partinobodycular
Well-Known Member
- Jun 8, 2021
- 2,626
- 1,047
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Ah, I must give one more sermon to my people.
And Moses gets thrown into the wilderness for trying to free his people prematurely.If you want to know why I don't respond to your posts... that's it.
It's a shame too because i am such a ham.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?
Paaarp. Another fail.I understand what's been put forward, and it is insufficiently justified. Determinism requires absolute proof...
Everything, everywhere, all the time.Because the dispute is whether or not determinism is true, its up to you to demonstrate it
Falsification only applies when something can be falsified. You can't do it.Falsification only applies to limited claims, not universal ones like determinism.
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.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.
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.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.
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.It's as if you're saying that those electrochemical processes send a signal to your conscious mind telling it what to like.
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?
You missed a bit.Your argument for determinism as the
Unplug the computer and it can't do anything. It's 'unconscious'.
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.
Worse than that, with his references to Pina Coladas and rain, he's implying that computers can commit attempted adultery.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.Are you implying that computers are conscious?
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.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?
You ARE participating in it. You are the one making the decision!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.
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...'Your concept of determinism has consequences, and one of them is that we don't need consciousness.
Now if one of the antecedent conditions had been that he was 'tired of his lady', then...Worse than that, with his references to Pina Coladas and rain, he's implying that computers can commit attempted adultery.
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.Now if one of the antecedent conditions had been that he was 'tired of his lady', then...
NopePaaarp. Another fail.
Prove it.Everything, everywhere, all the time.
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.Falsification only applies when something can be falsified. You can't do it.
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.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.
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.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!
Same mistake again...when will the penny drop I wonder.Prove it.
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...An inductive inference is too weak of a basis to justify an absolute statement...
Hey, do you see the signpost on the route you're heading? It's says 'Warning. Dualism Ahead'.If the physical operations are the whole story, then consciousness makes no contribution.
It really doesn't matter. You still have to address it.
Expecting you to demonstrate your absolute claims is a mistake?Same mistake again...when will the penny drop I wonder.
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?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...
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.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.
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 sakeUmm, I already did that. If your version of determinism is true then consciousness is superfluous.
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?Expecting you to demonstrate your absolute claims is a mistake?
Determinism is a trivial fact built into the definition of determinism? You are not making any sense at all.So why should we care what happens if it is true, especially when its a trivial fact built into the definition of determinism?
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?