of both is irrelevant because it has not been programmed to make a decision, it has only been programmed to pick up apples. If your programming (brain) is capable of only doing one thing in a given situation (as physicalism implies), then the brain cannot be said to have made a choice. It has not made a choice between options, it has simply done what it was programmed to do. Right, the difference here is that the robot can only pick up apples, a human can pick up either. A robot doesn't have a process where it wonders if it should pick up the orange or the apple. It simply picks up the apple. A human wonders if it should pick up the orange or the apple and DECIDES on the apple, for some reason. That reason could be that he likes apples more than oranges. Or maybe the apple has a nicer color. There could be a billion reasons why he decided to pick up the apple, but he DID decide it, so it was a choice. Yes, we go back to my initial argument: a robot (as we can build it now) is an algorithm, so it has no free will and can not have human consciousness. Its action are strictly predetermined and can be modeled through a Turing machine. Could we in the future build machines not based on algorithms but modeling the same quantum processes happening in the human brain? Those could well still be algorithms, but we already do build machines that model the same quantum processes, it's called having a baby
Indeed! I just built one of these machines and its due in December, can't wait to see how it works :D
|
On July 06 2013 01:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 01:43 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 01:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 01:29 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 01:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. You're completely missing the point here: First I am not talking about determinism. I cannot possibly make this any clearer. I am not talking about determinsm. We are discussing physicalism, which is distinct from determinism. Second: Having choices is different from making choices. That's the point of the two definitions. Having choices simply means that there are multiple options available. Making choices is choosing between those options. If you cannot be said to have made the choice between those options, the the amount of choices that exist or the fact that one option was picked is irrelevant. If I program a robot that can only pick up apples, but I put apples and oranges in front of it, it cannot be said to have a choice. It can only choose apples. The fact that oranges are there to be picked up is irrelevant to whether or not it chooses to pick up the apple. It doesn't choose the apple over the orange, the availability of both is irrelevant because it has not been programmed to make a decision, it has only been programmed to pick up apples. If your programming (brain) is capable of only doing one thing in a given situation (as physicalism implies), then the brain cannot be said to have made a choice. It has not made a choice between options, it has simply done what it was programmed to do. Right, the difference here is that the robot can only pick up apples, a human can pick up either. A robot doesn't have a process where it wonders if it should pick up the orange or the apple. It simply picks up the apple. A human wonders if it should pick up the orange or the apple and DECIDES on the apple, for some reason. That reason could be that he likes apples more than oranges. Or maybe the apple has a nicer color. There could be a billion reasons why he decided to pick up the apple, but he DID decide it, so it was a choice. The human can't pick up either. Whether he picks one or the other is entirely based on factors outside his/her control, thus the actual "choosing" is outside his/her control. The brain has already determined what it will pick up. (Good Lord, if you think this means I'm talking about determinism, I'm going to scream). The history and physical make-up of the brain necessitate that one will be picked. The robot has been programmed to pick up apples. So have you. The programming is just more complex in you, but it still results in the same thing: you pick up apples because you have been programmed to do so, not because you have made a choice to do so. If your brain reacts favorably to the "nicer color" and thus picks the one with a nicer color... that was simple programming which was outside your control. If the brain prefers apples over oranges and thus picks up the apple, that was simple programming which was outside your control. There was no actual choice. At best there was the illusion of choice.
Right. There was the "illusion" of choice, if you consider choice an act of free will and since there's no free will in this case, it's an illusion. However, since free will doesn't exist, there is no such choice. The only form of choice which exists is this "illusion" of choice, IE choice.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On July 06 2013 01:54 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 01:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 01:43 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 01:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 01:29 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 01:19 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. You're completely missing the point here: First I am not talking about determinism. I cannot possibly make this any clearer. I am not talking about determinsm. We are discussing physicalism, which is distinct from determinism. Second: Having choices is different from making choices. That's the point of the two definitions. Having choices simply means that there are multiple options available. Making choices is choosing between those options. If you cannot be said to have made the choice between those options, the the amount of choices that exist or the fact that one option was picked is irrelevant. If I program a robot that can only pick up apples, but I put apples and oranges in front of it, it cannot be said to have a choice. It can only choose apples. The fact that oranges are there to be picked up is irrelevant to whether or not it chooses to pick up the apple. It doesn't choose the apple over the orange, the availability of both is irrelevant because it has not been programmed to make a decision, it has only been programmed to pick up apples. If your programming (brain) is capable of only doing one thing in a given situation (as physicalism implies), then the brain cannot be said to have made a choice. It has not made a choice between options, it has simply done what it was programmed to do. Right, the difference here is that the robot can only pick up apples, a human can pick up either. A robot doesn't have a process where it wonders if it should pick up the orange or the apple. It simply picks up the apple. A human wonders if it should pick up the orange or the apple and DECIDES on the apple, for some reason. That reason could be that he likes apples more than oranges. Or maybe the apple has a nicer color. There could be a billion reasons why he decided to pick up the apple, but he DID decide it, so it was a choice. The human can't pick up either. Whether he picks one or the other is entirely based on factors outside his/her control, thus the actual "choosing" is outside his/her control. The brain has already determined what it will pick up. (Good Lord, if you think this means I'm talking about determinism, I'm going to scream). The history and physical make-up of the brain necessitate that one will be picked. The robot has been programmed to pick up apples. So have you. The programming is just more complex in you, but it still results in the same thing: you pick up apples because you have been programmed to do so, not because you have made a choice to do so. If your brain reacts favorably to the "nicer color" and thus picks the one with a nicer color... that was simple programming which was outside your control. If the brain prefers apples over oranges and thus picks up the apple, that was simple programming which was outside your control. There was no actual choice. At best there was the illusion of choice. Right. There was the "illusion" of choice, if you consider choice an act of free will and since there's no free will in this case, it's an illusion. However, since free will doesn't exist, there is no such choice. The only form of choice which exists is this "illusion" of choice, IE choice.
Basically this, I was wondering what the two of you were arguing over, there didn't seem to be any fundamental disagreement except over the semantics of the word 'choice'.
Since both of you seem to agree free will doesn't exist, naturally the 'illusion of choice' is the natural definition for the word choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
