Free will and determinism

[partinobodycular]

Ah, I must give one more sermon to my people.

If you want to know why I don't respond to your posts... that's it.

 

[Jo555]

If you want to know why I don't respond to your posts... that's it.

And Moses gets thrown into the wilderness for trying to free his people prematurely.

Next, the burning bush. The fire did consume, but did not burn. Or, is it the other way around? Can't remember.

It is the only reference I have because I do believe it is truth and speaks much truth of our journeys in Him. And i see its truth in my own life and others.

But no worries. I get it. Sometimes we get sour on something because it has been abused in the past. Been there, done that, and I'm sure not perfect of myself. I can push the envelope at times. Just know that it may be a bigger problem on your end, than mine.

If this was just between me and you i would pack my bags and go, respecting your feelings. I don't believe in knocking down others doors and staying where i am not welcomed, but it isn't just about you and me, is it?

 

[Jo555]

And Moses gets thrown into the wilderness for trying to free his people prematurely.

Next, the burning bush. The fire did consume, but did not burn.

It is the only reference I have because I do believe it is truth and speaks much truth of our journeys in Him. And i see its truth in my own life and others.

But no worries. I get it. Sometimes we get sour on something because it has been abused in the past. Been there, done that, and I'm sure not perfect of myself. I can push the envelope at times. Just know that it may be a bigger problem on your end, than mine.

If this was just between me and you i would pack my bags and go, respecting your feelings. I don't believe in knocking down others doors and staying where i am not welcomed, but it isn't just about you and me, is it?

It's a shame too because i am such a ham.

Are you Jewish?

We are his people ( yes?) and I feel confident we will overcome this little hurdle with time.

And then we'll have lots of fun together on this wild ride.

 

[Jo555]

I will make one more comment for now, something i have held back from saying, but since we are being honest

I thought you all were looking foolish, and not sure if I've forgiven Bradskii for giving you all a rope to hang yourselves with, but it was painful to watch and was hoping in my way to help it come to an end.

Ok, now you can throw me out, but don't forget to lock the door behind me, or I may sneak in again.

 

[Bradskii]

I understand what's been put forward, and it is insufficiently justified. Determinism requires absolute proof...

Paaarp. Another fail.

Because the dispute is whether or not determinism is true, its up to you to demonstrate it

Everything, everywhere, all the time.

Falsification only applies to limited claims, not universal ones like determinism.

Falsification only applies when something can be falsified. You can't do it.

 

[Bradskii]

It's not the only fact that I'm interested in because it's irrelevant. If determinism is true, such that free will doesn't exist, then your conscious mind is the biological equivalent of a monitor. It serves no functional purpose as far as the decision making process is concerned. It's only a way of displaying the results of the process, it's not a functional part of it.

You are not watching the decisions being made on any monitor. That would be dualism. You are making the decisions. You're still thinking it's like the guy in the restaurant who sits and watches to see what is going to be selected for dinner. Nothing is just selected. You have to do the selection.

I can't understand why I have to keep pointing this out. You are not simply observing a process. You are part of the process.

That's only true if you're defining 'yourself' as your conscious mind totally independent of the brain that's manifesting it. If so, then welcome to dualism. If not then consciousness is superfluous under your version of determinism.

What? The brain is the material stuff between your ears. The consciousness that you feel that is 'you' are the processes that all the stuff goes through. Ions cross axonic membranes. Action potentials are generated. Neuron transmitters cross the synapses. Signals are sent. That's 'you'. The processes that the wet meat in your head goes through.

What you are suggesting is that the pistons and conrods and cylinders that make up an engine are somehow separate from the car running. The car running is the parts of the engine working as they should. You, the conscious you, thinking and deciding is the engine running. The parts that make up the engine...that's your brain. They aren't independent.

Dualism would be the car running independently of the engine. 'Hey, who needs all this material 'stuff'. There's some 'car' in there somewhere that's somehow getting me from A to B'. No, there isn't. Dualism doesn't exist.

It's as if you're saying that those electrochemical processes send a signal to your conscious mind telling it what to like.

No. The processes are your conscious mind. Your mind is not separate from what happens in your brain. Again, that would be dualism. You are what happens in your brain. The thinking you is the car running. That's not separate from the engine. It's what the engine does. It's the engine in operation.

For some reason the ability to make a choice without the capacity for free will is perfectly reasonable to you. But the ability to make it without consciousness isn't, although computers do it billions of times a day. How is it that computers can do it, but the brain can't?

There's input and output. You receive information about the world through your senses, you have a goal in mind, you have set parameters - the antecedent conditions (you speak 4 languages and have a degree in history, you are 62 years old, you live in the Falklands, you are flat broke, you like Pina Coladas and walking in the rain - just make up as many as you like). There are options available to attain your goal. You filter the options and decide which is the best one. The one that you prefer.

A computer does the same thing. There's input and output. It receives information either through sensors or you programme it in. It has a goal. It has parameters. There are options to achieve the goal and it chooses the one that's best suited to attain that goal. Welcome to AI.

Unplug the computer and it can't do anything. It's 'unconscious'.

Your argument for determinism as the

You missed a bit.

 

[partinobodycular]

Unplug the computer and it can't do anything. It's 'unconscious'.

Are you implying that computers are conscious? If so then you're going to have to redefine the meaning of consciousness, and I'll have to rethink my habit of shutting down my computer.

There's input and output. You receive information about the world through your senses, you have a goal in mind, you have set parameters - the antecedent conditions (you speak 4 languages and have a degree in history, you are 62 years old, you live in the Falklands, you are flat broke, you like Pina Coladas and walking in the rain - just make up as many as you like). There are options available to attain your goal. You filter the options and decide which is the best one. The one that you prefer.

A computer does the same thing. There's input and output. It receives information either through sensors or you programme it in. It has a goal. It has parameters. There are options to achieve the goal and it chooses the one that's best suited to attain that goal. Welcome to AI.

There's just one humongous difference... the computer isn't conscious. So if the computer doesn't require consciousness in order to perform the exact same functions that you do, then why do you claim that consciousness is necessary for us to make the same types of decisions that a computer consistently makes without it?

Obviously, in your model of determinism consciousness isn't necessary... it's superfluous. So why did evolution select for an unnecessary function? All that consciousness allows you to do is to watch the process in action, while giving you the false impression that you're actually participating in it.

Your concept of determinism has consequences, and one of them is that we don't need consciousness.

 

[Chesterton]

Are you implying that computers are conscious?

Worse than that, with his references to Pina Coladas and rain, he's implying that computers can commit attempted adultery.

 

[Bradskii]

Are you implying that computers are conscious?

My first language is English and I have a good command of it. I find I can express myself reasonably clearly. I don't thrash the keyboard and hit 'Post Reply' immediately. I think about what I'm going to say before I say it and generally edit and re-edit my posts before sending them to make sure I'm saying exactly what I want to say. And your command of the language is at least as good as mine. So I'm pretty sure that you know very well that that wasn't what I was implying.

There's just one humongous difference... the computer isn't conscious. So if the computer doesn't require consciousness in order to perform the exact same functions that you do, then why do you claim that consciousness is necessary for us to make the same types of decisions that a computer consistently makes without it?

Are you being purposely obtuse? I'm conscious so I can make decisions. My PC is on so it can do what PCs do. If I write a programme where I want it to decide on a best option then it will do it.

If I'm unconscious I cannot make any decisions. If the PC is off then it won't be able to run the programme and give the best option.

Obviously, in your model of determinism consciousness isn't necessary... it's superfluous. So why did evolution select for an unnecessary function? All that consciousness allows you to do is to watch the process in action, while giving you the false impression that you're actually participating in it.

You ARE participating in it. You are the one making the decision!

Your concept of determinism has consequences, and one of them is that we don't need consciousness.

I think you're playing games. The very first 4 words in the thread are this: 'All decisions we make...' Everything follows from that. We cannot make decisions if we are not conscious. Do you really expect me to need to have written 'We can't make decisions unless we are conscious and...all decisions we make...'

I mean, good grief, the whole purpose of this thread is to put forward the position that decisions that we consciously make are determined by antecedent conditions. And now, 170 pages in and you think that the position excludes consciousness.

I'm at a loss...

 

[Bradskii]

Worse than that, with his references to Pina Coladas and rain, he's implying that computers can commit attempted adultery.

Now if one of the antecedent conditions had been that he was 'tired of his lady', then...

 

[Chesterton]

Now if one of the antecedent conditions had been that he was 'tired of his lady', then...

Fun trivia: I don't know about Australia, but in the U.S. the term "old lady" could refer to your wife or "your woman". In Canada, the term referred to your mother. So while this song was considered weird in the U.S., it was probably considered both weird and very gross in Canada.

 

[Fervent]

Paaarp. Another fail.

Nope

Everything, everywhere, all the time.

Prove it.

Falsification only applies when something can be falsified. You can't do it.

An inductive inference is too weak of a basis to justify an absolute statement, that is if the inductive inference is accurate. In the dispute between free will and determinism, there isn't an agreement on the inductive cases that are supposed to support the inference because even the most mundane decision can't be shown to be the result of antecedent conditions alone. So your assertion of determinism leaves your "argument" dead in the water, because the inductive basis is disputed. Falsification is only a criteria if we;re talkng about local hypothetcals, and it requires a clear statement of what evidence would falsify the hypothesis. So you're insisting on something that must be absolute based on a disputed inductive inference.

 

[Bradskii]

Fun trivia: I don't know about Australia, but in the U.S. the term "old lady" could refer to your wife or "your woman". In Canada, the term referred to your mother. So while this song was considered weird in the U.S., it was probably considered both weird and very gross in Canada.

Oddly enough, my son for example would say 'I'm going out for a beer with my old man', meaning me. But if he said 'my old lady' meaning his mother, it wouldn't sound right.

And as we have friends coming over tomorrow for a birthday, I now feel the need to get me a couple of pineapples and check the cupboard for coconut cream.

 

[Fervent]

Are you being purposely obtuse? I'm conscious so I can make decisions. My PC is on so it can do what PCs do. If I write a programme where I want it to decide on a best option then it will do it.

If I'm unconscious I cannot make any decisions. If the PC is off then it won't be able to run the programme and give the best option.

You ARE participating in it. You are the one making the decision!

You don't seem to grasp the consequences of "illusion"...because the active role of consciousness being an apparition because consciousness is doing no work in the process is what illusion entails. If the physical operations are the whole story, then consciousness makes no contribution. It "participates" in appearance only and not in actual fact.

 

[Bradskii]

Prove it.

Same mistake again...when will the penny drop I wonder.

An inductive inference is too weak of a basis to justify an absolute statement...

The position is 'On the basis that determinism is true...' That's not an absolute position. You can call it tentative if you like. Or conditional. I really don't mind. You can say 'On the assumption that determinism is true...' Or 'If we accept that determinism is true...' Or 'If, for the sake of argument we say that determinism is true...'. Or 'If, as some people say, determinism is true...' You can even say 'On the occasions that we see that determinism is true...' You can say 'If we have a hypothetical where determinism is said to be true...' Or 'If we imagine a world where determinism is true...' I'll even allow you to say that 'Determinism is false, but if it weren't in some cases...

It really doesn't matter. You still have to address it. Now if you can't pick at least one of those suggestions, then I'll know without any doubt at all that you really aren't interested in discussing the matter.

 

[Bradskii]

If the physical operations are the whole story, then consciousness makes no contribution.

Hey, do you see the signpost on the route you're heading? It's says 'Warning. Dualism Ahead'.

So consciousness isn't a result of the physical operation of the brain. So can you then explain how consciousness comes to be? Where is exists? How it interacts with physical matter? How it makes decisions with no influences from...what was the term...antecedent conditions?

This is good. Now you have to contribute something positive to the discussion.

 

[partinobodycular]

It really doesn't matter. You still have to address it.

Umm, I already did that. If your version of determinism is true then consciousness is superfluous. On the other hand if determinism is true... but with limitations, than there may be circumstances that fall outside of the normal deterministic framework.

 

[Fervent]

Same mistake again...when will the penny drop I wonder.

Expecting you to demonstrate your absolute claims is a mistake?

The position is 'On the basis that determinism is true...' That's not an absolute position. You can call it tentative if you like. Or conditional. I really don't mind. You can say 'On the assumption that determinism is true...' Or 'If we accept that determinism is true...' Or 'If, for the sake of argument we say that determinism is true...'. Or 'If, as some people say, determinism is true...' You can even say 'On the occasions that we see that determinism is true...' You can say 'If we have a hypothetical where determinism is said to be true...' Or 'If we imagine a world where determinism is true...' I'll even allow you to say that 'Determinism is false, but if it weren't in some cases...

Sure, but there's no reason for taking determinism as true. So why should we care what happens if it is true, especially when its a trivial fact built into the definition of determinism?

It really doesn't matter. You still have to address it. Now if you can't pick at least one of those suggestions, then I'll know without any doubt at all that you really aren't interested in discussing the matter.

Since it has only been given as an assertion, it needs no address. If you can't give a reason beyond the assertion, then it's not worth considering.

 

[Bradskii]

Umm, I already did that. If your version of determinism is true then consciousness is superfluous.

When we are talking about determinism we're are talking about how it impacts on what we decide. On what we will to happen. Consciousness isn't superfluous to that process. It's integral. It cannot proceed without it. As conscious agents we decide what to do. We choose options. We actually differentiate between conscious and sub-conscious acts when discussing that for heaven's sake

Please, saying it's not required is risible. I can't take what you are saying seriously.

 

[Bradskii]

Expecting you to demonstrate your absolute claims is a mistake?

I've given enough examples. You asked, yet again, for proof. It cannot be proved. Shall I count the number of times that you have been told?

So why should we care what happens if it is true, especially when its a trivial fact built into the definition of determinism?

Determinism is a trivial fact built into the definition of determinism? You are not making any sense at all.

Since it has only been given as an assertion, it needs no address. If you can't give a reason beyond the assertion, then it's not worth considering.

Again, you are not making any sense. I have made an assertion. And then given reasons for it. Saying 'if you can't give a reason beyond the assertion' is nonsensical English. It literally makes no sense.

I have absolutely no idea what you're doing in this thread. Honestly. You've added nothing to the conversation whatsoever.