|
On July 06 2013 01:36 Fran_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 01:32 mcc wrote: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:
[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. 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.
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.
This is false. If you disagree please show me evidence.
And no, it does not work like that. You make a claim, it is on you to provide argument/evidence for it. And posting a book is not a valid way to provide evidence/argument. If you just wanted to say "hey look Penrose has this interesting idea how Godel's theorem MIGHT be related to the abilities of human mind" , you should have said so, not claiming things that are just not true.
|
mcc Czech Republic. July 06 2013 01:49. Posts 3929
Based on probablity i could take different actions every time this universe is run.
I like the model fran proposes,and for me personally i combine that with my own vision of consciousness.
(the brain going back and forward in time with a high frequency, thereby beeing able to look back on itself in the past and becoming self conscient. The brain from the future (like 10^-xxx seconds or so ahead of the current time) is here the observer of the brain in the present , this to solve the difficult question: who is the observer)
And i do think my actions mean nothing. Am not saying i like this but my vieuw of the world forces me to accept that.
Humans are not that important imo.
This does not mean that i live without guidelines btw. I think i live by higher "moral" standards then manny religious people. But for no other reason then that it somehow makes me feel better, wich probably can be dated back to the way i was raised by my parents.
What are morals worth when the usa, a verry christian country with a christian moral, tortures people, kills children as collateral damage and conducts mass spying on people who would never be terrorists?
Obama definatly does not believe in moralty, or he somehow manages to make so manny exceptions that moralty basicly completely looses its meaning.
Sry but i have grown quiet cynical regarding moralty over the years
Btw dont get my critics wrong, i realy have alot of respect for you and your opinnion, and the effort you take in this whole discussion.
|
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.
Well, we have yet to establish that free-will does not exist. And keep in mind that the definition of "choice" does not currently include anything about illusions. Choice is a word with meaning. Control is a word with meaning. Let's not redefine things to suit our purposes.
|
On July 06 2013 01:59 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 01:36 Fran_ wrote:On July 06 2013 01:32 mcc wrote: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:
[quote]
He controls the processing of the inputs as HE IS processing the inputs, no one else is. The fact that we can predict what he will do does not take it from him. This is the similar argument as impossibility of free will if god is omniscient. If god is omniscient, how can we have free will ? Ability to predict someone's decision does not take that decision from them. Just because I can predict movement of the moon, does not mean the moon does not actually does the moving, and so just because I can predict someone's decision does not mean he is not doing the deciding. Ah, but let's go back to the original premise of the entire thread: humans are simply physical machines. Complicated computers, if you will. And computers do not control their hardware or software. The only control (in the sense that we are using it) that comes into play with computers is the user and builder. However, in the physicalist point of view, there exists no outside user or builder. The entirety of a human being is his/her hardware and software. They cannot control the processes because they do not control the hardware or software. They also do not control the inputs. They are simply running the processes, like a computer runs it's processes. Let's leave aside the argument from the omniscient God POV for a second to focus on this. I don't want this being sidetracked here. 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. Show nested quote +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. This is false. If you disagree please show me evidence. And no, it does not work like that. You make a claim, it is on you to provide argument/evidence for it. And posting a book is not a valid way to provide evidence/argument. If you just wanted to say "hey look Penrose has this interesting idea how Godel's theorem MIGHT be related to the abilities of human mind" , you should have said so, not claiming things that are just not true.
I said so and you spectacularly misunderstood something you then admitted you have no idea about and you are not willing to learn about. In fact I never claimed the absolute truthfulness of anything, but presented a theorem that hasn't been falsified yet which offers an interesting insight on the subject of this thread. Again, I would have appreciated a more mature reply from you on something you clearly have no clue about. I have no further interest in your bruised ego.
|
On July 06 2013 01:44 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 01:40 mcc wrote: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:
[quote]
He controls the processing of the inputs as HE IS processing the inputs, no one else is. The fact that we can predict what he will do does not take it from him. This is the similar argument as impossibility of free will if god is omniscient. If god is omniscient, how can we have free will ? Ability to predict someone's decision does not take that decision from them. Just because I can predict movement of the moon, does not mean the moon does not actually does the moving, and so just because I can predict someone's decision does not mean he is not doing the deciding. Ah, but let's go back to the original premise of the entire thread: humans are simply physical machines. Complicated computers, if you will. And computers do not control their hardware or software. The only control (in the sense that we are using it) that comes into play with computers is the user and builder. However, in the physicalist point of view, there exists no outside user or builder. The entirety of a human being is his/her hardware and software. They cannot control the processes because they do not control the hardware or software. They also do not control the inputs. They are simply running the processes, like a computer runs it's processes. Let's leave aside the argument from the omniscient God POV for a second to focus on this. I don't want this being sidetracked here. You are ignoring complexity and specifics of the system in question. What differentiates us from the (current) computers and rocks is autonomy. There is nothing magical in that autonomy, but it is a "design" feature that I have and rat has and bee has, and computer or rock do not have. That is because I have internal goals originating from evolution, whereas computer does not have them (unless we put it there). Once computer has internal goals all I said will also apply to it. The level of complexity has not been shown to be relevant here. A brand-new computer has just as much a lack of control over it's processes as an abacus does. Those internal goals, are, again, not under your control. You did not choose those goals. They are the software, if you will. Without an outside user, there is no control. Human beings have control over those processes(to a degree), because they ARE those processes. I am not just my conscious self, I am my body. I am not running any processes, I am them. A computer is it's processes and it's physical body. It still doesn't have control. The fact that you "are those processes" does not necessitate that you have control over the processes. You are mistaking ability to predict someone's decisions for their inability to decide. I haven't said a single thing about the ability to predict... You are also erroneously differentiating between self and body, there is no such distinction. That distinction is your assumption, but we do not share that assumption, and that is why there is no contradiction in my argument, but you see them there because you are projecting your assumption into my position. No... I have said that if self and body are the same then the self cannot be said to have any control over anything it does, as it has no control over the body it is. If you are your body, you did not choose your body. If you are your brain, you did not choose your brain. Without any outside influence or external control, the lack of choice in anything involving what your brain is directly means a lack of control over the actions taken by said brain. Only by differentiating between self and body (spiritualism) can we be said to have choice. Ok, I see your point, then you have meaningless definition of control and discussion is over. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/controlrelevant definitions: to exercise restraining or directing influence overHow can you be said to exercise restraining or directing influence over your brain when you are your brain and you did not choose your brain? to have power overHow can you be said to have power over your brain when you are your brain and you did not choose your brain. I am literally using the only definitions of control that have anything to do with the discussion. Perhaps you are the one using a meaningless (and inaccurate) definition. 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.
How so ? Since I am my body, if all my actions are determined based on my body's configuration, I am in control of my actions as I am the sole factor on which my actions are based.
|
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.
You are your brain. so : P1 : Actions and decisions are determined entirely by YOU.
If you think this is not enough of a "choice" then no, you don't have a choice. But the end result is the same. If your brain (you) start going crazy, you'll be send in prison, the same way that not working computers are being put in a corner and never used again !
|
On July 06 2013 02:04 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 01:44 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 01:40 mcc wrote: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:
[quote]
Ah, but let's go back to the original premise of the entire thread: humans are simply physical machines. Complicated computers, if you will. And computers do not control their hardware or software. The only control (in the sense that we are using it) that comes into play with computers is the user and builder. However, in the physicalist point of view, there exists no outside user or builder. The entirety of a human being is his/her hardware and software. They cannot control the processes because they do not control the hardware or software. They also do not control the inputs. They are simply running the processes, like a computer runs it's processes.
Let's leave aside the argument from the omniscient God POV for a second to focus on this. I don't want this being sidetracked here.
You are ignoring complexity and specifics of the system in question. What differentiates us from the (current) computers and rocks is autonomy. There is nothing magical in that autonomy, but it is a "design" feature that I have and rat has and bee has, and computer or rock do not have. That is because I have internal goals originating from evolution, whereas computer does not have them (unless we put it there). Once computer has internal goals all I said will also apply to it. The level of complexity has not been shown to be relevant here. A brand-new computer has just as much a lack of control over it's processes as an abacus does. Those internal goals, are, again, not under your control. You did not choose those goals. They are the software, if you will. Without an outside user, there is no control. Human beings have control over those processes(to a degree), because they ARE those processes. I am not just my conscious self, I am my body. I am not running any processes, I am them. A computer is it's processes and it's physical body. It still doesn't have control. The fact that you "are those processes" does not necessitate that you have control over the processes. You are mistaking ability to predict someone's decisions for their inability to decide. I haven't said a single thing about the ability to predict... You are also erroneously differentiating between self and body, there is no such distinction. That distinction is your assumption, but we do not share that assumption, and that is why there is no contradiction in my argument, but you see them there because you are projecting your assumption into my position. No... I have said that if self and body are the same then the self cannot be said to have any control over anything it does, as it has no control over the body it is. If you are your body, you did not choose your body. If you are your brain, you did not choose your brain. Without any outside influence or external control, the lack of choice in anything involving what your brain is directly means a lack of control over the actions taken by said brain. Only by differentiating between self and body (spiritualism) can we be said to have choice. Ok, I see your point, then you have meaningless definition of control and discussion is over. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/controlrelevant definitions: to exercise restraining or directing influence overHow can you be said to exercise restraining or directing influence over your brain when you are your brain and you did not choose your brain? to have power overHow can you be said to have power over your brain when you are your brain and you did not choose your brain. I am literally using the only definitions of control that have anything to do with the discussion. Perhaps you are the one using a meaningless (and inaccurate) definition. 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. How so ? Since I am my body, if all my actions are determined based on my body's configuration, I am in control of my actions as I am the sole factor on which my actions are based. You aren't the sole factor upon which your choices are made. The configuration itself was the sole factor, and the configuration itself is outside of your body (experiences, parental genes, etc). Your body is simply a machine which does things. By the definition of control and choice that exist, you don't have them.
|
On July 06 2013 01:59 Rassy wrote:
mcc Czech Republic. July 06 2013 01:49. Posts 3929
Based on probablity i could take different actions every time this universe is run.
I like the model fran proposes,and for me personally i combine that with my own vision of consciousness.
(the brain going back and forward in time with a high frequency, thereby beeing able to look back on itself in the past and becoming self conscient. The brain from the future (like 10^-xxx seconds or so ahead of the current time) is here the observer of the brain in the present , this to solve the difficult question: who is the observer)
And i do think my actions mean nothing. Am not saying i like this but my vieuw of the world forces me to accept that.
Humans are not that important imo.
This does not mean that i live without guidelines btw. I think i live by higher "moral" standards then manny religious people. But for no other reason then that it somehow makes me feel better, wich probably can be dated back to the way i was raised by my parents.
If it is based on probability than it is dice roll. And the decision to use dice roll is either deterministic itself or a dice roll again.
|
On July 06 2013 02:04 DertoQq 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. You are your brain. so : P1 : Actions and decisions are determined entirely by YOU. If you think this is not enough of a "choice" then no, you don't have a choice. But the end result is the same. If your brain (you) start going crazy, you'll be send in prison, the same way that not working computers are being put in a corner and never used again !
Just adding that you actually do have some control over "the state your brain is in" which the guy you replied to boldly denied..
Especially very early on what you do does impact the structure of the brain. It's not all purely determined by genetics alone. Experience will embed structural changes unique to your brain as you do and experience things. You shape your brain a lot in early development
|
On July 06 2013 02:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 02:04 DertoQq wrote: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:
[quote]
He controls the processing of the inputs as HE IS processing the inputs, no one else is. The fact that we can predict what he will do does not take it from him. This is the similar argument as impossibility of free will if god is omniscient. If god is omniscient, how can we have free will ? Ability to predict someone's decision does not take that decision from them. Just because I can predict movement of the moon, does not mean the moon does not actually does the moving, and so just because I can predict someone's decision does not mean he is not doing the deciding. Ah, but let's go back to the original premise of the entire thread: humans are simply physical machines. Complicated computers, if you will. And computers do not control their hardware or software. The only control (in the sense that we are using it) that comes into play with computers is the user and builder. However, in the physicalist point of view, there exists no outside user or builder. The entirety of a human being is his/her hardware and software. They cannot control the processes because they do not control the hardware or software. They also do not control the inputs. They are simply running the processes, like a computer runs it's processes. Let's leave aside the argument from the omniscient God POV for a second to focus on this. I don't want this being sidetracked here. You are ignoring complexity and specifics of the system in question. What differentiates us from the (current) computers and rocks is autonomy. There is nothing magical in that autonomy, but it is a "design" feature that I have and rat has and bee has, and computer or rock do not have. That is because I have internal goals originating from evolution, whereas computer does not have them (unless we put it there). Once computer has internal goals all I said will also apply to it. The level of complexity has not been shown to be relevant here. A brand-new computer has just as much a lack of control over it's processes as an abacus does. Those internal goals, are, again, not under your control. You did not choose those goals. They are the software, if you will. Without an outside user, there is no control. Human beings have control over those processes(to a degree), because they ARE those processes. I am not just my conscious self, I am my body. I am not running any processes, I am them. A computer is it's processes and it's physical body. It still doesn't have control. The fact that you "are those processes" does not necessitate that you have control over the processes. You are mistaking ability to predict someone's decisions for their inability to decide. I haven't said a single thing about the ability to predict... You are also erroneously differentiating between self and body, there is no such distinction. That distinction is your assumption, but we do not share that assumption, and that is why there is no contradiction in my argument, but you see them there because you are projecting your assumption into my position. No... I have said that if self and body are the same then the self cannot be said to have any control over anything it does, as it has no control over the body it is. If you are your body, you did not choose your body. If you are your brain, you did not choose your brain. Without any outside influence or external control, the lack of choice in anything involving what your brain is directly means a lack of control over the actions taken by said brain. Only by differentiating between self and body (spiritualism) can we be said to have choice. Ok, I see your point, then you have meaningless definition of control and discussion is over. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/controlrelevant definitions: to exercise restraining or directing influence overHow can you be said to exercise restraining or directing influence over your brain when you are your brain and you did not choose your brain? to have power overHow can you be said to have power over your brain when you are your brain and you did not choose your brain. I am literally using the only definitions of control that have anything to do with the discussion. Perhaps you are the one using a meaningless (and inaccurate) definition. 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. You are your brain. so : P1 : Actions and decisions are determined entirely by YOU. If you think this is not enough of a "choice" then no, you don't have a choice. But the end result is the same. If your brain (you) start going crazy, you'll be send in prison, the same way that not working computers are being put in a corner and never used again ! Just adding that you actually do have some control over "the state your brain is in" which the guy you replied to boldly claimed.. Especially very early on what you do does impact the structure or the brain. It's not all purely determined by genetics alone. Experience will embed structural changes unique to your brain as you do and experience things
Right, but this is also covered by physicality/determinism. Say you study a lot in your youth, which physically changes your brain to have better connections etc... it basically makes you smarter. This is you affecting yourself (your brain). However, the fact that you decided to study a lot in your youth was still predetermined.
|
On July 06 2013 02:04 DertoQq wrote:
You are your brain. so : P1 : Actions and decisions are determined entirely by YOU.
Cute word-play, but you're missing the rest of it. Your brain did not determine it's own structure, and it is that structure itself which "makes the choice". You (your brain) did not determine the actions except as being the thing that performed them. The determiner was the external influences that dictated the structure of the brain.
And as long as we're playing word games, "your brain" in the context of "I am my brain" makes no sense.
edit: experiences are either:
1) originated outside yourself (my parents did A, the rock fell on me, I was hit by a car, I got sick)
2) originate from earlier structure (I studied because I was raised to study).
|
On July 06 2013 01:59 Rassy wrote:
mcc Czech Republic. July 06 2013 01:49. Posts 3929
Based on probablity i could take different actions every time this universe is run.
I like the model fran proposes,and for me personally i combine that with my own vision of consciousness.
(the brain going back and forward in time with a high frequency, thereby beeing able to look back on itself in the past and becoming self conscient. The brain from the future (like 10^-xxx seconds or so ahead of the current time) is here the observer of the brain in the present , this to solve the difficult question: who is the observer)
And i do think my actions mean nothing. Am not saying i like this but my vieuw of the world forces me to accept that.
Humans are not that important imo.
This does not mean that i live without guidelines btw. I think i live by higher "moral" standards then manny religious people. But for no other reason then that it somehow makes me feel better, wich probably can be dated back to the way i was raised by my parents.
you have something here. you've been repeating it through out the thread but it never dawned on me until i said
On July 06 2013 01:40 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 01:35 Tobberoth wrote: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:
[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. 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
quantum teleportation of self onto self!
|
On July 06 2013 02:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 02:04 mcc wrote:On July 06 2013 01:44 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 01:40 mcc wrote: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:
[quote]
You are ignoring complexity and specifics of the system in question. What differentiates us from the (current) computers and rocks is autonomy. There is nothing magical in that autonomy, but it is a "design" feature that I have and rat has and bee has, and computer or rock do not have. That is because I have internal goals originating from evolution, whereas computer does not have them (unless we put it there). Once computer has internal goals all I said will also apply to it. The level of complexity has not been shown to be relevant here. A brand-new computer has just as much a lack of control over it's processes as an abacus does. Those internal goals, are, again, not under your control. You did not choose those goals. They are the software, if you will. Without an outside user, there is no control. Human beings have control over those processes(to a degree), because they ARE those processes. I am not just my conscious self, I am my body. I am not running any processes, I am them. A computer is it's processes and it's physical body. It still doesn't have control. The fact that you "are those processes" does not necessitate that you have control over the processes. You are mistaking ability to predict someone's decisions for their inability to decide. I haven't said a single thing about the ability to predict... You are also erroneously differentiating between self and body, there is no such distinction. That distinction is your assumption, but we do not share that assumption, and that is why there is no contradiction in my argument, but you see them there because you are projecting your assumption into my position. No... I have said that if self and body are the same then the self cannot be said to have any control over anything it does, as it has no control over the body it is. If you are your body, you did not choose your body. If you are your brain, you did not choose your brain. Without any outside influence or external control, the lack of choice in anything involving what your brain is directly means a lack of control over the actions taken by said brain. Only by differentiating between self and body (spiritualism) can we be said to have choice. Ok, I see your point, then you have meaningless definition of control and discussion is over. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/controlrelevant definitions: to exercise restraining or directing influence overHow can you be said to exercise restraining or directing influence over your brain when you are your brain and you did not choose your brain? to have power overHow can you be said to have power over your brain when you are your brain and you did not choose your brain. I am literally using the only definitions of control that have anything to do with the discussion. Perhaps you are the one using a meaningless (and inaccurate) definition. 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. How so ? Since I am my body, if all my actions are determined based on my body's configuration, I am in control of my actions as I am the sole factor on which my actions are based. You aren't the sole factor upon which your choices are made. The configuration itself was the sole factor, and the configuration itself is outside of your body (experiences, parental genes, etc). Your body is simply a machine which does things. By the definition of control and choice that exist, you don't have them.
The configuration is ME. Did you miss it 100 times I mentioned it already. Genes, external influences determined the configuration. And I am the configuration that exists NOW. My parents are not making that decision, their influences are in the past. They have causal link to that decision, but that does not matter at all. And genes are not separate from me, they are part of me. You still create separations where none exist and additionally you mistake causal links for lack of control.
|
On July 06 2013 02:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 02:04 mcc wrote:On July 06 2013 01:44 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 01:40 mcc wrote: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:
[quote]
You are ignoring complexity and specifics of the system in question. What differentiates us from the (current) computers and rocks is autonomy. There is nothing magical in that autonomy, but it is a "design" feature that I have and rat has and bee has, and computer or rock do not have. That is because I have internal goals originating from evolution, whereas computer does not have them (unless we put it there). Once computer has internal goals all I said will also apply to it. The level of complexity has not been shown to be relevant here. A brand-new computer has just as much a lack of control over it's processes as an abacus does. Those internal goals, are, again, not under your control. You did not choose those goals. They are the software, if you will. Without an outside user, there is no control. Human beings have control over those processes(to a degree), because they ARE those processes. I am not just my conscious self, I am my body. I am not running any processes, I am them. A computer is it's processes and it's physical body. It still doesn't have control. The fact that you "are those processes" does not necessitate that you have control over the processes. You are mistaking ability to predict someone's decisions for their inability to decide. I haven't said a single thing about the ability to predict... You are also erroneously differentiating between self and body, there is no such distinction. That distinction is your assumption, but we do not share that assumption, and that is why there is no contradiction in my argument, but you see them there because you are projecting your assumption into my position. No... I have said that if self and body are the same then the self cannot be said to have any control over anything it does, as it has no control over the body it is. If you are your body, you did not choose your body. If you are your brain, you did not choose your brain. Without any outside influence or external control, the lack of choice in anything involving what your brain is directly means a lack of control over the actions taken by said brain. Only by differentiating between self and body (spiritualism) can we be said to have choice. Ok, I see your point, then you have meaningless definition of control and discussion is over. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/controlrelevant definitions: to exercise restraining or directing influence overHow can you be said to exercise restraining or directing influence over your brain when you are your brain and you did not choose your brain? to have power overHow can you be said to have power over your brain when you are your brain and you did not choose your brain. I am literally using the only definitions of control that have anything to do with the discussion. Perhaps you are the one using a meaningless (and inaccurate) definition. 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. How so ? Since I am my body, if all my actions are determined based on my body's configuration, I am in control of my actions as I am the sole factor on which my actions are based. You aren't the sole factor upon which your choices are made. The configuration itself was the sole factor, and the configuration itself is outside of your body (experiences, parental genes, etc). Your body is simply a machine which does things. By the definition of control and choice that exist, you don't have them.
What definition of choice? We just covered how definition of choice is in the eye of the beholder, someone who believes in free will and someone who doesn't still use the same sentence to define choice, but they are obviously not in agreement what it implies.
|
On July 06 2013 02:12 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 02:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:04 mcc wrote:On July 06 2013 01:44 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 01:40 mcc wrote: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:
[quote]
The level of complexity has not been shown to be relevant here. A brand-new computer has just as much a lack of control over it's processes as an abacus does. Those internal goals, are, again, not under your control. You did not choose those goals. They are the software, if you will. Without an outside user, there is no control.
[quote]
A computer is it's processes and it's physical body. It still doesn't have control. The fact that you "are those processes" does not necessitate that you have control over the processes.
[quote]
I haven't said a single thing about the ability to predict...
[quote]
No... I have said that if self and body are the same then the self cannot be said to have any control over anything it does, as it has no control over the body it is. If you are your body, you did not choose your body. If you are your brain, you did not choose your brain. Without any outside influence or external control, the lack of choice in anything involving what your brain is directly means a lack of control over the actions taken by said brain. Only by differentiating between self and body (spiritualism) can we be said to have choice.
Ok, I see your point, then you have meaningless definition of control and discussion is over. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/controlrelevant definitions: to exercise restraining or directing influence overHow can you be said to exercise restraining or directing influence over your brain when you are your brain and you did not choose your brain? to have power overHow can you be said to have power over your brain when you are your brain and you did not choose your brain. I am literally using the only definitions of control that have anything to do with the discussion. Perhaps you are the one using a meaningless (and inaccurate) definition. 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. How so ? Since I am my body, if all my actions are determined based on my body's configuration, I am in control of my actions as I am the sole factor on which my actions are based. You aren't the sole factor upon which your choices are made. The configuration itself was the sole factor, and the configuration itself is outside of your body (experiences, parental genes, etc). Your body is simply a machine which does things. By the definition of control and choice that exist, you don't have them. The configuration is ME. Did you miss it 100 times I mentioned it already. Genes, external influences determined the configuration. And I am the configuration that exists NOW. My parents are not making that decision, their influences are in the past. They have causal link to that decision, but that does not matter at all. And genes are not separate from me, they are part of me. You still create separations where none exist and additionally you mistake causal links for lack of control.
The act of configuring is what matters here. As I said before: the act of structuring is what determines the "choice". The structure itself is you, but the act of structuring had nothing to do with you. The eventual structure that took place resulting in you leaves you with only one option in any given situation, and therefore no real choices and no ability to choose.
|
On July 06 2013 02:12 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 02:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:04 mcc wrote:On July 06 2013 01:44 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 01:40 mcc wrote: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:
[quote]
The level of complexity has not been shown to be relevant here. A brand-new computer has just as much a lack of control over it's processes as an abacus does. Those internal goals, are, again, not under your control. You did not choose those goals. They are the software, if you will. Without an outside user, there is no control.
[quote]
A computer is it's processes and it's physical body. It still doesn't have control. The fact that you "are those processes" does not necessitate that you have control over the processes.
[quote]
I haven't said a single thing about the ability to predict...
[quote]
No... I have said that if self and body are the same then the self cannot be said to have any control over anything it does, as it has no control over the body it is. If you are your body, you did not choose your body. If you are your brain, you did not choose your brain. Without any outside influence or external control, the lack of choice in anything involving what your brain is directly means a lack of control over the actions taken by said brain. Only by differentiating between self and body (spiritualism) can we be said to have choice.
Ok, I see your point, then you have meaningless definition of control and discussion is over. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/controlrelevant definitions: to exercise restraining or directing influence overHow can you be said to exercise restraining or directing influence over your brain when you are your brain and you did not choose your brain? to have power overHow can you be said to have power over your brain when you are your brain and you did not choose your brain. I am literally using the only definitions of control that have anything to do with the discussion. Perhaps you are the one using a meaningless (and inaccurate) definition. 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. How so ? Since I am my body, if all my actions are determined based on my body's configuration, I am in control of my actions as I am the sole factor on which my actions are based. You aren't the sole factor upon which your choices are made. The configuration itself was the sole factor, and the configuration itself is outside of your body (experiences, parental genes, etc). Your body is simply a machine which does things. By the definition of control and choice that exist, you don't have them. What definition of choice? We just covered how definition of choice is in the eye of the beholder, someone who believes in free will and someone who doesn't still use the same sentence to define choice, but they are obviously not in agreement what it implies.
The definition of choice has already been posted. And no, it was never determined that the definition is in the eye of the beholder. The definition is not relative, it is not subjective, it is entirely objective. You proposed creating a new definition for the word, a proposal I (and most other English speakers) reject.
|
On July 06 2013 02:16 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 02:12 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 02:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:04 mcc wrote:On July 06 2013 01:44 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 01:40 mcc wrote: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:
[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. 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. How so ? Since I am my body, if all my actions are determined based on my body's configuration, I am in control of my actions as I am the sole factor on which my actions are based. You aren't the sole factor upon which your choices are made. The configuration itself was the sole factor, and the configuration itself is outside of your body (experiences, parental genes, etc). Your body is simply a machine which does things. By the definition of control and choice that exist, you don't have them. What definition of choice? We just covered how definition of choice is in the eye of the beholder, someone who believes in free will and someone who doesn't still use the same sentence to define choice, but they are obviously not in agreement what it implies. The definition of choice has already been posted. And no, it was never determined that the definition is in the eye of the beholder. The definition is not relative, it is not subjective, it is entirely objective. You proposed creating a new definition for the word, a proposal I (and most other English speakers) reject.
Wrong. You are claiming that the definition of choice is when a person has several options, and is allowed to pick one of them spontaneously, without cause. I'm saying there's no such thing, your definition of choice is based on a lie.
Here's a definition from a dictionary, so I'm sure English speakers don't reject it:
an act or instance of choosing; selection: Her choice of a computer was made after months of research.
Indeed, her choice of computer was predetermined by her months of research.
|
On July 06 2013 02:15 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 02:12 mcc wrote:On July 06 2013 02:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:04 mcc wrote:On July 06 2013 01:44 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 01:40 mcc wrote: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:
[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. 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. How so ? Since I am my body, if all my actions are determined based on my body's configuration, I am in control of my actions as I am the sole factor on which my actions are based. You aren't the sole factor upon which your choices are made. The configuration itself was the sole factor, and the configuration itself is outside of your body (experiences, parental genes, etc). Your body is simply a machine which does things. By the definition of control and choice that exist, you don't have them. The configuration is ME. Did you miss it 100 times I mentioned it already. Genes, external influences determined the configuration. And I am the configuration that exists NOW. My parents are not making that decision, their influences are in the past. They have causal link to that decision, but that does not matter at all. And genes are not separate from me, they are part of me. You still create separations where none exist and additionally you mistake causal links for lack of control. The act of configuring is what matters here. As I said before: the act of structuring is what determines the "choice". The structure itself is you, but the act of structuring had nothing to do with you. The eventual structure that took place resulting in you leaves you with only one option in any given situation, and therefore no real choices and no ability to choose.
First, I had some influence on the current configuration. My past actions are not only outward directed, but there is feedback loop so my past actions influenced my current configuration. As for the rest that is the point of difference. As far as control goes for me the act of structuring is not too relevant. Control is in the present and in the present I am making the actions and decisions, past is gone. As I said long time ago, we differ in definitions and understanding of the concepts, there is nothing to solve.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On July 06 2013 02:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 01:54 Tobberoth wrote: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:
[quote]
[quote]
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. Well, we have yet to establish that free-will does not exist. And keep in mind that the definition of "choice" does not currently include anything about illusions. Choice is a word with meaning. Control is a word with meaning. Let's not redefine things to suit our purposes.
The definition of choice doesn't include anything about illusions because when you say 'illusion of choice' you are using choice wrong in that regard. Instead of 'illusions of choice' it should just be choice.
Choice and control are both words we use to describe emergent behaviours. It doesn't matter if choices and control have other underlying factors that determine how they work, those emergent behaviours still exist. These are actually the natural definitions of the words.
A computer controlling an industrial process and using if/else statements IS displaying control and making choices because it is exhibiting the behaviours that the words are labels of. They are exhibiting the behaviours that the words were created to mean.
Just because we sometimes use choice and control to mean more strict and abstract things doesn't give them a privilege over the word. Make no mistake choice and control do indeed have a meaning but what you describe as 'illusion of choice/control' ARE their actual meanings.
A good analogy would be chemistry. Chemistry is entirely underpinned on a foundation of physics, literally everything in chemistry can be explained by physics. We have chosen to label some of the emergent behaviours in physics (namely the electromechanical interactions at the atomic and molecular scale) as chemistry. But it would be laughable to claim that chemistry doesn't exist, the emergent properties came first not the label, as long as those properties still exist, it's nonsensical to say chemistry doesn't.
|
On July 06 2013 02:19 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 02:16 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:12 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 02:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:04 mcc wrote:On July 06 2013 01:44 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 01:40 mcc wrote:On July 06 2013 01:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 00:56 mcc 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. 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. How so ? Since I am my body, if all my actions are determined based on my body's configuration, I am in control of my actions as I am the sole factor on which my actions are based. You aren't the sole factor upon which your choices are made. The configuration itself was the sole factor, and the configuration itself is outside of your body (experiences, parental genes, etc). Your body is simply a machine which does things. By the definition of control and choice that exist, you don't have them. What definition of choice? We just covered how definition of choice is in the eye of the beholder, someone who believes in free will and someone who doesn't still use the same sentence to define choice, but they are obviously not in agreement what it implies. The definition of choice has already been posted. And no, it was never determined that the definition is in the eye of the beholder. The definition is not relative, it is not subjective, it is entirely objective. You proposed creating a new definition for the word, a proposal I (and most other English speakers) reject. Wrong. You are claiming that the definition of choice is when a person has several options, and is allowed to pick one of them spontaneously, without cause. I'm saying there's no such thing, your definition of choice is based on a lie. Here's a definition from a dictionary, so I'm sure English speakers don't reject it: an act or instance of choosing; selection: Her choice of a computer was made after months of research. Indeed, her choice of computer was predetermined by her months of research.
No, I posted the definition from Merriam-Webster (and posted the link), and have based every one of my arguments on those definitions alone.
That basically says the exact same thing I said. The definition... not the sample sentence. Sample sentences should not be taken as composing the definition.
And that sample doesn't say what you think it says. Her choice of computer was made after months of research. After is a word describing time. Determinism doesn't come into it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
