My only problem with hard determinism

[FishFace]

you must concede to the existence of everything imaginable.

No I mustn't. You will accept that there are an infinity of whole numbers, right? You can just keep on counting upwards forever. Well, how about if you remove every odd number? You still have the same amount of numbers - infinity. Because for every even number there is a whole number (half the even number) and for every whole number there is an even one (twice the number.)
Hence you can have infinity, but not have everything in it.

if the constant system of infinity based in this cause and effect system was never caused, it would never have the power to render any effect.

Why not?

also, inside infinity, multiple infinities can exist.. infinity plus infinity is infinity. every unidentified point and space between two points relating to space and time could then also be called infinity.

You can call it what you like but, by this logic, 2 and 3 - which are "inside" infinity, are also infinity? I don't think so!
Besides, spatially, the universe is finite but boundless, we can only discuss time here.

 

[FishFace]

But the answer is still the same. The cause of the cause of our actions is us. We are the orignator, the original cause. There was no cause before we created the decision.

The cause is us, and the cause of the cause is us as well? That means we caused ourselves and not only is that obviously false (I'm pretty sure my existence was caused by my parents...) it's rather nonsensical too - how can something cause itself?

This is the problem with your naïve interpretation of causation. If you understood and used the mental state interpretation, this kind of absurdity would arise.

Correct so the decision is the responsibility of the programmer, not the machine.

Responsibility - yes. But nothing more.

Yes like the computer making a selection, the progam is making the selection

Then that's fine, we have the solution - if you don't want to say you can choose if there's only one possible option, then you can select, instead. It's just a matter of semantics.

The robot can make no decisions that you have not previously made for it. That is why it is called a robot.

I'm sorry, you didn't address the example. Here it is again for convenience:

Suppose I program a robot to sort out balls of different weights into two buckets, and I instruct the robot, "all balls > 1kg put in this one, all others, in that one." Now suppose the first ball rolls towards it and it picks it up and puts it in the first bucket. I didn't decide that the ball would go in the first bucket, I decided the different decision, "all balls > 1kg will go in the first bucket." There may have been no balls > 1kg, but I still made the general decision.
You could even say that I caused the ball to go into its bucket. But not decided. How can I have decided that the ball would go into its bucket if, when I made the decision, it was still possible that the ball would never roll to the robot?

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
But the answer is still the same. The cause of the cause of our actions is us. We are the orignator, the original cause. There was no cause before we created the decision.

The cause is us, and the cause of the cause is us as well? That means we caused ourselves and not only is that obviously false (I'm pretty sure my existence was caused by my parents...) it's rather nonsensical too - how can something cause itself?

You completely missed the point. I did not say we caused ourselves. I did say our decision was caused by us. We are the original cause of our decision. We are not the cause of ourselves.

This is the problem with your naïve interpretation of causation. If you understood and used the mental state interpretation, this kind of absurdity would arise.

You interpretation of what I said is absurd, not what I said.


Quote:
Correct so the decision is the responsibility of the programmer, not the machine.

Responsibility - yes. But nothing more.

Nothing more is needed. With the responsiblity one finds the source of the reason for existence.

Quote:
Yes like the computer making a selection, the progam is making the selection

Then that's fine, we have the solution - if you don't want to say you can choose if there's only one possible option, then you can select, instead. It's just a matter of semantics.

And neither is correct if there is only one item to be selected.

Quote:
The robot can make no decisions that you have not previously made for it. That is why it is called a robot.

I'm sorry, you didn't address the example. Here it is again for convenience:

I am sorry but I did.

Suppose I program a robot to sort out balls of different weights into two buckets, and I instruct the robot, "all balls > 1kg put in this one, all others, in that one." Now suppose the first ball rolls towards it and it picks it up and puts it in the first bucket. I didn't decide that the ball would go in the first bucket, I decided the different decision, "all balls > 1kg will go in the first bucket." There may have been no balls > 1kg, but I still made the general decision.
You could even say that I caused the ball to go into its bucket. But not decided. How can I have decided that the ball would go into its bucket if, when I made the decision, it was still possible that the ball would never roll to the robot?

You are the one doing the deciding, not the robot. I fail to understand how you cannot see that.

 

[daniel777]

No I mustn't. You will accept that there are an infinity of whole numbers, right? You can just keep on counting upwards forever. Well, how about if you remove every odd number? You still have the same amount of numbers - infinity. Because for every even number there is a whole number (half the even number) and for every whole number there is an even one (twice the number.)
Hence you can have infinity, but not have everything in it.

a couple more problems you have created.

1. you cannot continuously progress from 2 to 4 without first passing three.

2. if you say that something doesn't have to be continuous to be infinite, you've only expanded the problem. when, at first, you only had to square with the problem of a first beginning without a cause, you've created multiple beginnings inside infinity that have no causes whatsoever.

3. even if it were possible, who's making the decision of what and what not to leave out? random chance? there's no such thing as random.

Why not?

because nothing can happen after infinity. multiple infinities can fit inside infinity. if you use infinity as a point for the beginning and end, you've opened up the option of using it also inside the line. if you use infinity as a point, you have to start numbering points somewhere....which would symbolize time..... the numbering has to START somewhere, you've just proved what we've been saying. there is infinity. time and this universe is a part of infinity, but the numbering had to start somewhere. and that beginning had to be the result of choice-desire-God.

You can call it what you like but, by this logic, 2 and 3 - which are "inside" infinity, are also infinity? I don't think so!

no, two and three are part of time (cause and effect) which remains inside of infinity. if you want to argue this, show me the point of infinity on a number line.

esides, spatially, the universe is finite but boundless, we can only discuss time here.

lastly, could you explain what you mean here. i was thrown off by the "finite but boundless" part. i thought that finite meant something had boundaries.

 

[FishFace]

You completely missed the point. I did not say we caused ourselves. I did say our decision was caused by us. We are the original cause of our decision. We are not the cause of ourselves.

And I asked what the cause of the cause of the decision was. So what, are we the cause of the cause, or is there no cause of the cause? Either way you're in a bit of a pickle, since the latter involves random uncaused things.

You interpretation of what I said is absurd, not what I said.

I asked, quite plainly, what the cause of the decision was - and you said it would be you.
I asked, equally plainly, what the cause of the cause was. You said "you" again.
Can't say plainer than that.

Nothing more is needed. With the responsiblity one finds the source of the reason for existence.

Responsibility implies that if the robot does something with moral value, then you are to be rewarded or punished for that. Not much else really.

And neither is correct if there is only one item to be selected.

But the computer can only select one item in a given situation. If the ball is >1kg then it can't opt to put it in the lightweight basket.
Yet you still said it was making a selection.

You are the one doing the deciding, not the robot. I fail to understand how you cannot see that.

You again don't address the rather obvious question, that I explicitly asked, of how you can decide to put a ball in a basket when it's not even yet known whether the ball will be presented.
There's another problem that I will mention now - that I don't see how you can make this decision if it is the robot, and not you, that actually does the action. Clearly you are making a different decision than you would make if you were doing the sorting. You can't decide to put a ball in a bucket if you're never going to touch the ball.

As a word of advice, addressing the question here is not repeating (or rather, re-repeating) your original assertion, it is actually telling us how these things are possible, and not absurd.

 

[FishFace]

a couple more problems you have created.

1. you cannot continuously progress from 2 to 4 without first passing three.

2. if you say that something doesn't have to be continuous to be infinite, you've only expanded the problem. when, at first, you only had to square with the problem of a first beginning without a cause, you've created multiple beginnings inside infinity that have no causes whatsoever.

3. even if it were possible, who's making the decision of what and what not to leave out? random chance? there's no such thing as random.

Eh? I'm sorry but these don't really seem relevant to what we were discussing. Your claim was that if you have infinity, then everything possible must be inside it - I think. I showed you that wasn't true. It's just an analogy, I'm not saying that the universe actually is anything like the set of integers.

because nothing can happen after infinity.

But you were discussing the before - the cause.

multiple infinities can fit inside infinity. if you use infinity as a point for the beginning and end, you've opened up the option of using it also inside the line. if you use infinity as a point, you have to start numbering points somewhere....which would symbolize time..... the numbering has to START somewhere, you've just proved what we've been saying. there is infinity. time and this universe is a part of infinity, but the numbering had to start somewhere.

OK, first of all, my question was why couldn't a universe that hadn't been caused have causes inside. I don't think you've answered that.
As for this, you can't label points as infinity. Infinity is not a number, it's a behaviour. It's something that's bigger than any real number. As such you can't just put it on a line willy nilly, at least, not so it's connected to the rest of it. (The extended real number line has infinity as points on it, but you can't just get there without some trickery.)
Saying that the universe began an infinitely long time ago is a bit of a misstatement - it really means that the universe did not begin.

and that beginning had to be the result of choice-desire-God.

Again, you claim "musts" and "can nots" but I'm afraid you don't back yourself up.

no, two and three are part of time (cause and effect) which remains inside of infinity. if you want to argue this, show me the point of infinity on a number line.

Well, on the extended real number line positive infinity is the point which you "get to" if you keep adding one to a number and don't stop. By which I mean, something > x which you can never get to by adding numbers to x for any length of time.
When you ask how there could be anything now if there was no original cause you are interpreting this as there being an uncaused beginning to the universe a really long time ago. That's just not the case. Same when you ask "how we got here from an infinitely long time ago." You're trying to treat infinity as a really big number. You don't get here from an infinitely long time ago because that isn't really a there in the normal sense of the word. It's a concept use to describe a behaviour.

Anyway the original point was your claim that any unidentified number would become infinity. That's still not correct, I don't think.

lastly, could you explain what you mean here. i was thrown off by the "finite but boundless" part. i thought that finite meant something had boundaries.

It means that there's only so much stuff in the universe, but if you carry on traveling in one direction, you'll never have to stop. I'm not sure of the physics but I expect the idea is that you come back on the other side, but the point is that you wouldn't actually be able to tell that.

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
You completely missed the point. I did not say we caused ourselves. I did say our decision was caused by us. We are the original cause of our decision. We are not the cause of ourselves.

And I asked what the cause of the cause of the decision was. So what, are we the cause of the cause, or is there no cause of the cause? Either way you're in a bit of a pickle, since the latter involves random uncaused things.

This not intelligible. I am not the cause of myself. I am the cause of the decisions I make. Therefore the decisions I make are not uncaused because I am the cause, and they are not random. As Aristotle put it, “…when the origin of the actions is in him, it is also up to him to do them or not to do them” (1985, Book III


Quote:
You interpretation of what I said is absurd, not what I said.

I asked, quite plainly, what the cause of the decision was - and you said it would be you.
I asked, equally plainly, what the cause of the cause was. You said "you" again.
Can't say plainer than that.

I am not the cause of myself. I am the cause of my decision.


Quote:
Nothing more is needed. With the responsiblity one finds the source of the reason for existence.

Responsibility implies that if the robot does something with moral value, then you are to be rewarded or punished for that. Not much else really.

Which means the decision was not make by the robot but the programer of the robot.

Quote:
And neither is correct if there is only one item to be selected.

But the computer can only select one item in a given situation.

And I can only select on item in a given situation, but I decide which item and the programer of the computer decides which item, not the computer.

If the ball is >1kg then it can't opt to put it in the lightweight basket.
Yet you still said it was making a selection.

If it had no selection to make, it made no selection.


Quote:
You are the one doing the deciding, not the robot. I fail to understand how you cannot see that.

You again don't address the rather obvious question, that I explicitly asked, of how you can decide to put a ball in a basket when it's not even yet known whether the ball will be presented.

Not understandable to me. I don't know what you are saying here.

There's another problem that I will mention now - that I don't see how you can make this decision if it is the robot, and not you, that actually does the action. Clearly you are making a different decision than you would make if you were doing the sorting. You can't decide to put a ball in a bucket if you're never going to touch the ball.

The robot is not making any decisions. It is acting on my decisions.

As a word of advice, addressing the question here is not repeating (or rather, re-repeating) your original assertion, it is actually telling us how these things are possible, and not absurd.

What exactly are you saying is possible and not absurd?

 

[FishFace]

This not intelligible. I am not the cause of myself. I am the cause of the decisions I make. Therefore the decisions I make are not uncaused because I am the cause, and they are not random.

It's perfectly intelligible. Causes and effects fit into a causal chain where one effect is another effect's cause. Causation is transitive, so if A causes B and B causes C then A causes C. This also means that if B causes C and there is no A, then C is ultimately uncaused.
So the problem is simple:
Q. What causes your decision?
A. <a cause, call it X>
Q. What causes X?
A. ???

If you just stop at X then that's like saying B causes C but has no cause itself. But that means that C ultimately has no cause. Just because it has an immediate cause doesn't mean it is ultimately caused, and if it isn't ultimately caused then it is random.
I've no doubt you'll repeat yourself and say "my decision isn't random I caused it" but then you're again refusing to address the problem - that your decision is ultimately uncaused - a problem that it is true regardless of whether your decision had an immediate cause.

I am not the cause of myself. I am the cause of my decision.

Then you retract your original answer - or do you disagree that I asked those questions and you gave those answers?
Which leaves us wanting a better answer, does it not?

Which means the decision was not make by the robot but the programer of the robot.

Uh, no. As we have seen, the programmer makes a decision, but it is rather different than the decision he would make if he were actually in the robot's place. Responsibility tells us nothing of the nature of a decision.

And I can only select on item in a given situation

That is hard determinism; you have explicitly denied this statement previously.

If it had no selection to make, it made no selection.

But it did have a selection to make - it had to select which basket to put the ball in. But given a certain situation, it could do nothing but make one particular selection.

Not understandable to me. I don't know what you are saying here.

You seem to be claiming that when the robot puts the ball in the appropriate bucket, that is the programmer's decision.
But the programmer must obviously have made all his decisions by the time he finishes writing the programming. So suppose the first ball to roll to the robot is <1kg. You are saying that the programmer decided that that ball would go in the <1kg bucket, right?
But how could he have made that decision if, when he was doing the deciding, he didn't know what kind of ball would come down?
You can only decide "The ball will go in the <1kg bucket" if you know there is a <1kg ball in the first place.

Therefore it is not possible that the programmer made the decision you are claiming. He might have made the different decision, "All balls," or "any balls that are <1kg will go in the <1kg bucket" but that is not the same decision.

What exactly are you saying is possible and not absurd?

I'm saying it's not possible to decide do something with 'X' if you don't know you will ever have the opportunity. You can decide to do something with 'X' if you do get the opportunity but that's different.

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
This not intelligible. I am not the cause of myself. I am the cause of the decisions I make. Therefore the decisions I make are not uncaused because I am the cause, and they are not random.

It's perfectly intelligible. Causes and effects fit into a causal chain where one effect is another effect's cause. Causation is transitive, so if A causes B and B causes C then A causes C. This also means that if B causes C and there is no A, then C is ultimately uncaused.

I don't think this is correct. If I buy a female and male dog and put them together and they have pups that does not mean that I am the cause of whatever those pups do for the rest of their life. If they are trained to do something by a trainer, then he is the cause of what they do and not me.

So the problem is simple:
Q. What causes your decision?
A. <a cause, call it X>
Q. What causes X?
A. ???

I caused my decision. It does not matter what caused me, it is not them that caused my decision.

If you just stop at X then that's like saying B causes C but has no cause itself. But that means that C ultimately has no cause. Just because it has an immediate cause doesn't mean it is ultimately caused,

This is getting deep. Now we are into ultimate and immediate. If I decide to eat a hamburger, is it an immediate decision or an ultimate decision?

and if it isn't ultimately caused then it is random.
I've no doubt you'll repeat yourself and say "my decision isn't random I caused it" but then you're again refusing to address the problem - that your decision is ultimately uncaused

Your are refusing to address the answer. It is not uncaused if I caused it.-


Quote:
I am not the cause of myself. I am the cause of my decision.

Then you retract your original answer - or do you disagree that I asked those questions and you gave those answers?
Which leaves us wanting a better answer, does it not?

Lets use the one above.


Quote:
Which means the decision was not make by the robot but the programer of the robot.

Uh, no. As we have seen, the programmer makes a decision, but it is rather different than the decision he would make if he were actually in the robot's place. Responsibility tells us nothing of the nature of a decision.

Perhaps not but it tells us the source of the decision.

Quote:
And I can only select on item in a given situation

That is hard determinism; you have explicitly denied this statement previously.

You misunderstand. When I have two or three options I can only chose one and not both or all options, so I can only select one of the options in any given situation. That is the opposite of hard determinism.

Quote:
If it had no selection to make, it made no selection.

But it did have a selection to make - it had to select which basket to put the ball in. But given a certain situation, it could do nothing but make one particular selection.

And who decided which basket?


Quote:
Not understandable to me. I don't know what you are saying here.

You seem to be claiming that when the robot puts the ball in the appropriate bucket, that is the programmer's decision.

correct.

But the programmer must obviously have made all his decisions by the time he finishes writing the programming. So suppose the first ball to roll to the robot is <1kg. You are saying that the programmer decided that that ball would go in the <1kg bucket, right?

yes if the robot picks it up the programer is the one that decided to do that.

But how could he have made that decision if, when he was doing the deciding, he didn't know what kind of ball would come down?

What happened is the consequences of his decision. We make decisions all the time without knowing what all the consequences will be.

You can only decide "The ball will go in the <1kg bucket" if you know there is a <1kg ball in the first place.

Are you arguing the robot decided what it was going to do after considering the situation in its brain for awhile?

Therefore it is not possible that the programmer made the decision you are claiming. He might have made the different decision, "All balls," or "any balls that are <1kg will go in the <1kg bucket" but that is not the same decision.

It may not be the exact same decsions but it is the result of the decision of the programer, not the result of any decision by the robot that it was not programed to make.

Quote:
What exactly are you saying is possible and not absurd?

I'm saying it's not possible to decide do something with 'X' if you don't know you will ever have the opportunity. You can decide to do something with 'X' if you do get the opportunity but that's different.

Whatever you are saying you are not saying I don't think that the robot decided to act on it own contrary to its programing.

 

[FishFace]

I don't think this is correct. If I buy a female and male dog and put them together and they have pups that does not mean that I am the cause of whatever those pups do for the rest of their life. If they are trained to do something by a trainer, then he is the cause of what they do and not me.

You said before you understood how one thing can have more than one cause. So yes, in fact, you are partially the cause of what those dogs do for the rest of their lives because, without you, those things would not have happened (the counterfactual account of causation, by the way.)
Again, transitivity is a very well-accepted principle in theories of causation - you'd do well to read about it (from Stanford, for example) before you knock it. There are counterexamples, but they all seem to be of a certain and irrelevant form, and aren't all that difficult to dispatch.

I caused my decision. It does not matter what caused me, it is not them that caused my decision.

You're still being restricted by your insistence that the existence that is you caused any of anything. The cause of you did not cause your decision (well, as in the puppy example, they did, but so indirectly as to make it not worth considering.) But the point is that when we look at the chain of events leading up to your decision "you" are not on the list. That is because "you" are not an event. Here's a possible chain of events:

1. The red ball falls into a pocket
2. The red ball moves away
3. The cue ball hits the red ball
4. The cue ball moves away
5. The cue hits the cue ball
6. The cue moves
7. Your arm moves
8. Muscles in your arm contract
9. Nerves in your arm fire
10. Nerves in your spinal cord fire
11. Nerves in your brain fire
12. Other nerves in your brain fire
13. [...]

As you can see, in each case the one event is caused by the next on the list. Also note that it is obvious that the red ball falling into the pocket is caused by the cue hitting the cue ball, and so on - an example of transitivity.
But where on this list does an entry labeled "You" fit in? "You" is a completely different type of thing than everything else on there. That's because in general it is events that cause other events - things (and you are certainly a thing) don't. Things just are.
Perhaps you see now what I mean when I ask what caused your decision or your action - I want to know what the next event is in the causal chain. And then I want to know what the next is and the next and the next.

This is getting deep. Now we are into ultimate and immediate. If I decide to eat a hamburger, is it an immediate decision or an ultimate decision?

It's the cause that's immediate, not the decision.

Your are refusing to address the answer. It is not uncaused if I caused it.

It would be - as I said - immediately caused, but ultimately uncaused. And ultimately -haha - it's the ultimate causation that's relevant.

Perhaps not but it tells us the source of the decision.

But that's not enough to establish what you seem to want to establish.

And who decided which basket?

Irrelevant - I'm looking for a word that you don't mind me using for choosing when there're multiple choices but only one is possible. You don't like the word choice, so I put forward selection.

What happened is the consequences of his decision. We make decisions all the time without knowing what all the consequences will be.

But an unknown consequence of a decision is not the decision. If I decide to go and water the plants and accidentally soak my shoes, I decided to water the plants, not my shoes.
Same here - the programmer decided to program the robot. He didn't decide anything explicit about the balls.

Are you arguing the robot decided what it was going to do after considering the situation in its brain for awhile?

No, I neither said nor implied that. Deciding is not appropriate to use here. I would say the robot made a selection though.

It may not be the exact same decsions but it is the result of the decision of the programer, not the result of any decision by the robot that it was not programed to make.

Fine - as long as it's not the same decision, that's what I was trying to establish.

Anyway, this is getting off track. When the computer weighs the ball and "complies with its programming" what it is it doing? It's not deciding, it's not choosing, apparently it's also not selecting - so what is it doing?

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
I don't think this is correct. If I buy a female and male dog and put them together and they have pups that does not mean that I am the cause of whatever those pups do for the rest of their life. If they are trained to do something by a trainer, then he is the cause of what they do and not me.

You said before you understood how one thing can have more than one cause. So yes, in fact, you are partially the cause of what those dogs do for the rest of their lives because, without you, those things would not have happened (the counterfactual account of causation, by the way.)

Yes everything has more than one cause and one of the causes of my decisions is me.
Quote:
I caused my decision. It does not matter what caused me, it is not them that caused my decision.

You're still being restricted by your insistence that the existence that is you caused any of anything.

And you are still being restricted by your insistence that the existence that is me is not the cause of anything.

The cause of you did not cause your decision (well, as in the puppy example, they did, but so indirectly as to make it not worth considering.) But the point is that when we look at the chain of events leading up to your decision "you" are not on the list. That is because "you" are not an event. Here's a possible chain of events:

That is only because you insist on leaving me out of the causation chain.

1. The red ball falls into a pocket
2. The red ball moves away
3. The cue ball hits the red ball
4. The cue ball moves away
5. The cue hits the cue ball
6. The cue moves
7. Your arm moves
8. Muscles in your arm contract
9. Nerves in your arm fire
10. Nerves in your spinal cord fire
11. Nerves in your brain fire
12. Other nerves in your brain fire
13. [...]

As you can see, in each case the one event is caused by the next on the list. Also note that it is obvious that the red ball falling into the pocket is caused by the cue hitting the cue ball, and so on - an example of transitivity.
But where on this list does an entry labeled "You" fit in? "You" is a completely different type of thing than everything else on there. That's because in general it is events that cause other events - things (and you are certainly a thing) don't. Things just are.

I moved my arm.

Perhaps you see now what I mean when I ask what caused your decision or your action - I want to know what the next event is in the causal chain. And then I want to know what the next is and the next and the next.

Nope I don't see where I am not in the picture when my arm moves and I am playing billiards.


Quote:
This is getting deep. Now we are into ultimate and immediate. If I decide to eat a hamburger, is it an immediate decision or an ultimate decision?

It's the cause that's immediate, not the decision.

Which cause is immediate and which cause is ultimate?


Quote:
Your are refusing to address the answer. It is not uncaused if I caused it.

It would be - as I said - immediately caused, but ultimately uncaused. And ultimately -haha - it's the ultimate causation that's relevant.

Which cause am I, the ultimate one or the immediate one?

Quote:
Perhaps not but it tells us the source of the decision.

But that's not enough to establish what you seem to want to establish.

Yes it is enough. The source is the human that did the progaming and made the decision.

Quote:
And who decided which basket?

Irrelevant - I'm looking for a word that you don't mind me using for choosing when there're multiple choices but only one is possible. You don't like the word choice, so I put forward selection.

If only one is possible, there are no multiple choices. That is a contradiction.


Quote:
What happened is the consequences of his decision. We make decisions all the time without knowing what all the consequences will be.

But an unknown consequence of a decision is not the decision. If I decide to go and water the plants and accidentally soak my shoes, I decided to water the plants, not my shoes.

True, but the cause of your shoes being wet is your decison to water the plants.

Same here - the programmer decided to program the robot. He didn't decide anything explicit about the balls.

He did not have to. It was the consequence of his programing.

Quote:
Are you arguing the robot decided what it was going to do after considering the situation in its brain for awhile?

No, I neither said nor implied that. Deciding is not appropriate to use here. I would say the robot made a selection though.

I would say the robot simply acted out its programing.

Quote:
It may not be the exact same decsions but it is the result of the decision of the programer, not the result of any decision by the robot that it was not programed to make.

Fine - as long as it's not the same decision, that's what I was trying to establish.

That brings us back to the fact that there are sometimes if not always unintended consequences of our decisions. These unintended condquences do not prove there was no decsion made.

Anyway, this is getting off track. When the computer weighs the ball and "complies with its programming" what it is it doing? It's not deciding, it's not choosing, apparently it's also not selecting - so what is it doing?

You have already said"complying with its programming" That is what it is doing.

 

[FishFace]

Yes everything has more than one cause and one of the causes of my decisions is me.

And you are still being restricted by your insistence that the existence that is me is not the cause of anything.

That is only because you insist on leaving me out of the causation chain.

I moved my arm.

I'm sorry, where does that fit in on the causal chain? Is it instead of "your arm moves?" does it cause that event? Is it right at the start? Each of these options has problems.
In the first two cases, you are saying that the event "Muscles in your arm contract" causes "You move your arm." That doesn't even make sense, and it certainly isn't what you want to establish, since the cause of "you" is then caused by muscle contractions etc.
In the latter cases you are saying "You move your arm" causes the event "Nerves in your brain fire." How can "you moving your arm" cause nerves in your brain to fire which, via a chain of events, cause your arm to move?

Surely you can see the problem now. You are trying to look at the big picture - the picture of everyday life - when I'm trying to get you to see it at a smaller scale. At this scale it doesn't make sense to think of "you" causing anything, because "you" is not an event that you can fit anywhere in the causal chain.
If you can, then you will have to actually place it somewhere, tell me what the cause of that event is, and what its immediate effects are - because otherwise I really don't believe it's possible.

Look, here's another example of what I mean. I think you would agree, wouldn't you, that your muscles cause your arm to move, right? But on this chain, you can't put "muscles" in anywhere - because "muscles" is not a cause. It's a thing. What we do have is "your muscles contract." When you say "your muscles cause your arm to move" what you mean is "your muscles' contractions cause your arm to move"
The first description is adequate only for conversation, NOT for philosophy. When I ask you for the cause of your decision, I want the event that you are referring to when you say "you caused your decision/action." Just like you are referring to the event of your muscle's contraction when you say "your muscles caused your arm to move."

Nope I don't see where I am not in the picture when my arm moves and I am playing billiards.

You are in the picture, just as your muscles are in the picture when your arm moves. But we're not looking at the picture, we're looking at the paint.

Which cause is immediate and which cause is ultimate?

Well, immediacy is a sliding scale. The most immediate cause of a billiard ball's movement, say, is the molecules of the cue ball striking getting near to the molecules of the billiard. Looking further out, you could say that the immediate cause was the cue ball (but when we look back in again, we have to translate 'cue ball' to 'movement of the cue ball' or 'collision of the cue ball with the billiard' because "cue ball" is not an event, so we can't put it on the causal chain.)
When I say ultimate cause I suppose what I'm actually looking for is either an ultimate cause inside you, (in which case your position is correct) or any set of causes outside you which together cause your decision - in which case I am correct.
However, the problem is that if there is an ultimate cause, (and here we have to look at the small scale - with causes as events) then that cause - that event - was not caused by anything else. So "ultimate cause" is a misnomer because it does not result in "ultimate causation" it results in "ultimately uncaused." Again, this only makes sense if you look at the fine scale. you can't use philosophically inappropriate language.

Which cause am I, the ultimate one or the immediate one?

You are not an event, so in this discussion, we can't talk of you as a cause. In ordinary conversation that's fine, but not here.

Yes it is enough. The source is the human that did the progaming and made the decision.

If only one is possible, there are no multiple choices. That is a contradiction.

So what does the robot do with the baskets? It doesn't choose a basket, it doesn't (according to you) select a basket... Well?

True, but the cause of your shoes being wet is your decison to water the plants.

He did not have to. It was the consequence of his programing.

But then no-one chose and no-one selected, and no-one decided which bucket the ball will go into. The robot has to do something analagous.

Quote:
Are you arguing the robot decided what it was going to do after considering the situation in its brain for awhile?


I would say the robot simply acted out its programing.

You have already said"complying with its programming" That is what it is doing.

But that doesn't explain what it's doing with the buckets. In the case of deciding, choosing or selecting, the bucket is the object of some verb - decide, choose or select. But while the robot can "select which bucket" it can't "comply with its programming which bucket" - that doesn't make sense!

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
Yes everything has more than one cause and one of the causes of my decisions is me.

And you are still being restricted by your insistence that the existence that is me is not the cause of anything.

That is only because you insist on leaving me out of the causation chain.

I moved my arm.

I'm sorry, where does that fit in on the causal chain? Is it instead of "your arm moves?" does it cause that event? Is it right at the start? Each of these options has problems.
In the first two cases, you are saying that the event "Muscles in your arm contract" causes "You move your arm." That doesn't even make sense, and it certainly isn't what you want to establish, since the cause of "you" is then caused by muscle contractions etc.
In the latter cases you are saying "You move your arm" causes the event "Nerves in your brain fire." How can "you moving your arm" cause nerves in your brain to fire which, via a chain of events, cause your arm to move?
Surely you can see the problem now. You are trying to look at the big picture - the picture of everyday life - when I'm trying to get you to see it at a smaller scale. At this scale it doesn't make sense to think of "you" causing anything, because "you" is not an event that you can fit anywhere in the causal chain.
If you can, then you will have to actually place it somewhere, tell me what the cause of that event is, and what its immediate effects are - because otherwise I really don't believe it's possible.

Apparently you believe that when I move my arm this was an action that I had no control over and was the result of the way the world was begun and the way the world or universe had developed. To believe that my arm moves without my will being involved is not reasonable.

Look, here's another example of what I mean. I think you would agree, wouldn't you, that your muscles cause your arm to move, right? But on this chain, you can't put "muscles" in anywhere - because "muscles" is not a cause. It's a thing. What we do have is "your muscles contract." When you say "your muscles cause your arm to move" what you mean is "your muscles' contractions cause your arm to move"
The first description is adequate only for conversation, NOT for philosophy. When I ask you for the cause of your decision, I want the event that you are referring to when you say "you caused your decision/action." Just like you are referring to the event of your muscle's contraction when you say "your muscles caused your arm to move."

Science and I are unable to tell you the exact begining of a decision of mine to move my arm, but I can observe I can move my arm or I can decide to not move it for awhile, which clearly seems to indicate I am in control of my arm. Thus when my arm moves, since I am in control of it, I am the cause of it moving. The denial of this being reality is simply not reasonable.
Quote:
Nope I don't see where I am not in the picture when my arm moves and I am playing billiards.

You are in the picture, just as your muscles are in the picture when your arm moves. But we're not looking at the picture, we're looking at the paint.

I don't follow that. When my arm moves I created the paint. It was not given to me by anyone.

Quote:
Which cause is immediate and which cause is ultimate?

Well, immediacy is a sliding scale. The most immediate cause of a billiard ball's movement, say, is the molecules of the cue ball striking getting near to the molecules of the billiard. Looking further out, you could say that the immediate cause was the cue ball (but when we look back in again, we have to translate 'cue ball' to 'movement of the cue ball' or 'collision of the cue ball with the billiard' because "cue ball" is not an event, so we can't put it on the causal chain.)
When I say ultimate cause I suppose what I'm actually looking for is either an ultimate cause inside you, (in which case your position is correct) or any set of causes outside you which together cause your decision - in which case I am correct.

That sort of breaks it down where I can see what you are talking about. Yes it seems reasonable to me that when I am playing billiards, my choice of how and when to shoot is not controled by how the universe was originally set up. I exist because of how the universe was originally set up but I have evolved to the point that I am not like a rock controled by gravity. I have a brain and am able to exert some contol over myself and the world around me. To assume I cannot do that is not reasonable.

Quote:
Which cause am I, the ultimate one or the immediate one?

You are not an event, so in this discussion, we can't talk of you as a cause. In ordinary conversation that's fine, but not here.

There is the problem. I am the cause of many things that happen around me and to say you cannot talk of me as a cause is to deny reality.


Quote:
Yes it is enough. The source is the human that did the progaming and made the decision.

If only one is possible, there are no multiple choices. That is a contradiction.

So what does the robot do with the baskets? It doesn't choose a basket, it doesn't (according to you) select a basket... Well?

If it selects a basket it does so as a part of complying with its programing.


Quote:
True, but the cause of your shoes being wet is your decison to water the plants.

He did not have to. It was the consequence of his programing.

But then no-one chose and no-one selected, and no-one decided which bucket the ball will go into. The robot has to do something analagous.

No just comply with its programing. That is all it is able teo do---unlike the programer who could have programed it differently.
Quote:
Are you arguing the robot decided what it was going to do after considering the situation in its brain for awhile?


I would say the robot simply acted out its programing.


Quote:
You have already said"complying with its programming" That is what it is doing.

But that doesn't explain what it's doing with the buckets. In the case of deciding, choosing or selecting, the bucket is the object of some verb - decide, choose or select. But while the robot can "select which bucket" it can't "comply with its programming which bucket" - that doesn't make sense!

It does not make sense that the robot did anything contrary to its programing.

 

[FishFace]

Apparently you believe that when I move my arm this was an action that I had no control over and was the result of the way the world was begun and the way the world or universe had developed. To believe that my arm moves without my will being involved is not reasonable.

Then show me where on the list of events "will" fits in. You can't, because "will" is a thing not an event. But you might say that "the action of your will" caused "nerves in your brain to fire." That would certainly make sense in the causal chain since the action of the will is an event.

However, I would then ask you what event caused the action of your will.

Science and I are unable to tell you the exact begining of a decision of mine to move my arm, but I can observe I can move my arm or I can decide to not move it for awhile, which clearly seems to indicate I am in control of my arm. Thus when my arm moves, since I am in control of it, I am the cause of it moving. The denial of this being reality is simply not reasonable.

Welcome to analytical philosophy. We are in the business of analysing general, conversational phrases like "I moved my arm" or "I control the movement of my arm" and trying to work out what we "really" mean when we say these things. When you say "the muscle caused the arm to move" you don't mean that the muscle itself, by some brute fact of its existence, exerted causative power. You mean that some action of the the muscle - its contraction - caused the arm to move. There are an infinity of similar examples. If you say that a robot causes a ball to be in its bucket, then you of course don't mean the robot, even if it were turned off, would still have caused anything. Because it's not the robot that you really have in mind, it's some action that's related to the robot.
From these we can see that, in general, when we say that a thing causes something, we generally mean that some action related to the thing was the actual cause - because a cause is an event, NOT a thing.

I don't follow that. When my arm moves I created the paint. It was not given to me by anyone.

We're not looking at the big picture - "the muscle caused the movement," we're looking at the small picture - "the electron movement in the nerve caused a buildup of neurotransmitter. The movement of the neurotransmitter into the motor neuron caused the muscle fibre to contract" etc.

That sort of breaks it down where I can see what you are talking about. Yes it seems reasonable to me that when I am playing billiards, my choice of how and when to shoot is not controled by how the universe was originally set up. I exist because of how the universe was originally set up but I have evolved to the point that I am not like a rock controled by gravity. I have a brain and am able to exert some contol over myself and the world around me. To assume I cannot do that is not reasonable.

I am not assuming anything, I am analysing what it is possible to mean by "exert control over yourself." You don't seem to have a meaningful definition. Analytical philosophy is all about analysing meanings.

There is the problem. I am the cause of many things that happen around me and to say you cannot talk of me as a cause is to deny reality.

I never said you can't. In fact, on MANY occasions I explicitly stated that such speak is absolutely fine for ordinary conversation. But this is philosophy, we need to be strict.

If it selects a basket it does so as a part of complying with its programing.

Then you allow that it makes the selection? I never suggested it did anything other than complied with its programming.

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
Apparently you believe that when I move my arm this was an action that I had no control over and was the result of the way the world was begun and the way the world or universe had developed. To believe that my arm moves without my will being involved is not reasonable.

Then show me where on the list of events "will" fits in. You can't, because "will" is a thing not an event. But you might say that "the action of your will" caused "nerves in your brain to fire." That would certainly make sense in the causal chain since the action of the will is an event.

However, I would then ask you what event caused the action of your will.

The decision of my will to do it.

Quote:
Science and I are unable to tell you the exact begining of a decision of mine to move my arm, but I can observe I can move my arm or I can decide to not move it for awhile, which clearly seems to indicate I am in control of my arm. Thus when my arm moves, since I am in control of it, I am the cause of it moving. The denial of this being reality is simply not reasonable.

Welcome to analytical philosophy. We are in the business of analysing general, conversational phrases like "I moved my arm" or "I control the movement of my arm" and trying to work out what we "really" mean when we say these things. When you say "the muscle caused the arm to move" you don't mean that the muscle itself, by some brute fact of its existence, exerted causative power. You mean that some action of the the muscle - its contraction - caused the arm to move. There are an infinity of similar examples. If you say that a robot causes a ball to be in its bucket, then you of course don't mean the robot, even if it were turned off, would still have caused anything. Because it's not the robot that you really have in mind, it's some action that's related to the robot.
From these we can see that, in general, when we say that a thing causes something, we generally mean that some action related to the thing was the actual cause - because a cause is an event, NOT a thing.

My thinking is an event---my deciding is an event.

Quote:
I don't follow that. When my arm moves I created the paint. It was not given to me by anyone.

We're not looking at the big picture - "the muscle caused the movement," we're looking at the small picture - "the electron movement in the nerve caused a buildup of neurotransmitter. The movement of the neurotransmitter into the motor neuron caused the muscle fibre to contract" etc.

and when you get to the original cause, there I will be.


Quote:
That sort of breaks it down where I can see what you are talking about. Yes it seems reasonable to me that when I am playing billiards, my choice of how and when to shoot is not controled by how the universe was originally set up. I exist because of how the universe was originally set up but I have evolved to the point that I am not like a rock controled by gravity. I have a brain and am able to exert some contol over myself and the world around me. To assume I cannot do that is not reasonable.

I am not assuming anything, I am analysing what it is possible to mean by "exert control over yourself." You don't seem to have a meaningful definition. Analytical philosophy is all about analysing meanings.

It means I can chose to move my arm or chose to not move it.


Quote:
There is the problem. I am the cause of many things that happen around me and to say you cannot talk of me as a cause is to deny reality.

I never said you can't. In fact, on MANY occasions I explicitly stated that such speak is absolutely fine for ordinary conversation. But this is philosophy, we need to be strict.

Fine but if your being stict removes me as the one makes my decisions you have gone off into Lala land--outside of reality.


Quote:
If it selects a basket it does so as a part of complying with its programing.

Then you allow that it makes the selection? I never suggested it did anything other than complied with its programming.

I allow that the programer made a selection and the robot is complying with its programing.

 

[FishFace]

The decision of my will to do it.

I don't understand... What kind of an event is that? And what event caused that? And so on. Until you've got no more causes that are related to you.

My thinking is an event---my deciding is an event.

Certainly. That is why I was talking about mental states before. What caused your deciding or your thinking?

and when you get to the original cause, there I will be.

You've still not got it? This is like saying that the original cause of the robot's action was the robot - when clearly there was someone programming the robot. The only difference is we don't see a programmer in front of us.
By looking at what exactly a cause is, in the strictest sense, we can find out more about the world.

It means I can chose to move my arm or chose to not move it.

Then you have to examine what a choice is. You say it's a situation in which it is possible, given an identical copy of the situation down to the smallest detail, that each copy would turn out differently. Now why should I accept that there is such a situation? Not only that but there are a causal implications, that we are discussing above, that don't even make sense if you don't muddy the waters with everyday language.

Fine but if your being stict removes me as the one makes my decisions you have gone off into Lala land--outside of reality.

But as I have repeatedly said (and, apparently, you have repeatedly ignored) you are still the maker of your decisions, but not in the strictest sense. If you have a problem with that, then you've not understood what happens in philosophy. The point is to question your presumptions with rigorous argument. Rigorous argument requires strict language. Your refusal to deal in the latter results in your inability to deal with the former, and thus an inability to do philosophy. Apparently, whenever we come across something that contradicts what we assumed was true, we should just ignore it. That's the very antithesis of philosophy. You have to be willing to engage with the philosophical method, and to do that you have to be willing to throw out your assumptions.

I allow that the programer made a selection and the robot is complying with its programing.

But what or who selected which bucket the ball would go in? The programmer, didn't, he just selected the programming statements. Sure, he caused the ball's destination, but he didn't select it explicitly. So something - i.e. - the robot - made the explicit selection.

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
The decision of my will to do it.

I don't understand... What kind of an event is that? And what event caused that? And so on. Until you've got no more causes that are related to you.

It is an event created by me and caused by me and not caused by anything in the history of the world or universe other than me.

Quote:
My thinking is an event---my deciding is an event.

Certainly. That is why I was talking about mental states before. What caused your deciding or your thinking?

I did.
Quote:
and when you get to the original cause, there I will be.

You've still not got it? This is like saying that the original cause of the robot's action was the robot - when clearly there was someone programming the robot. The only difference is we don't see a programmer in front of us.

The difference is I am not a robot. I am my own programer.

By looking at what exactly a cause is, in the strictest sense, we can find out more about the world.

Not if we ignore reality.


Quote:
It means I can chose to move my arm or chose to not move it.

Then you have to examine what a choice is. You say it's a situation in which it is possible, given an identical copy of the situation down to the smallest detail, that each copy would turn out differently.

Not would but could.

Now why should I accept that there is such a situation?

The question is why should I assume I could not have done different with my arm than I did?

Not only that but there are a causal implications, that we are discussing above, that don't even make sense if you don't muddy the waters with everyday language.

or muddy the waters with everyday experiences?


Quote:
Fine but if your being stict removes me as the one making my decisions you have gone off into Lala land--outside of reality.

But as I have repeatedly said (and, apparently, you have repeatedly ignored) you are still the maker of your decisions, but not in the strictest sense.

I am but I am not. Do you see my problem with that?

If you have a problem with that, then you've not understood what happens in philosophy. The point is to question your presumptions with rigorous argument. Rigorous argument requires strict language. Your refusal to deal in the latter results in your inability to deal with the former, and thus an inability to do philosophy.

Philosophy is a search for truth or reality. When you find it has taken away from truth and reality, there is a problem with your philosophy.

Apparently, whenever we come across something that contradicts what we assumed was true, we should just ignore it. That's the very antithesis of philosophy. You have to be willing to engage with the philosophical method, and to do that you have to be willing to throw out your assumptions.

I am willing to question my assumptions, but ultimaly in the search for reality, I must be given strong evidence to throw them out, when I have continuing evidence of the validity of the assumption.


Quote:
I allow that the programer made a selection and the robot is complying with its programing.

But what or who selected which bucket the ball would go in? The programmer, didn't, he just selected the programming statements. Sure, he caused the ball's destination, but he didn't select it explicitly. So something - i.e. - the robot - made the explicit selection.

The programmer did even though he may not have anticipated the exact scenario in which you describe. As I said earlier, being unaware of all the consequences of our decisions does not prove the decision was not ours.

 

[FishFace]

It is an event created by me and caused by me and not caused by anything in the history of the world or universe other than me.

Let me put it another way. What happened, which caused your decision. You can't say something was caused if nothing happened to cause it.

Not if we ignore reality.

What reality? None of us has a direct link to reality. We are put in touch with it through the filter of our senses and prejudices. You seem to refuse to allow anything through that even vaguely impinges on what comes through that filter.

Not would but could.

Yes.

The question is why should I assume I could not have done different with my arm than I did?

Given what? Given that the situation was exactly the same? Well, why should you assume that a robot could not have done differently than it did?
Only because you know that the robot has programming, surely - so you can only be arguing that, because you are ignorant of any programming in yourself, you must have been able to do differently.

Equivalently, why should you assume anything - not just robots, but all forms of life and non-life - could not have done differently than they did?

or muddy the waters with everyday experiences?

You can bring experience to the table if you like, but it is madness to assume it is utterly infallible. What you are doing, though, is refusing to engage with the language, and thus refusing to engage with the argument.
In philosophy, we analyse words to get a better idea of what they mean. When we say "a thing causes something" we really mean "an event happening in or related to the thing causes something." I've given you lots of examples of this. In each and every case they've gone unchallenged, so I assume you agree with them.
So, why should I accept that in this case, this one case, we can't break the phrase down to get a more detailed meaning? Because of your prejudices?

I am but I am not. Do you see my problem with that?

It's really not hard to understand. You are the cause of your decisions, but when we're doing philosophy we want to know what you mean by "you are the cause of your decisions" and it turns out that, in all analogous cases, sentences of this form refer to an event not a thing. So, when doing philosophy, language is different.
You surely understand that the same thing can mean different things based on context. Well, that implies that the truth of a statement can also depend on context, since two different meanings (in different contexts) could have different truth values.
"You are the cause of your decisions" is true in everyday language but not in philosophy.

Philosophy is a search for truth or reality. When you find it has taken away from truth and reality, there is a problem with your philosophy.

I am willing to question my assumptions, but ultimaly in the search for reality, I must be given strong evidence to throw them out, when I have continuing evidence of the validity of the assumption.

But all your evidence constitutes is a subject interpretation of an unreliable process of introspection! Tell me, what are you aware of when you turn your attention to making a choice. Are you aware of actually being able to make more than one decision? No, you're aware of not knowing what to choose, you're aware of changing your mind. You're not directly aware of anything that is free will, nor anything that necessarily implies free will - if your perceptions are anything like mine.
It's an assumption everyone grows up with, but its foundations are weak. You refuse to engage with the argument based, as far as I can see it, on your wish to hold onto this weakly-founded assumption.

You can't be willing to change your views if you refuse to even use the right language for the debate "if that causes you to get rid of reality." The fact that you are referring to your belief as reality indicates your unwillingness to consider any evidence or argument against it.

The programmer did even though he may not have anticipated the exact scenario in which you describe. As I said earlier, being unaware of all the consequences of our decisions does not prove the decision was not ours.

So you're saying that noone and nothing selected which bucket the ball would go into?
Because you admit that the programmer did not make that selection, but a different one, and you don't allow the robot to make a selection.

So then we're back to square one. What did the robot do with the buckets? He didn't choose a bucket, nor decide on one, nor select one.

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
It is an event created by me and caused by me and not caused by anything in the history of the world or universe other than me.

Let me put it another way. What happened, which caused your decision. You can't say something was caused if nothing happened to cause it.

I decided to move my arm. That is what happened that caused my arm to move.

Quote:
Not if we ignore reality.

What reality? None of us has a direct link to reality. We are put in touch with it through the filter of our senses and prejudices. You seem to refuse to allow anything through that even vaguely impinges on what comes through that filter.

I refuse to deny my observations and experience as being what they appear to be. I do not deny they are dependable and without flaws, but they are the best we have and you have not shown me any reason to believe they are completely illusion.

Quote:
Not would but could.

Yes.


Quote:
The question is why should I assume I could not have done different with my arm than I did?

Given what? Given that the situation was exactly the same? Well, why should you assume that a robot could not have done differently than it did?

Because robots follow their programing and humans create programing.

Only because you know that the robot has programming, surely - so you can only be arguing that, because you are ignorant of any programming in yourself, you must have been able to do differently.

Your assertion that I may be a robot is not evidence of anything and not convincing to me.

Equivalently, why should you assume anything - not just robots, but all forms of life and non-life - could not have done differently than they did?

I assume non life without a brain is subject to the outside forces, but I assume a living entity with a brain is not completely subject to the outside forces.

Quote:
or muddy the waters with everyday experiences?

You can bring experience to the table if you like, but it is madness to assume it is utterly infallible. What you are doing, though, is refusing to engage with the language, and thus refusing to engage with the argument.

You build a straw horse to knock down. I never assumed experience is utterly infallible. Have you assumed experience is utterly fallible?

In philosophy, we analyse words to get a better idea of what they mean. When we say "a thing causes something" we really mean "an event happening in or related to the thing causes something." I've given you lots of examples of this. In each and every case they've gone unchallenged, so I assume you agree with them.

You should not make those kind of assumptions. If you mean I am not part of the cause, then I don't agree.

So, why should I accept that in this case, this one case, we can't break the phrase down to get a more detailed meaning? Because of your prejudices?

What prejudice? The one about not assuming all experience is just illusion?

Quote:
I am but I am not. Do you see my problem with that?

It's really not hard to understand. You are the cause of your decisions, but when we're doing philosophy we want to know what you mean by "you are the cause of your decisions" and it turns out that, in all analogous cases, sentences of this form refer to an event not a thing. So, when doing philosophy, language is different.
You surely understand that the same thing can mean different things based on context. Well, that implies that the truth of a statement can also depend on context, since two different meanings (in different contexts) could have different truth values.
"You are the cause of your decisions" is true in everyday language but not in philosophy.

If it is not true in everyday language it is not true in the search for truth and reality-philosophy.
Quote:
Philosophy is a search for truth or reality. When you find it has taken away from truth and reality, there is a problem with your philosophy.

I am willing to question my assumptions, but ultimaly in the search for reality, I must be given strong evidence to throw them out, when I have continuing evidence of the validity of the assumption.

And I am willing to question my assuptions but you have not given me strong evidence to throw them out.

But all your evidence constitutes is a subject interpretation of an unreliable process of introspection! Tell me, what are you aware of when you turn your attention to making a choice. Are you aware of actually being able to make more than one decision? No, you're aware of not knowing what to choose, you're aware of changing your mind. You're not directly aware of anything that is free will, nor anything that necessarily implies free will - if your perceptions are anything like mine.

My perceptions are that I do have the ability to move or not move my arm just about anytime I decide either way. What is your perception on that, that is different from mine?

It's an assumption everyone grows up with, but its foundations are weak. You refuse to engage with the argument based, as far as I can see it, on your wish to hold onto this weakly-founded assumption.

I refuse to thow it out simply because you tell me philosophy and logic demands I do so.

You can't be willing to change your views if you refuse to even use the right language for the debate "if that causes you to get rid of reality." The fact that you are referring to your belief as reality indicates your unwillingness to consider any evidence or argument against it.

Present your argument that will prove my perception of reality is an illusion. You have stated this over and over but you have not presented a compelling argument to support it.
Quote:
The programmer did even though he may not have anticipated the exact scenario in which you describe. As I said earlier, being unaware of all the consequences of our decisions does not prove the decision was not ours.

So you're saying that noone and nothing selected which bucket the ball would go into?

No I am saying the programer did.

Because you admit that the programmer did not make that selection, but a different one, and you don't allow the robot to make a selection.

The programer's decision is what caused the selection as it occured.

So then we're back to square one. What did the robot do with the buckets? He didn't choose a bucket, nor decide on one, nor select one.

No he did not. That was done by the programer.

 

[FishFace]

I decided to move my arm. That is what happened that caused my arm to move.

Please answer the question I asked, not the one you'd like to answer - I asked what happened which caused your decision. You already told me an immediate cause of your arm moving. I want to know what happened to cause your decision.

I refuse to deny my observations and experience as being what they appear to be. I do not deny they are dependable and without flaws, but they are the best we have and you have not shown me any reason to believe they are completely illusion.

What is a complete illusion? Tell me, what sensory experience do you have that makes you so sure that you have free will? David Hume gives us a valuable heuristic here - every empirical fact should be based on an impression, that is to say, something we receive directly from the senses. What do you receive from the senses that convinces you so surely that the outcome of your decision isn't determined?

Because robots follow their programing and humans create programing.

But you don't know whether or not humans have their own programming, either given to them by nature or by a deity (simple molecules certainly have a kind of programming) so your argument seems to be based entirely on the fact that you don't know that humans have "programming."
Arguments based on lack of knowledge are generally considered to not be very good.

You build a straw horse to knock down. I never assumed experience is utterly infallible. Have you assumed experience is utterly fallible?

I assume that such experience as I think you are relying on (since you've not actually detailed your experience at all) is so shaky, and also so similar to the same kind of experience as Libet proved to be utterly fallible, that it should certainly bow to rational thought.
You seem to be unable to follow the argument though, so perhaps it's not surprising you cling to whatever experience it is you have.

You should not make those kind of assumptions. If you mean I am not part of the cause, then I don't agree.

Again, you're not looking at the argument, or the examples, or anything I say except for the conclusion. Take the example of Lee Harvey Oswald. Did he cause J.F.K.'s death? Well, of course he did. But I bet the death certificate didn't say, "cause of death: Lee Harvey Oswald." You see, what happened was that the bullet entered Kennedy's body, and that caused it to collide with nerves and blood vessels in his brain. This caused signals passed from other nerves in his brain, and blood from other vessels, to be disrupted. Etc etc.
We can also work backwards. The bullet's motion was caused by Oswald pulling the trigger, right? But in actual fact what happened was Oswald's finger muscles contracted, causing his finger to move, causing the trigger to move, causing the firing pin to strike the bullet, causing the volume around the propellant to decrease, causing the propellant to react, causing the pressure to increase, causing the bullet to move.

Now, both of these accounts of each action are correct, yes? But if we were trying to conduct a rigorous analysis of the causes involved, we'd want the more detailed one, right? But notice that it's not "Oswald" and it's not "The Bullet" which did any causing. It's the bullet's colliding or the movement of Oswald's finger.

I'm not leaving out the bullet, Oswald, or you in any of these accounts. You're still there it's just I'm not saying "The Bullet," "Oswald," or "You." I'm using certain events that are linked with these things. Because using the events is more accurate than just referring to the thing with which the events are associated. If I was conducting an inquest and I asked the autopsy team for the cause of death and they kept insisting it was Oswald, or the bullet, I'd be pretty irritated. Even though it's fine and accurate to say this in normal conversation, when we actually get into the analysis of causes it's not.
That doesn't mean it suddenly becomes wrong, it just means it's wrong in the particular context. Now, do or don't you agree that in these examples it is more accurate to talk about the events associated with the things we might usually say were the causes? Do you or don't agree that, therefore, what we really mean when we say "some thing caused an event" is actually something to do with an event associated with that thing?

What prejudice? The one about not assuming all experience is just illusion?

The one about assuming that you really do have any experience relating to free will. The one assuming that that experience is reliable. Even the one assuming that, when you are aware of starting to make a decision, you've already "got ready" to do the action, completely unawares.

If it is not true in everyday language it is not true in the search for truth and reality-philosophy.

Irrelevant since you don't talk about causal chains in everyday language. But your point appears to be that, if you say something in normal conversation, then you must entirely agree with that in every other context. You need to read some Wittgenstein - he has a lot to say about contextualism - that is, the philosophical principle that the truth value of a statement depends on the context in which you say it. For example, now you would say, presumably, that you know what you had a couple of days ago for breakfast. But if I said, are you certain, or, if you were in the witness box perhaps, then you wouldn't say you knew. In fact, it would be false to say you know, because the context implies a different standard.
Same here. The context of philosophy requires a different standard of language. Just because you can say it in everyday language doesn't mean it makes sense now.

My perceptions are that I do have the ability to move or not move my arm just about anytime I decide either way. What is your perception on that, that is different from mine?

Most of the time I move my arm I have no perception of any ability to move or not move it whatsoever. I just think "I want a cookie" and reach for it. Mostly, I am completely unaware of any choice at all. For much of my childhood, I had never even considered the question yet, crucially, I still thought I had some kind of free will because that just seems to be the inbuilt assumption in the absence of evidence.
Now, suppose I am to make a decision - when, or whether, to move a finger. I am aware of making a decision. I have the experience of not knowing whether I am going to move it. I then have the experience of deciding to move it, and then it moves. At no point is there any perception which leaps out at me and shouts, "you have a choice! You could or could not move your finger!" The only thing that implies that is not knowing whether I am going to move it. But that is pure ignorance - I don't somehow know that the outcome is not yet determined. I know I have not yet decided, but I do not perceive that the outcome of my decision is as yet undetermined.

I think you're probably mistaking a lack of knowledge of the outcome for knowledge that the outcome is unknowable. Two rather different things.

I refuse to thow it out simply because you tell me philosophy and logic demands I do so.

You refuse also to even engage with that philosophy.

Present your argument that will prove my perception of reality is an illusion. You have stated this over and over but you have not presented a compelling argument to support it.

We already know that introspection is unreliable via Libet. So you need a pretty good reason to say that another closely related kind of introspection is infallible.

The programer's decision is what caused the selection as it occured.

But that is not saying that he decided which bucket the ball will going in - as you have already agreed with me.
So, who or what did make that selection?