|
On July 06 2013 02:19 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 02:15 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:[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. 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. You had no influence on your current configuration. All past actions were themselves based on earlier configurations which were themselves ultimately based on outside factors.
You're making up definitions as you go along for the express purpose of supporting a contradictory position...
|
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.
He did not. The definition is too vague and covers both concepts, both concepts easily fall under that definition. Words such as control and choice have vague definitions and that is the reason people can write pages about them. Not only do they have vague definitions, their meaning is also vague, that makes them suspect concepts in general. Things like love have vague definitions, but meaning is pretty clear (with context). Words like choice on the other hand have also vague meaning and nobody actually can properly agree on what it means (see this discussion). For me it is a sign that this word is probably quite meaningless outside very narrow scope of use.
|
On July 06 2013 02:22 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 02:19 Tobberoth wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
You're still not getting it. You can use any dictionary you want, you're not going to get away from the fact that the definition will work just as well for determinism. You can claim what a determinist calls choice is an illusion of choice, but it still fits the definition perfectly. Just like a determinist can say that what you call choice is a make up concept which has no impact on reality since it can't exist.
|
On July 06 2013 02:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 02:19 mcc wrote:On July 06 2013 02:15 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You had no influence on your current configuration. All past actions were themselves based on earlier configurations which were themselves ultimately based on outside factors. You're making up definitions as you go along for the express purpose of supporting a contradictory position...
I can say the same.
But I will bite, what is the contradiction ? Because since, apart my opinion on usefulness of definitions, I agree with you, you are also holding that contradictory position.
|
On July 06 2013 02:21 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
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.
What do you mean by "natural definitions"? And I don't think you're really using emergent behaviors correctly here.
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 meaning that cannot be found in the dictionary?
|
On July 06 2013 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 02:21 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
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. What do you mean by "natural definitions"? And I don't think you're really using emergent behaviors correctly here. Show nested quote + 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 meaning that cannot be found in the dictionary?
It's found in every dictionary, you're just reading the definition incorrectly.
|
On July 06 2013 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 02:21 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
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. What do you mean by "natural definitions"? And I don't think you're really using emergent behaviors correctly here. Show nested quote + 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 meaning that cannot be found in the dictionary?
Dictionaries do not contain meaning. Dictionaries contain definitions. Definitions are attempts to communicate the meaning of the concept in words.
|
On July 06 2013 02:33 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:21 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
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. What do you mean by "natural definitions"? And I don't think you're really using emergent behaviors correctly here. 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 meaning that cannot be found in the dictionary? It's found in every dictionary, you're just reading the definition incorrectly.
Post an example.
|
We are arguing over definition of words that were clearly not made to do that. this is completely pointless. If choice = pure free will of being able to take consciously 2 different decisions based on the exact same situation (in time, space etc..), then no, you don't have any choice. You can also note that this definition doesn't make any sense AT ALL ; )
|
On July 06 2013 02:35 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:21 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
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. What do you mean by "natural definitions"? And I don't think you're really using emergent behaviors correctly here. 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 meaning that cannot be found in the dictionary? Dictionaries do not contain meaning.
Definitions are attempts to communicate the meaning of the concept in words
Definitions are attempts to communicate the meaning
Dude...
|
I guess the big question is this: Is it possible, by only using chemical reactions and electric signals to produce something that can create and generate feelings? Can you teach a machine to show compassion? As an example, in "I, Robot" the robot tries to save the man from drowning instead of a little girls since the chances of him surviving is greater than her's. The only way the Robot would have understood that he should have tried to save her instead was if he had had compassion.
|
On July 06 2013 02:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 02:33 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:21 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
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. What do you mean by "natural definitions"? And I don't think you're really using emergent behaviors correctly here. 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 meaning that cannot be found in the dictionary? It's found in every dictionary, you're just reading the definition incorrectly. Post an example.
I already did. Here's more:
1. the act or an instance of choosing or selecting
2. the opportunity or power of choosing
2. Choice, alternative, option, preference all suggest the power of choosing between things. Choice implies the opportunity to choose: a choice of evils. Alternative suggests that one has a choice between only two possibilities. It is often used with a negative to mean that there is no second possibility: to have no alternative. Option emphasizes free right or privilege of choosing: to exercise one's option. Preference applies to a choice based on liking or partiality: to state a preference. 9. select, rare, uncommon, valuable, precious. See fine1 .
|
If you believe what the OP is saying, our brain is chemicals and electricity, it eliminates the possibility of free will. For example, say you walk to work everyday and there are two equal paths to take to get there, you take each 50% of the time. Say it's monday morning and you get to the point in your walk where you are choosing which path to take that particular morning. If you choose path A, that implicitly states that, at the time, in your current state, you prefer path A. If the exact same conditions exist at any time (you are faced with the same choice, all external factors are the same, your brain is in the same state ie. mood, past experience, current thought line, ect) you will choose the same path, path A. of course most decisions are more complicated than A or B but it comes out to the same thing, In a certain state and set of condition you WILL "choose" the same thing everytime if the conditions are the EXACT same.
|
On July 06 2013 02:45 Xiphias wrote:
I guess the big question is this: Is it possible, by only using chemical reactions and electric signals to produce something that can create and generate feelings? Can you teach a machine to show compassion? As an example, in "I, Robot" the robot tries to save the man from drowning instead of a little girls since the chances of him surviving is greater than her's. The only way the Robot would have understood that he should have tried to save her instead was if he had had compassion.
Ya there is no reason why this wouldn't be possible. But I imagine it would be extremely complicated. One day we (or further generations) will almost certainly see this.
|
On July 06 2013 02:45 Xiphias wrote:
I guess the big question is this: Is it possible, by only using chemical reactions and electric signals to produce something that can create and generate feelings? Can you teach a machine to show compassion? As an example, in "I, Robot" the robot tries to save the man from drowning instead of a little girls since the chances of him surviving is greater than her's. The only way the Robot would have understood that he should have tried to save her instead was if he had had compassion.
Most likely yes, funnily enough, most movies are overly romanticizing (does this word even exist in English ?) the concept of robots and the reality would be very different. You should check out on the internet, there is a lot of articles (from microbiologist or "computer scientists") about that.
For your example about compassion, this is actually much more simpler than that, a robot don't need "compassion" to do that (and neither do humans). There is a reason why we would save the little girl and not the man, and this reason is not an abstract feeling, we simply value the life of the little girl higher than the life of the man. simple numbers.
|
On July 06 2013 02:42 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 02:35 mcc wrote:On July 06 2013 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:21 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
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. What do you mean by "natural definitions"? And I don't think you're really using emergent behaviors correctly here. 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 meaning that cannot be found in the dictionary? Dictionaries do not contain meaning. Dude...
Yes ?
|
On July 06 2013 02:46 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 02:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:33 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:21 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
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. What do you mean by "natural definitions"? And I don't think you're really using emergent behaviors correctly here. 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 meaning that cannot be found in the dictionary? It's found in every dictionary, you're just reading the definition incorrectly. Post an example. I already did. Here's more: 1. the act or an instance of choosing or selecting 2. the opportunity or power of choosing 2. Choice, alternative, option, preference all suggest the power of choosing between things. Choice implies the opportunity to choose: a choice of evils. Alternative suggests that one has a choice between only two possibilities. It is often used with a negative to mean that there is no second possibility: to have no alternative. Option emphasizes free right or privilege of choosing: to exercise one's option. Preference applies to a choice based on liking or partiality: to state a preference. 9. select, rare, uncommon, valuable, precious. See fine1 .
And how do this support your conclusion?
|
On July 06 2013 03:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 02:46 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 02:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:33 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:21 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
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. What do you mean by "natural definitions"? And I don't think you're really using emergent behaviors correctly here. 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 meaning that cannot be found in the dictionary? It's found in every dictionary, you're just reading the definition incorrectly. Post an example. I already did. Here's more: 1. the act or an instance of choosing or selecting 2. the opportunity or power of choosing 2. Choice, alternative, option, preference all suggest the power of choosing between things. Choice implies the opportunity to choose: a choice of evils. Alternative suggests that one has a choice between only two possibilities. It is often used with a negative to mean that there is no second possibility: to have no alternative. Option emphasizes free right or privilege of choosing: to exercise one's option. Preference applies to a choice based on liking or partiality: to state a preference. 9. select, rare, uncommon, valuable, precious. See fine1 . And how do this support your conclusion?
How doesn't it? I've already explained in a hundred posts how you make choices even if the actual choice you make is predetermined. You calling it an illusion of choice doesn't change that it fits with every single definition of the word.
|
On July 06 2013 03:06 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 03:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:46 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 02:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:33 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:21 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
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. What do you mean by "natural definitions"? And I don't think you're really using emergent behaviors correctly here. 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 meaning that cannot be found in the dictionary? It's found in every dictionary, you're just reading the definition incorrectly. Post an example. I already did. Here's more: 1. the act or an instance of choosing or selecting 2. the opportunity or power of choosing 2. Choice, alternative, option, preference all suggest the power of choosing between things. Choice implies the opportunity to choose: a choice of evils. Alternative suggests that one has a choice between only two possibilities. It is often used with a negative to mean that there is no second possibility: to have no alternative. Option emphasizes free right or privilege of choosing: to exercise one's option. Preference applies to a choice based on liking or partiality: to state a preference. 9. select, rare, uncommon, valuable, precious. See fine1 . And how do this support your conclusion? How doesn't it? I've already explained in a hundred posts how you make choices even if the actual choice you make is predetermined. You calling it an illusion of choice doesn't change that it fits with every single definition of the word. We're not talking about determinism...
I think I've said that like... 10,000 times.
|
On July 06 2013 03:13 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 03:06 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 03:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:46 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 02:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:33 Tobberoth wrote:On July 06 2013 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 06 2013 02:21 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
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. What do you mean by "natural definitions"? And I don't think you're really using emergent behaviors correctly here. 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 meaning that cannot be found in the dictionary? It's found in every dictionary, you're just reading the definition incorrectly. Post an example. I already did. Here's more: 1. the act or an instance of choosing or selecting 2. the opportunity or power of choosing 2. Choice, alternative, option, preference all suggest the power of choosing between things. Choice implies the opportunity to choose: a choice of evils. Alternative suggests that one has a choice between only two possibilities. It is often used with a negative to mean that there is no second possibility: to have no alternative. Option emphasizes free right or privilege of choosing: to exercise one's option. Preference applies to a choice based on liking or partiality: to state a preference. 9. select, rare, uncommon, valuable, precious. See fine1 . And how do this support your conclusion? How doesn't it? I've already explained in a hundred posts how you make choices even if the actual choice you make is predetermined. You calling it an illusion of choice doesn't change that it fits with every single definition of the word. We're not talking about determinism... I think I've said that like... 10,000 times.
Doesn't matter what you're talking about. The point is that the meaning of choice is inherently different if you believe in free will or not, without changing the definition because everything the definition depends on is already defined by your perspective on free will. If you're not interested in the subject, I don't understand why you're continuing to argue about it, and I don't understand what the point is of your posts in the topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
