Your opinion of UFOs, ESP, poltergeists, etc?

[Sanoy]

I think that you may be missing the point. As I understand it, most creationists say that God did create the universe but that He created it in such a way that life could not develop from non-living matter and that macro-evolution (e.g. swans and ducks, or kestrels and sparrowhawks, or cattle and sheep, or ladybirds and stag beetles, being descended from common ancestors) is impossible, so that God had to create every kind of animal, plant, fungus and micro-organism separately in essentially their present forms.

I guess I still don't understand the point. I can confirm that my belief is somewhere between theistic evolution and standard creation, and that matter cannot on it's own bring forth matter.

(If possible could we avoid getting into a discussion on whether evolution happened or not. It's fine to presuppose it but I have no interest in debating it if that is where we are headed.)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

When learning systems learn by trial and error an external system of determining error is brought in. The ability of a light sensor to react correctly is based on the observation of a rational agent. That rational agent provides the criteria of what is error and what is not. A rational agent is required, because a determined person is in no better position to know error than the sensor.

Not so; as already described, a deterministic AI can be a rational agent, and introducing randomness does nothing to help.

Even a single-cell organism can react 'correctly' to stimuli such as light or food - and some (e.g. slime-moulds) can learn from experience. These are evolved capabilities, all deterministic.

AI systems can only ''maximize benefits" or fine tune utility because a rational agent has defined parameters for the learning system to operate under. That is the essential purpose for which any processing unit is created, it purpose and operating behavior are defined externally.

Nevertheless, they are deterministic systems that can learn how to refine their abilities and acquire new skills autonomously.

But this whole appeal to AI is misplaced because it is non sequitur. AI would appear rational if it's creators are rational, so the outcome that an AI can appear rational does not solidify the premise that deterministic matter can have rationality.

The question is whether what they do fits a substrate-neutral or actor-neutral definition of rationality. In AI circles, it's generally accepted that, given a goal, an AI can be a rational agent if it acts to maximize it's expected utility; in practice, AI's appear to be more successful in this respect, i.e. more rational, than typical human agents.

Of course, the goals are set by external agents, usually human - and these are sub-goals of human goals ultimately derived from our evolved internal reward system.

What is utility is defined by belief!

Not belief, just a goal that provides some metric against which performance can be assessed.

Humans come into the world capable of abstract thought and metacognition. They create AI and define for it a deterministic system of parameters that result in behavior that approximates the behavior of abstract thought. The AI begins at base as a deterministic system that does not contain abstract thought and metacognition. That is indicative that determinism is not the cause of metacognition and abstract thought.

That begs the question by assuming human abstract thought and metacognition is non-deterministic; but, although there is some low-level randomness in our neural processes, it doesn't significantly affect that processing - so we are capable of coherent thought. Additionally, AIs are capable of various forms of abstraction.

I found it interesting, watching the expert analysis of the AlphaGo victories over the world's best Go player, that they couldn't help using the intentional stance towards its moves, and even interpreting them in terms of broader tactical or strategic goals. This suggested that the anthropocentric view of high-performance narrow-domain cognition was easily transformed to an anthropomorphic view, given a suitable demonstration...

Also, looking at the example language interactions of the ANNABELLE language learning AI after training, it became clear that some degree of abstraction was implicitly emergent from the results of training - and expressed as an 'understanding' of the appropriate usage of linguistic entities (verbs, nouns, etc.) and at a higher level, in relationships between the entities of the subject matter it was trained on.

That data is not a material to be detected, but is real and refers to some thing, situation, or condition.

Data are always material, whether words on a page, or electrical charges in digital media; if data were not material, it could not be interpreted. The information represented by data can be considered conceptually abstract, as the same information can be represented by many forms of data.

Here is the thing with information processing. A process is objective oriented. There is a desired outcome to be acquired. While the thing doing the process may not require a goal it must be tuned to one internally or externally. That tuneing is defined by some form of epistemology where in the goal is oriented toward some truth about the world. A process is very much like curling in that you manipulate and prepare a condition of determinism via an intentional agent. You sweep the ice in such a way that it determines the outcome of the goal in mind by the intentional agent. Matter, is not 'about' anything. Being 'about something is the luxory of intentional beings.

Not sure about the curling analogy, but not all processes are goal oriented. Natural processes are not goal oriented, they just progress. Where living things are involved, there's a temptation towards a lazy intentional or teleological stance, particularly in hindsight, because an anthropomorphic view is familiar and convenient; but evolution, for example, is a deterministic (but unpredictable) goalless process involving living things that has the effect of better adapting a population to its environment.

Interesting that deterministic, goalless evolution gives rise to creatures capable of conceptual abstraction and intentional thought - almost as if these ideas are just convenient language we use in respect of the activities of intractably complex deterministic information processing systems

You say "When I make a decision, I want it to be determined by my past experience, my personal preferences and goals, and any other relevant information I have access to - that is what makes it uniquely my decision -
But decisions Don't exist under determinism! And a goal is an intentional state which matter does not have.

They're conceptual and linguistic conveniences for our subjective experiences of the world; because it doesn't feel like there's no choice when we see a selection of possible options, and when the option we select is in accord with our evaluation of its correspondence with our desires, preferences, etc.

People even say that free will means that, in the same circumstances, they could have made a different choice - but they usually omit the crucial rider - 'if they'd wanted to'. This is, in fact, an admission that they could only have made a different choice if the circumstances were different, i.e. if their state of mind at the time was different. Most people fail to consider their internal states as part of the circumstances of their actions - it's not deliberate, but to do so would undermine a deep-seated but incoherent belief system (i.e. that free will is neither deterministic nor random).

Under determinism it cannot be known whether determinism is true. Nothing can be known to be true under determinism. So in every sense possible it is a complete degradation of epistemology.

It's not possible to know whether determinism is true, whether it is true or not (although quantum mechanics suggests that, to some degree, it isn't). We can't be certain of any truths or facts about states of affairs in the world, as Descartes, Hume, and others pointed out.

But (pace Godel) we can know the truth of statements in formal axiomatic systems.

Under dualism, no one ceases to be conscious, they only cease to be conscious of the physical world.

If that were the case, we would expect some reportable consciousness during every general anaesthetic or deep coma; but this isn't the case (despite a few debatable claims).

I was hoping against statistics you would be against abortion. But since you are okay with it could you refine your statement of a person either having a mind or the potential for a mind so as not to conflict with your stance on abortion. A fetus has the potential for a mind.

Yes, as I said, I wouldn't consider a foetus a person until it has developed sufficiently to have a capacity for sentience/awareness/suffering. My description would apply to persons, i.e. those that had developed that capacity. I expect I could come up with a clearer description, but nature doesn't have neat divides to match the categories we try to impose on it.

No, if you are determined to pick option A you can't decide on option B. That is logically impossible, you are in square circle territory. You are simply living in my world claiming not to be.

It's the difference between the objective view, where, in principle, a know-it-all could always predict my behaviour in every detail, and the subjective view, where I examine the options, match them with my preferences and select the most desirable. I simply do not have the access to, nor capacity to comprehend, all the determinants of my behaviour & preferences. But although I use the colloquial language of subjectivity to describe them, I'm comfortable that my actions are, inevitably, a deterministic reflection of my unique individuality.

You say "All that is necessary is that it works". Sure, it may be all that is necessary to remain alive, but not know the truth about anything, it's not even sufficient to know whether you are even determined. I would call it a self refutimg belief but the system isn't even sufficient for a belief because a belief is an intentional state. But let's say for a moment that the fundamental forces happening to and from the ingredients that make up our body, and environment are determining ourselves to behave in accordance to the actual truths about our world. Why should the forces of matter be so arranged as to determine true behavior within a collection of matter. Why does dirty water have the causal forces to effect behavior that is in accordance with actual truths about the world and can those forces be measured?

Sorry I can't make sense of that - you seem to be asking why there are natural laws...?

 

[Sanoy]

Not so; as already described, a deterministic AI can be a rational agent, and introducing randomness does nothing to help.

A deterministic system like an AI is a processing system that is coded by a person. So you can't tell me it doesn't require an outside system. It can appear rational, but it is programmed to do so. That program may include learned sets but these learned sets are contingent on the initial programing which comes from agents. They are absolutely contingent, no way around that.

Reacting correctly to stimuli is not knowing what stimuli is. A pool ball reacts correctly to stimuli.

The question regarding the usefulness of AI examples is whether these examples would not also happen if minds were rational, or non deterministic. A and B can cause C. C. therefore A, doesn't work logically.

Goals are an intentional states, and are supervened by beliefs. So again utility is defined by beliefs about what is a utility.

I'm not begging the question that Humans come into the world capable of abstract thought and metacognition. You told me that Humans are capable of abstract thought and metacognition Quote "humans are excellent generalizers with exceptional abilities for conceptual abstraction; and metacognition". And if they are the ones programing an AI to resemble human utility why would they have be able to approximate these qualities.

Data is not material, it is transmitted through a material. The same thing is true right here, that being that all of my statements are using sentences, but sentences are different than statements. Data and material are just super positioned, but they are not the same thing. If data is objective then whether or not it is interpreted bares no meaning on it being data. That it is objective is implied by it being data. Computers don't identify data from their sensors. Computers are just useful intermediaries which information, or data, pass through until they are observed by an observer. They are like Rube Goldberg contraptions that let an observer know that someone has entered the room down the hall.

You say that "natural processes are not goal oriented" because you know goals don't come from naturalistic biology, which consequently is entirely responsible for your deterministic state which contains your thought that you have goals. So if the natural processes that made you contains no goals, how is it that you have goals? If the natural process that made you has no goals why think you are capable of knowing much truth?

Good, you agree that you are not actually deciding anything. IE no rationality is happening despite conjoining the word "deciding" with information. You say "When I make a decision, I want it to be determined by my past experience, my personal preferences and goals, and any other relevant information I have access to..." But "past experience" and "information" are all unjustified, they simply are the causal effects of your behavior. They are information without a truth value which means they are not information but deterministic forces. IE 0 rationality, 0 reason for even yourself to believe that determinism is true. Well really you don't even have beliefs as those are intentional states which you don't actually have.

I never said you had to be certain to know something, only that you need a justification (general definition) which you don't have on determinism. I do not understand why this strawman gets thrown around so much on these forums. On determinism everything is an axiom, that is the problem with it! That and that every axiom you experience is more likely to be false than true because of the goalless system that constructed you.

You say that if under dualism we never cease to be conscious then we would expect some reportable consciousness during every general anaesthetic or deep coma; but this isn't the case (despite a few debatable claims). Do you remember what you dreamed last night? I don't. In fact I might get 1-2 dreams a year that I remember.

So a person is defined as a thing that either now has a mind or had a mind and will likely have one again? is that correct? Well you have at least an overarching objective criteria for what contains a person so lets go back to the first question....

Let Brain states = a continuous succession of certain kinds of brain states.

Going back to the law of identity. If a brain state is objective, and a brain state is the same thing as a mind then minds are objective. If persons are the same things as minds then persons are objective. If a brain state is objectively expansive, and another brain state is objectively diminished, then minds are objectively diminished or expansive. If minds are objectively diminished or expansive then persons are objectively diminished or expansive.
So the mentally deficient, where it pertains to a certain kind of brain state is less of a person. Additionally persons are not persistent but go into states of dormancy where they are less of a person, but retain the title only due to their potential to become one again.

Determinism is not defined by predictability. The ability to predict something has no causal power on that event happening. A prediction is simply the ability to know what will happen. What you do is defined by your prior contingent conditions. You may think you are deciding, but you are not in fact deciding nothing. There is no definition of decide under determinism except paradoxically as an illusion.

I'll clarify, why would the behavior of the natural ingredients that make up your body result in a behavior that is able to identify truths about the world?

Try and verbally identity a part or section in the body where everything that is true of my mind is also true of that part or section. If there is a 1 to 1 relationship between mind and matter this should be possible, and if there isn't then it should be impossible.

Let me go about this a different way by presenting you an argument that your belief that you are determined is wrong. You say your belief is right because it works - you have been alive for a long time. So for example you have a belief that if you put your hand into the breaker panel it will electrocute you and you will die. The content of that belief is that electricity is running through the breaker panel, and your composition is such that when it goes through your heart you will die. Your belief could logically be formed from thousands of different contents that would result in the same behavior. For example you might think that breakers are animals and if you touch one you will die. So any set of belief you have contains content that is statistically more probably wrong than right. You have a belief that you are determined, therefore you are probably wrong as the content of your belief is more probably wrong than right. So it would be paradoxical if you were actually right that you are determined.

Why do you have this belief? What has happened in your life that has lead you to such an absurdly demeaning view point of yourself and everyone else? I don't want you to respond about being stardust or anything like that, I want you to open up. How do you get to such a point as this?

 

[Ophiolite]

I'll clarify, why would the behavior of the natural ingredients that make up your body result in a behavior that is able to identify truths about the world?

It is an interesting question. It is a pity no one, as yet, has an answer. Anyone who thinks they do is almost certainly deluded.

Why do you have this belief? What has happened in your life that has lead you to such an absurdly demeaning view point of yourself and everyone else?

What is demeaning about recognising the most probable nature of reality? I would have thought it far more demeaning to choose a worldview largely because it seems to be a more pleasant one.

I don't want you to respond about being stardust or anything like that, I want you to open up. How do you get to such a point as this?

Well, that's just silly. That's equivalent to me saying to you "I'd like you to explain to me the nature of your faith, but I don't want you to mention God, or scripture or anything like that."

 

[Sanoy]

It is an interesting question. It is a pity no one, as yet, has an answer. Anyone who thinks they do is almost certainly deluded.

What is demeaning about recognising the most probable nature of reality? I would have thought it far more demeaning to choose a worldview largely because it seems to be a more pleasant one.

Well, that's just silly. That's equivalent to me saying to you "I'd like you to explain to me the nature of your faith, but I don't want you to mention God, or scripture or anything like that."

I am glad that I am off ignore.

I agree with you that determinism is the most probable state of any system of matter. However I don't believe in a 1 to 1 system of mind and matter, and it's contrary to our personal experience of intentionality and rationality. But, if we are deterministic then we do not "believe" that because we find it more probable. On determinism, it is more probable that the content of our "belief" that we are determined is based on false truths about the world rather than actual truths about the world. There is a multitude of logically possible contents that might result in an operational belief, so on any instance of belief it is more probable that it contains a false content. So not only is determinism self defeating it is paradoxically wrong and so we should reject it. And it's possible to reject it, even on determinism.

I just don't want the whole stardust speech, rather I want honesty. What are we? We are stardust!! What's so special about stardust? Well nothing really...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A deterministic system like an AI is a processing system that is coded by a person. So you can't tell me it doesn't require an outside system.

I wasn't telling you that.

It can appear rational, but it is programmed to do so. That program may include learned sets but these learned sets are contingent on the initial programing which comes from agents.

Neuromorphic systems don't work that way - they're designed/programmed to behave as learning networks; what they learn and how they behave depends on the way the network is structured and the inputs it receives during operation. They learn by restructuring their connectivity.

Reacting correctly to stimuli is not knowing what stimuli is. A pool ball reacts correctly to stimuli.

Knowing what a stimulus is isn't necessary; many people don't know what a stimulus is. All that matters is identification and response, which is mostly a matter of pattern recognition.

The question regarding the usefulness of AI examples is whether these examples would not also happen if minds were rational, or non deterministic.

Rationality involves reason, which involves logic processing, for which determinism is necessary. Again, introducing randomness simply degrades the quality of reasoning. Having said that, neural networks, both biological and artificial are tolerant of a degree of random 'noise', but generally perform better without it.

Goals are an intentional states, and are supervened by beliefs. So again utility is defined by beliefs about what is a utility.

This highlights the language problem - we use different language to describe different levels of conceptual abstraction of behaviour - these are terms/concepts in the language of convenience we use for describing certain emergent behaviours of highly complex deterministic systems like ourselves and other cognitively advanced creatures; they're derived from a subjective stance or projection, i.e. a projection of the sensations of subjective experience onto the external world (hence concepts such as 'free will', arising out of our subjective sensation of choice, etc., as a result of our deep ignorance of the determinants of our 'will', which is ultimately based in the learned associations that trigger our reward system).

In living things, goals are derived from the evolved reward system, which reinforces advantageous behaviours. The most cognitively advanced have evolved means of indirectly triggering the reward system, enabling flexible behaviour using 'what-if' scenario modelling and planning. This is done through learning - conditioning the reward system to trigger through association with intermediate or sub-goals. This happens through life experience, with a major contribution from cultural influence - a form of crowd-sourced goal-setting feature (that often conflicts with more personal reward associations). Intentional states reflect the anticipation of reward from planned (sub)goals, and beliefs about utility are a reflection of the confidence in the likely reward to be gained in the long term.

All are extensions to the basic evolved deterministic reward system.

I'm not begging the question that Humans come into the world capable of abstract thought and metacognition.

I didn't suggest that; I said "That begs the question by assuming human abstract thought and metacognition is non-deterministic".

You told me that Humans are capable of abstract thought and metacognition Quote "humans are excellent generalizers with exceptional abilities for conceptual abstraction; and metacognition". And if they are the ones programing an AI to resemble human utility why would they have be able to approximate these qualities.

As I said, AI metacognition would be useful for explaining decisions (and possibly for behaviour modification in PAs and remote autonomous machines, such as planetary rovers), but conceptual abstraction is a commonplace outcome of learning by example, particularly in image recognition.

Data is not material, it is transmitted through a material.

Data are the raw material of observation or measurement, i.e. the observable aspects/properties of stuff. We can talk in the abstract about data being the carrier of information, but instances of both data and information are material.

If data is objective then whether or not it is interpreted bares no meaning on it being data.

Not quite sure what you mean here, but data instances only have meaning to suitable interpreters, which can generate information from them; but it's still data, whether interpreted or not. For example, the marks on the pages of a book in a language you don't understand are data - the gross material format has meaning, information about pages, words, letters; but the fine details of letter shape and ordering, and word spacing, are meaningless data.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... Continued...

Computers are just useful intermediaries which information, or data, pass through until they are observed by an observer.

You're thinking of wire. Computers interpret data, process information. But obviously they do so for human consumption, that's why we make them - they're tools that produce rewarding stimuli.

You say that "natural processes are not goal oriented" because you know goals don't come from naturalistic biology, which consequently is entirely responsible for your deterministic state which contains your thought that you have goals.

That was a little clumsy - I was thinking of non-living processes. The issue is that when we start talking about living things, we start talking about goal-oriented behaviour, and there is no clear boundary for when it ceases being the intentional stance (anthropomorphism) and becomes 'truly' goal-oriented. This is because there is no line; we blend our descriptions smoothly from the anthropomorphic intentional stance, e.g. "a virus invades its host in order to replicate", through to 'true' goal orientation in more sophisticated creatures capable of modelling future situations, deferring gratification, etc. Somewhere along the continuum is a creature with a simpler brain, whose actions can be interpreted either way - does it really 'form an intent', or is this just a convenient way of describing a level of indirection or abstraction in the processing that leads to the actions it finds rewarding?

So if the natural processes that made you contains no goals, how is it that you have goals? If the natural process that made you has no goals why think you are capable of knowing much truth?

See above. I think it's fundamentally just semantics - evolution has programmed or biased us to seek stimulation of our reward system, whose triggers can be extended through learning by association, e.g. by social and cultural cues. It has provided us with the cognitive capability to rank those triggers by reward value (as - rather crudely- expressed by Frankfurt's first and second order desires or volitions), and plan ways to activate those triggers.

However, as has been demonstrated by Libet and others, our conscious ability to report the onset of a volitional process is post-hoc - the measurable volitional activity precedes our conscious awareness of it by 300ms or more. Unconscious processes initiate the activity of which we become aware and for which we claim conscious agency. Consciousness claims credit and agency for actions that go well, but tends to deny responsibility for those that don't.

Good, you agree that you are not actually deciding anything. IE no rationality is happening despite conjoining the word "deciding" with information. You say "When I make a decision, I want it to be determined by my past experience, my personal preferences and goals, and any other relevant information I have access to..." But "past experience" and "information" are all unjustified, they simply are the causal effects of your behavior. They are information without a truth value which means they are not information but deterministic forces. IE 0 rationality, 0 reason for even yourself to believe that determinism is true. Well really you don't even have beliefs as those are intentional states which you don't actually have.

Again, it's a question of semantics - when I make a 'decision', the information concerning the alternatives is processed and evaluated against the learned ranking of rewards associated with my 'goals' (means of obtaining reward), and the option that evaluates highest at that time is likely to be selected - i.e. the processing must be done to produce the determined outcome, and this processing is called making a choice or decision - subjectively it's a volitional process, and although objectively it's deterministic, it's too complex, has too many unknowns, and owes too much to unconscious processes, for us to experience it as such (except under carefully arranged conditions). So it's understandable that people call it the way it feels; but, as Strawson argues, determinism or no, the popular concept of free will is, in any case, incoherent (hence Bashevis' witticism).

I never said you had to be certain to know something, only that you need a justification (general definition) which you don't have on determinism. I do not understand why this strawman gets thrown around so much on these forums. On determinism everything is an axiom, that is the problem with it! That and that every axiom you experience is more likely to be false than true because of the goalless system that constructed you.

I don't follow that at all.

You say that if under dualism we never cease to be conscious then we would expect some reportable consciousness during every general anaesthetic or deep coma; but this isn't the case (despite a few debatable claims). Do you remember what you dreamed last night? I don't. In fact I might get 1-2 dreams a year that I remember.

As it happens, I do remember some of what I dreamed last night, and most people remember that they have dreams, even if they don't always remember the content; and you admit to remembering at least some dreams. The point stands.

So a person is defined as a thing that either now has a mind or had a mind and will likely have one again? is that correct?

Not a 'thing', a human, and for considerations of euthanasia or abortion. I don't think it has one single definition, it's contextual.

Going back to the law of identity. If a brain state is objective, and a brain state is the same thing as a mind then minds are objective. If persons are the same things as minds then persons are objective. If a brain state is objectively expansive, and another brain state is objectively diminished, then minds are objectively diminished or expansive. If minds are objectively diminished or expansive then persons are objectively diminished or expansive.
So the mentally deficient, where it pertains to a certain kind of brain state is less of a person. Additionally persons are not persistent but go into states of dormancy where they are less of a person, but retain the title only due to their potential to become one again.

This is only true if you feel that personhood is in proportion to capacity or capability of mind. I haven't said this, and it's not how I see it. You either are, or are not, a person, just as you either are or are not a parent; having fewer children than someone doesn't make you less of a parent.

As I already described, I view an individual with diminished mental capacity as a person with diminished mental capacity. I don't think a person with diminished capabilities should be considered less of a person. Your opinion may be different.

Determinism is not defined by predictability. The ability to predict something has no causal power on that event happening. A prediction is simply the ability to know what will happen.

I wasn't defining determinism, just contrasting the objectivity of Laplace's demon with subjective experience.

What you do is defined by your prior contingent conditions. You may think you are deciding, but you are not in fact deciding nothing. There is no definition of decide under determinism except paradoxically as an illusion.

I wouldn't argue with the point, but as I said earlier, we call it a decision when we think we're deciding, just as we call it exercising free will when we think we're making an unconstrained and uncoerced decision.

A conjuror's trick may be a useful analogy - when he asks you to make some kind of choice or selection, and unknown to you, he 'forces' the selection you make, the power of the illusion depends on your belief that you made a choice, and he couldn't have known what you decided to chose - but in fact the choice was illusory. If you don't discover how the illusion was done, you may continue to believe you had a choice, and so fail to understand what really happened.

I'll clarify, why would the behavior of the natural ingredients that make up your body result in a behavior that is able to identify truths about the world?

Because if those behaviours did not have sufficient correspondence with states of affairs in the world that they enabled us (as a species) to survive to reproduce, we would have gone extinct. Evolution has given us, and other extant species, this sufficiency.

Try and verbally identity a part or section in the body where everything that is true of my mind is also true of that part or section.

Not sure what you're asking - your mind is part of the activity of your brain, but your subjective experience of being that activity is not the same as observing that activity; but there will be a correspondence between what is true of your experience and what is true of the activity in your brain.

You say your belief is right because it works - you have been alive for a long time.

I didn't say that; I said, "All that is necessary is that it works" - that is, determinism can account for all our macro-scale observations; it is not necessary to invoke any significant amount of randomness (e.g. 'true' randomness, such as quantum randomness, not the pseudo-randomness of chaos).

Why do you have this belief? What has happened in your life that has lead you to such an absurdly demeaning view point of yourself and everyone else? I don't want you to respond about being stardust or anything like that, I want you to open up. How do you get to such a point as this?

I find the objective evidence in favour, and the lack of objective evidence against, quite compelling. Why do you think it's a demeaning viewpoint? As I see it, it's inevitably value-neutral.

 

[Sanoy]

I wasn't telling you that.

I'm saying that because it is programed by outside system it's expansions can't be viewed as non contingent. It's initial program supervenes on everything.

"Neuromorphic systems don't work that way - they're designed/programmed to behave as learning networks" This just is a description of contingency. What is learned is causally determined by the programming. If the program were other, the learned sets would be other.

Knowing what stimulis is is not necessary to an operational behavior. The content of ones behavior can be a multitude of false beliefs and still retain operational behavior.

Rationality is not a deterministic process, it is the corresponding relationship between an intentional state and an epistemological process. Epistemological processes do not act upon things, they are abstract. AI is not an example that we are determined. If A or B, then C. C. Therefore A is fallacious. You have to use a human if you want to make a logical statement that can approach my world view. I'm dropping the AI discussion until you can provide a logical statement that C equals A, given C would exist on A or B.

Okay I see your point about begging the question in regards to where the programmers of AI derive their abstract thought and metacognition. But thinking...is an intentional state so it's by definition it does not occur on determinism. So now that I have given a reason for the statement, it is not begging the question. However AI is suspended until you can fix the logical problem of it being an example.

Okay "data is the raw material of observation" is just a phrase, not indication that data is a material. You can also mine data, but you don't need a pick axe. These are just phrases... When the big bang happened it did not send out data okay. Data is something that beings with intentional state acquire within their own cognition, through observation or through apprehending.

When something is objectively true, it is true whether anyone believes it is true or not. So it does not require interpretation to be data. This is true even by statements. "we have not interpreted the data". That is to say it is real, it's not materially real, but real in the sense of objective truth.

When I think of a computer I am thinking of a wire. A transistor is just wire with a coil which also has a wire. The whole computer is just a bunch of wires and coils (essentially...even though components have progressed). It's not a mystery machine that thinks. It doesn't discover information, it just facilitates it's observation for beings with intentional states. Computers don't interpret data, they facilitate the observation of data. You are being led astray about the words you use to think about things, and the words we use in common language. They are convenient in language, but that is not what computer do.

Fair enough on the use of processes. A computers process, it's goal, is externally defined either wholly, or through supervening programming. Natural and biological processes don't have goals. So where do goals come from? How do the goalless ingredients that make up our body come to have intentional states? It doesn't matter how blurry the line is, it is a whopping elephant in the room that goals exists on naturalistic determinism.

Evolution does not program us. Semantics do matter, because they are messing up everything you say, on data, on evolution, on processes, on your ability to decide things. Lack of detail to semantic language can only lead to false beliefs. The evolutionary mechanisms would cause us to learn behavior that results in utility, and those behaviors would be ranked, but the content of those behaviors are statistically more likely to be non truthful rather than actual truths about the world. So on determinism it is very unlikely that your belief that you are determined would contain the correct content.

Every question should be a question of semantics - every time. You don't make decisions on determinism. Pick another word. You don't have goals, pick another word. Don't borrow words from my world view. Don't try and fit your determinism into the qualities of my world view because you have no right to even the hint of those qualities on your world view. When you process and evaluate what happens is that the ingredients in your body react within a system and that concludes with a final effect which you state is a belief which is in your case is merely a state of orientation. That is all that happens in your deterministic mind. No justification. Your expressed beliefs are no more meaningful than a tree growing a branch. If you really want to feel the effects of determinism, and see where you really are in the world semantically commit for 1 month to speak and operate according to your deterministic condition. Try acting out determinism truthfully for 1 month, not just in your privacy but with your friends, family, and coworkers. Let me know if my statement has caused you to operate this way.

On determinism everything is an axiom, IE a self evident truth. The reason being is that there is no rationality involved. Every state of orientation is causally determined including the orientation that something is true.

Good point on inserting human in the definition of person rather than thing as that might make a dog a person. I agree the definition varies, though I think it is deconstructed to allow for the goal. That is why it appears subjective. We add disqualifying language to allow us to legally do the things we do, like abortion, and this is why it has the appearance of being subjective. But persons objectively exist and so there is a valid description, just not one our culture can abide by which is why it is left ambiguous.

That you remembered your dream last night doesn't retain your point, at all.... It is a fact that people continue to have a conscious experience when they dream and that experience may or may not be remembered the next day. That is also the case for whether or not they think they had a dream. I neither have dreams, or the indication that I had one. I assume I do because I'm still alive. So your point is refuted. Conscious experience can occur with no memory of that conscious experience.

Ok, so you don't believe a person is a mind, but includes a mind. So what are the things that a person has in addition to a mind. I don't mean external things like rights and property, but internal things that made up the difference between a person and a mind. Keep in mind that you believe there is a 1:1 correlation between the mind and some set in the brain. So if person does not have a 1:1 correlation with the mind what are the things a person has intrinsically that the mind doesn't.

Okay so your justification that the natural ingredients that make up your body result in the identification of truth in the world is that you exist. However this is paradoxical, as the contents of those beliefs are more probably wrong than right. If there is just 1 other logical possible content that can form the same operation belief that is 1 in 2 probability that you are right. But since you laid down a system of justification on determinism lets see if it works. If the contents of your belief are true they will result in utility. So I present the same challenge as earlier. Semantically commit for 1 month to speak and operate according to your deterministic condition. If your life improves then it must be true, if it gets worse then it must be false according to your system of justification. I would like to also point out that your system of justification is self refuting in that the belief in the afterlife as been the foundation of stable civilization for thousands of years. Fully actualized determinsm has yet to be seen as a coherent and stable foundation for civilization. And if there is any life left in your system of justification let me make two final points. 1.Your system of justification either appeals to an external system of epistemology, or it's circular. 2. You are simply determined to believe this is a justification.

If my subjective experience is not the same as the activity in the brain then they are not the same. Correspondence does not mean identical. It simply means correlation. Good so now you see the problem with materialism. If materialism were true you would have been able to complete that law of identity.

You just claimed that the correlation between survival and beliefs is an indication that your beliefs are true. In reference to the identification of truth you said. "Because if those behaviours did not have sufficient correspondence with states of affairs in the world that they enabled us (as a species) to survive to reproduce, we would have gone extinct"

I think it's demeaning because you lose rationality, and intentionality, statements of love become meaningless. Evidence doesn't even exist on determinism. Evidence is a qualifying set, yet in your situation evidence is merely a causal property of orientation. You don't even truly live out the world view you claim to find so compelling. Nor can you even coherently justify it. I don't think that is how you came to this point, but I also don't know the real reason.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm saying that because it is programed by outside system it's expansions can't be viewed as non contingent. It's initial program supervenes on everything.

Neuromorphic systems aren't necessarily programmed; you can program a conventional processor system to simulate a network, or you can assemble a network of neural nodes (the silicon equivalent of neurons). But, of course, whichever way you do it, the initial structure or programming determines how the system will learn - but it's the input data that will determine what it will learn, and how it will behave in consequence; in that respect, the programming or structuring is an enabler for an emergent level of behaviour, much as the static cellular automaton of Conway's Game of Life enables an emergent behavioural level of dynamic interacting patterns.

What is learned is causally determined by the programming. If the program were other, the learned sets would be other.

As above, how it learns is determined by the programming or structure; what is learned is determined by the input data.

Knowing what stimulis is is not necessary to an operational behavior. The content of ones behavior can be a multitude of false beliefs and still retain operational behavior.

Sure, as so many humans demonstrate.

But thinking...is an intentional state so it's by definition it does not occur on determinism.

No. Intentional states are representational, and representation requires some causal connection, therefore determinism. You can't represent something with a random arrangement (unless it's another random arrangement!)

Okay "data is the raw material of observation" is just a phrase, not indication that data is a material.You can also mine data, but you don't need a pick axe. These are just phrases...

I meant it literally; you can only observe or measure the material (i.e. the physical).

When the big bang happened it did not send out data okay.

Of course it did - the whole universe is data from the big bang. We wouldn't know the big bang had even happened if we hadn't interpreted the data it produced, and we now know quite a lot about it.

Data is something that beings with intentional state acquire within their own cognition, through observation or through apprehending.

Data are the observable or measurable properties of material that can be interpreted to provide information about the material. That information can be processed by any system with that capability (presumably via intentional states).

When something is objectively true, it is true whether anyone believes it is true or not. So it does not require interpretation to be data.

Not sure what your point is here. Data requires interpretation to be information.

This is true even by statements. "we have not interpreted the data". That is to say it is real, it's not materially real, but real in the sense of objective truth.

I have no idea what you're getting at; yes, statements can be objectively true - and? I don't know what you're referring to as 'real' here.

When I think of a computer I am thinking of a wire. A transistor is just wire with a coil which also has a wire. The whole computer is just a bunch of wires and coils (essentially...even though components have progressed). It's not a mystery machine that thinks.[/quote]Transistors don't have coils these days. Probably better to call them 'switches'. Whether computers think depends how you define 'think'. What are the criteria?

It was popularly thought that playing high-level chess required the kind of thinking only humans could do - until Deep Blue beat Gary Kasparov; it was widely thought that language translation, dictation, and facial recognition required the kind of thinking only humans could do - until learning systems achieved human levels of performance; it was thought the quiz game 'Jeopardy' required the kind of thinking only humans can do - until Watson beat the world's best players; Go and Texas Hold 'em Poker were thought to require the kind of thinking only humans could do until... and so-on.

Every time an artificial system equals or out-performs humans at something that was thought to require human thinking, it turns out that's not really thinking after all... One wonders at what point AIs will be acknowledged to think before we run out of things that are called 'thinking'

Your brain is a collection of networks of complex biological switches (neurons) wired together - it's the inspiration for modern AI neural networks. The brain has vastly more switches and interconnections, and the switches and connections are more dynamic than in artificial networks, but the underlying principles are the same.

Computers don't interpret data, they facilitate the observation of data. You are being led astray about the words you use to think about things, and the words we use in common language. They are convenient in language, but that is not what computer do.

I think it's you that is led astray by the language. To make data intelligible, it must be converted into information. For example, your mobile phone scans streams of radio and wifi data for formats it recognises, then interprets the signal data into information, for presentation as text messages, or phone calls, or for consumption by other phone apps. If your phone simply presented the radio data for observation (e.g. by converting it into a visualisation or an auditory signal), it would just be high-frequency noise or 'snow'. You'd need an oscilloscope to get any information out of the phone's data stream, and that would probably only tell you the kind of signal involved.

Natural and biological processes don't have goals. So where do goals come from?

They're a product of evolution. Natural selection selects for creatures that have behavioural traits that facilitate the production of healthy offspring. These behavioural traits involve 'drives' that define implicit goals - find food and drink, find a mate, reproduce, avoid predators, etc. Sophisticated social creatures can learn goals, relating to group success. The most sophisticated (e.g. humans) can draw up their own goals based on culturally-based (group) goals and their implicit goals; e.g. to become a millionaire (gain wealth and status). They're all ultimately derived from evolutionary drives.

Evolution does not program us.

It does, in as much as it determines our fundamental behavioural traits.

Every question should be a question of semantics - every time. You don't make decisions on determinism. Pick another word. You don't have goals, pick another word. Don't borrow words from my world view. Don't try and fit your determinism into the qualities of my world view because you have no right to even the hint of those qualities on your world view. When you process and evaluate what happens is that the ingredients in your body react within a system and that concludes with a final effect which you state is a belief which is in your case is merely a state of orientation. That is all that happens in your deterministic mind. No justification. Your expressed beliefs are no more meaningful than a tree growing a branch. If you really want to feel the effects of determinism, and see where you really are in the world semantically commit for 1 month to speak and operate according to your deterministic condition. Try acting out determinism truthfully for 1 month, not just in your privacy but with your friends, family, and coworkers. Let me know if my statement has caused you to operate this way.

The macro world, and everyone in it, is essentially deterministic; we use the language we do because it describes how we feel about how we experience the world. We do the things we do because we're the sort of people we are, and the sort of people we are is determined by the interaction of our genetic inheritance and our life experiences. We have emotions, dreams, and aspirations, but they have causal origins.

It seems to me the significant difference in a society that acknowledged their determinism would be the absence of punitive retribution for transgression and a greater empathy towards transgressors. The result might be a justice and penal system similar to that in Norway, aiming at restitution and rehabilitation rather than punishment and retribution.

Conscious experience can occur with no memory of that conscious experience.

That's true; but the general lack of reports of ongoing consciousness during deep coma or general anaesthetic, together with the absence of the neurological correlates of consciousness (which are seen during dream sleep), makes the temporary absence of consciousness the most plausible hypothesis. There is nothing to support the counter-claim.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Ok, so you don't believe a person is a mind, but includes a mind. So what are the things that a person has in addition to a mind. I don't mean external things like rights and property, but internal things that made up the difference between a person and a mind. Keep in mind that you believe there is a 1:1 correlation between the mind and some set in the brain. So if person does not have a 1:1 correlation with the mind what are the things a person has intrinsically that the mind doesn't.

I think the wiki entry is a decent summary.

... so your justification that the natural ingredients that make up your body result in the identification of truth in the world is that you exist. However this is paradoxical, as the contents of those beliefs are more probably wrong than right.

It doesn't matter if our models of the world are incorrect, as long as our actions have sufficient correspondence with states in the world that we can survive to reproduce; this implies our models must have good enough correspondence with the world. Evolution results in 'good enough' solutions to survival - for the survivors.

The history of knowledge tells us that our models of the world have always been incorrect - we've constantly replaced or refined them; but they've always been good enough that we survived. The apparently solid matter around us is 99.9% empty space, but it doesn't matter that we think of it as solid - that reflects our everyday experience, and it works, for everyday purposes.

If there is just 1 other logical possible content that can form the same operation belief that is 1 in 2 probability that you are right. But since you laid down a system of justification on determinism lets see if it works. If the contents of your belief are true they will result in utility. So I present the same challenge as earlier. Semantically commit for 1 month to speak and operate according to your deterministic condition. If your life improves then it must be true, if it gets worse then it must be false according to your system of justification.

This is another map vs terrain non-sequitur. If my belief about how the world works is true, then it's clear that the contents of my belief have utility (i.e. the world is deterministic, and it 'works'). This doesn't mean that continually expressing the determinism of my actions is going to have utility - even in a society of people who acknowledged that determinism, it would be annoying. People express themselves in language they feel best describes their experience, but social interaction has guidelines - if everyone said exactly what they thought, the world would be very different.

I would like to also point out that your system of justification is self refuting in that the belief in the afterlife as been the foundation of stable civilization for thousands of years. Fully actualized determinsm has yet to be seen as a coherent and stable foundation for civilization.

This is the same error as above. That determinism alone can explain our observations doesn't mean that belief in determinism is a requirement for a successful civilization. Humans are inclined towards superstitious beliefs, and if they aren't destabilizing, then it's no surprise that stable civilizations have had them - thousands of different kinds of them.

and if there is any life left in your system of justification let me make two final points. 1.Your system of justification either appeals to an external system of epistemology, or it's circular. 2. You are simply determined to believe this is a justification.

Frankly, I'm not that concerned with a 'system of justification'; I've just been describing what I think and why I think it - i.e. what I think is the most plausible explanation for the evidence I have seen, and why.

If my subjective experience is not the same as the activity in the brain then they are not the same. Correspondence does not mean identical. It simply means correlation.

They're different views of the same thing, rather as a hollow sphere looks different from the inside than it does from the outside.

You just claimed that the correlation between survival and beliefs is an indication that your beliefs are true. In reference to the identification of truth you said. "Because if those behaviours did not have sufficient correspondence with states of affairs in the world that they enabled us (as a species) to survive to reproduce, we would have gone extinct"

I didn't say anything about beliefs - the models we have of the world, on which we base our actions, must sufficiently represent the relevant aspects of the world that our actions have utility. You could call those models beliefs, but all but the simplest creatures model the world to some degree, so it seems odd to talk of beliefs.

I think it's demeaning because you lose rationality, and intentionality, statements of love become meaningless.

Not at all; our subjective experience doesn't change because the world is deterministic; it's just that the things we call rationality, intentionality, and love are not quite what you thought they were.

We've discovered that the solid matter around us really isn't solid the way we thought it was, but it makes no difference to our everyday experience. And meaning is still the personal associations that information has, i.e. the memories and sensations it engenders.

Evidence doesn't even exist on determinism. Evidence is a qualifying set, yet in your situation evidence is merely a causal property of orientation. You don't even truly live out the world view you claim to find so compelling. Nor can you even coherently justify it. I don't think that is how you came to this point, but I also don't know the real reason.

Well, as I said, I live life the way I've learned through subjective experience and cultural education; I think what I do is determined, but it makes little difference - I don't know what's going to happen next - I still feel the need to do whatever I think is the right thing, and I'm still conflicted by the multiple goals that drive me - e.g. should I eat the proffered doughnut? would it be rude to refuse? I really like doughnuts; I'm hungry; it's unhealthy and empty calories; it's just a treat; what with the others think if I take it? I'm trying to stop the doughnut habit... etc., and I know there's a mechanism that usually cuts in after a certain (variable) time and promotes whichever idea was under consideration at that moment, but I don't have conscious access to such internals.

I may consider myself rational, but I still occasionally get 'spooked' at night after watching a horror film alone in the house - I know it's just that the brain networks associated with anxiety have become over-aroused, making me hypervigilant; but stress hormones have been released which continue to act regardless of my rationalization, continuing to make me feel jumpy. Such is life.

 

[Sanoy]

Neuromorphic systems aren't necessarily programmed; you can program a conventional processor system to simulate a network, or you can assemble a network of neural nodes (the silicon equivalent of neurons). But, of course, whichever way you do it, the initial structure or programming determines how the system will learn - but it's the input data that will determine what it will learn, and how it will behave in consequence; in that respect, the programming or structuring is an enabler for an emergent level of behaviour, much as the static cellular automaton of Conway's Game of Life enables an emergent behavioural level of dynamic interacting patterns.

A program just is a descriptive form of the causal condition that results in computation. That can be instantiated via the program externally or the conditional state externally. Higher level processes can emerge from the combination of internal systems and external interaction but it is the internal system that is the supervening system. The differences in higher level processing are acquired from their intrinsic systems not the external input which is identical between two systems. The very system itself supervenes upon the data flow.

Intentionality is aboutness. There is no 'aboutness' under determinism only causal orientation.

Data is apprehended. It is not observed by the empirical senses because it is conceptual. Data can exist conceptually apart from the big bang ever banging. Namely the catalogue of universes being 0. Data is independent of matter and simply refers to objective truth. Data just is information by definition.

Real being used in abstract objects to refer to occurring in fact.

There is no computer out there that can beat a chess player on it's own. Their 'thinking' is merely a reflection of a person or a team of person's refined thoughts.

Computers can't interpret data because they don't apprehend anything.

Just saying 'evolution' doesn't explain how matter without consciousness can result in matter with with intentional states like goals. Evolution merely explains it's refinement not it's ontological origin.

Evolution simply orients our behavior. The statement 'Evolution Programs us' is not an appropriate description.

You use the prison system of Norway to show how determinism might be beneficial but the article you cite attributes it's success to the concept of rehabilitation which assumes they are not determined criminals and are provided knives and bar-less windows. Under determinism we should more likely see repeat offenders executed rather than rehabilitated.

The lack of reports of consciousness is no indication of a loss of consciousness given that we can have consciousness without a corresponding memory of it. There are no scientifically 'accepted' reports of conscious experience during ostensible unconsciousness because that conclusion is not the purview of scientific investigation.

Which parts of the wiki article on personhood correlates with your state of orientation on personhood?

No under naturalistic evolutionary determinism, the models, or 'belief content' don't correlate with states of the world, they correlate with survival alone. That is all that they correlate to, not truth about the world. So there is no justification at all for your world view. That you are alive simply means the content of your belief correlates with survival, not that it's true. It is infact more likely not true.

The improbability of the content of your belief being true is not a map terrain issue. It is a justification and paradox issue. The only thing non sequitur is this statement. "If my belief about how the world works is true, then it's clear that the contents of my belief have utility" False beliefs can have more utility than true beliefs, for example if nihilism were true, it's denial would have more utility than it's belief. The error here is thinking that a true belief correlates with utility. It may or it may not.

The reason I bring up the belief of determinism and utility is because I keep asking you for justification for your belief and you keep telling me because it correlates with survival which is not a justification. So can you give me any logical or coherent justification for your state of orientation that determinism is true? So the reply should be 'Determinism is true because X'.

You say you are not concerned with a system of justification, and yet claim to to think one thing is plausible over another. I am asking you why you find determinism plausible.

If mind and brain are the same you could complete the law of identity. Since you cannot they are, according to logic, not the same thing. If you want to make the statement they are the same, then complete the law of identity.

As far as I can tell everything you say is under naturalistic duress. So here are a couple of quick questions to answer so that I can figure out what I should do with your previous statements.
Do you have any epistemological justification for the claim that we are determined.
Do you have any epistemological justification that dualism is false.
Do you have any epistemological justification that the experience of aliens is a hallucination or identification.
Do you have any epistemological justification that Elisha's experience of angels are an hallucination.
Additionally please identify and describe that system of epistemological justification.

Also will you meet the challenge I gave you to act like you are determined for a month?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A program just is a descriptive form of the causal condition that results in computation. That can be instantiated via the program externally or the conditional state externally. Higher level processes can emerge from the combination of internal systems and external interaction but it is the internal system that is the supervening system. The differences in higher level processing are acquired from their intrinsic systems not the external input which is identical between two systems. The very system itself supervenes upon the data flow.

Don't know what your point is here - is the system deterministic? - Yes. Are there emergent patterns of activity determined by the specific inputs? Yes.

Intentionality is aboutness. There is no 'aboutness' under determinism only causal orientation.

Information is the aboutness of data. i.e. data in some context. Information has meaning, and meaning is the associations information has in some system. No problem with determinism there - in fact, the introduction of significant randomness vitiates meaning, making it unreliable or uncertain.

Data is apprehended. It is not observed by the empirical senses because it is conceptual.

The concept of data is, obviously, conceptual. Actual data (i.e. instances of data) are physical.

Data can exist conceptually apart from the big bang ever banging. Namely the catalogue of universes being 0. Data is independent of matter and simply refers to objective truth.

The concept of data is abstract, and can be considered to refer to objective truth because data instances are material properties, and so necessarily have/are real-world correspondences - but that truth is meaningless/unknown until the data are interpreted, and faulty interpretation will give you false information, which doesn't represent objective truth. For example, the light from Venus is data about the planet Venus, and can be considered to be aspects of the objective truth about Venus in that context. However, if it is interpreted as a nearby UFO (as has often happened), that is false information and doesn't represent objective truth about Venus (although it does represent objective truth about that interpretation of the light from Venus).

Data just is information by definition.

There are various definitions, according to context. I'm using what wikipedia refers to as a 'common view':

"According to a common view, data is collected and analyzed; data only becomes information suitable for making decisions once it has been analyzed in some fashion.
...
Data is often assumed to be the least abstract concept, information the next least, and knowledge the most abstract. In this view, data becomes information by interpretation..."​

Real being used in abstract objects to refer to occurring in fact.

Abstract objects don't occur in fact; only concrete objects occur in fact. Abstract objects are, in this respect, generalizations of concrete objects. We may commonly refer to objects in the abstract, e.g. 'my car' or 'your vehicle', but these are generic descriptors or placeholders for concrete (particular) instances.

There is no computer out there that can beat a chess player on it's own. Their 'thinking' is merely a reflection of a person or a team of person's refined thoughts.

A learning chess or Go computer can start with only the rules and definition of a win, and learn to play better than any human. Such systems are being generalised to learn to play any board game, given the rules and a win definition. They learn from example, from playing the game and evaluating the outcomes. This 'tabula-rasa' characteristic is what is notable about the ANNABELLE language learning system.

Computers can't interpret data because they don't apprehend anything.

A question of semantics. By interpret, I mean 'to translate for a given context', i.e. turning data into context-specific information. You could call identifying the data and matching it with the appropriate context 'apprehension' or 'understanding', but this can be done even by trivially simple mechanisms, so I don't think it's appropriate usage. For example, a pressure gauge interprets the force exerted on its sensor in terms of a pressure measurement; a thermometer interprets the influence of environmental heat on a bimetallic strip in terms of a temperature measurement. The 'apprehension' in these devices is implicit in their construction; but you may feel that's not an appropriate usage. It becomes more ambiguous with complex devices like your mobile phone - does it 'apprehend' the difference between a phone call and a text message in the radio data stream? When you get to learning systems that have learned to distinguish the appropriate contexts for the interpretation of input data without being explicitly structured, or instructed how, to do so, we can say they have learned the difference - does that mean they 'know' or 'apprehend' the difference?

Can other animals apprehend? if so, below what level of animal complexity does 'apprehension' cease to be applicable, and why?

As I said in my first post, using ill-defined conceptual abstractions commonly associated with human activities can lead to begging the question as to whether artificial systems can satisfy those concepts - you may end up denying it because the usage you have in mind is one only associated with humans.

Just saying 'evolution' doesn't explain how matter without consciousness can result in matter with intentional states like goals.

Goals aren't 'intentional states' - as I said previously, intentional states are about representation, not intent:

"Intentional states represent objects and states of affairs in exactly the same sense that speech acts represent objects and states of affairs." - John Searle.​

"If I think about a piano, something in my thought picks out a piano. If I talk about cigars, something in my speech refers to cigars. This feature of thoughts and words, whereby they pick out, refer to, or are about things, is intentionality. In a word, intentionality is aboutness.

Many mental states exhibit intentionality. If I believe that the weather is rainy today, this belief of mine is about today’s weather—that it is rainy. Desires are similarly directed at, or about things: if I desire a mosquito to buzz off, my desire is directed at the mosquito, and the possibility that it depart. Imaginings seem to be directed at particular imaginary scenarios, while regrets are directed at events or objects in the past, as are memories. And perceptions seem to be, similarly, directed at or about the objects we perceptually encounter in our environment. We call mental states that are directed at things in this way ‘intentional states’. - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
​

Evolution merely explains it's refinement not it's ontological origin.

I gave a brief systems-level explanation of goal-oriented behaviour - you can find more at these links:
Principles of goal-directed decision making
The why, what, where, when and how of goal-directed choice: neuronal and computational principles

Evolution simply orients our behavior. The statement 'Evolution Programs us' is not an appropriate description.

It's a figure of speech; the fundamental drivers of our behaviour and the means to elaborate them are the products of evolution. One can equally say that evolution programs our physical development. Both physical and mental development require appropriate environmental stimuli.

You use the prison system of Norway to show how determinism might be beneficial but the article you cite attributes it's success to the concept of rehabilitation which assumes they are not determined criminals and are provided knives and bar-less windows. Under determinism we should more likely see repeat offenders executed rather than rehabilitated.

You misunderstand the implications of determinism - the majority of offenders offend because they have 'the wrong ideas' - their learned behaviour is anti-social. The idea of rehabilitation is to get them to learn a revised set of behaviours; to change their view of the world, to 'reprogram' their reward system. Like cognitive behaviour therapy, this involves re-training their unconscious as much as, if not more than, their rational awareness. No everyone can be rehabilitated, so there is still a need for incarceration, but conditions are not punitive, the philosophy is that everyone should have as decent a life as is feasible.

Which parts of the wiki article on personhood correlates with your state of orientation on personhood?

The whole thing; I acknowledge the variety of meanings and usages, the difficulties of applying inflexible definitions to edge cases, whether animal sentience has relevance, etc. I don't have answers to all those questions, but I can consider some particular situation and give my current opinion on it - as I have here, on abortion/euthanasia.

... can you give me any logical or coherent justification for your state of orientation that determinism is true? So the reply should be 'Determinism is true because X'

You say you are not concerned with a system of justification, and yet claim to to think one thing is plausible over another. I am asking you why you find determinism plausible.

OK. I think macro-scale determinism is the most plausible hypothesis I've encountered because the physics of the macro-scale is effectively deterministic; i.e. quantum randomness is not significantly apparent at everyday human scales. I accept quantum randomness (although there are interpretations that don't require it), but - judging from the predictability of the macro world, it isn't significant at macro scales.

The fundamental physics of everyday life is fully understood - we, and the world around us, are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons, whose behaviour in everyday regimes is well-understood. The only significant forces at human scales are gravity and electromagnetism, both of which are well-characterised. There are other known forces and particles, e.g. the strong and the weak nuclear force, neutrinos, muons, etc., and there are probably other unknown forces and particles, but they are all too weakly interacting and/or too short range to have significant influence at human scales.

This knowledge base is the result of literally billions of experiments over energies and scales from the sub-atomic to the cosmic, and our best physical theory of the world, quantum field theory - which is consistent with every experiment that has been done, and has predicted the results of many of them with unmatched precision, e.g. within ten parts in a billion.

I see no plausible alternative description of the world that has the anything like the testability, fruitfulness, explanatory scope, or parsimony.

Do you have any epistemological justification for the claim that we are determined.

See above.

Do you have any epistemological justification that dualism is false.

Lack of plausible evidence; far better alternative hypothesis.

Do you have any epistemological justification that the experience of aliens is a hallucination or identification.

Huh? what experience of aliens?

Do you have any epistemological justification that Elisha's experience of angels are an hallucination.

My reasoning in that case, other than a pragmatic argument from physics, would be statistical - florid hallucinations of that type are known to occur, and are common in some mental conditions, and there have been no verifiable instances of real events of the type described.

Having said that, my preferred explanation for that story is that it is wholly fictional; but, as I said, I've had that argument, and I thought the hallucination hypothesis (which doesn't really fit the broader story context) would provide an opportunity for an exercise in abduction. Unfortunately, no-one took it up.

Also will you meet the challenge I gave you to act like you are determined for a month?

I've already addressed that. What we feel and what we know to be the case are often very different - I know I'm going to die, but I continue to live as if I don't; I know the world is deterministic, but I continue to live as if it isn't; I know the 'commentator's curse' is a baseless superstition, and I'm familiar with the multitude of cognitive biases, but they still influence my behaviour- it's a limitation of human thought; our rationalizations are behaviourally superficial.

 

[Sanoy]

Don't know what your point is here - is the

There is no point. I am just continuing the tangent you created on higher level systems. AI can't be used as an example for determinism so If you're not interested we don't have to continue it. This whole line on what data is is pointless too. This is one reason why I don't make line by line responses, to much pointless stuff gets locked in.

I'll just skip the pointless fluff if that's what you want.

A goal represents a state of affairs or an object. My goal is to eat 2 ghost peppers tomorrow. My goal is to be eating 2 ghost peppers by tomorrow.

I'm not going to read these links, just verbalize the content.

I agree that evolution programs us is a figure of speech, it's shop talk. But in these instance where every word matters, and we are already talking about programming, it's best to leave them out.

I don't think there is anyway to tie the success of Norways criminal system with determinism.

You say your state of orientation correlates with the entire wiki article on personhood. Which is confusing as the article includes Christianity, whereas your description says Atheist.

You went above and beyond to answer my question on why you find determinism plausible. I want to recognize that, not diminish it. But I am looking for justification under determinism. I, under dualism, can personally follow the logic here. If mind is matter then we are deterministic. Your logic is good except in reverse, if we are deterministic then it's more likely that the content of our 'beliefs' are wrong. Knowledge is justified true belief (+ with no false premises) so if determinism is true, how can you have a justified belief in that. You may think you are arguing your way forward, because of the way arguments flow, but your conclusion is one of your own ontology. That means it then becomes the first premise in the argument you presented. That is where it breaks down. The argument no longer works once it reaches it's conclusion. That is indicative of a faulty premise, which in this particular case can actually include the conclusion as it is the ontological foundation.

Regarding the list of questions I am asking for your epistemological justification under determinism. You are giving me logical reasons but that is incoherent on determinism. If you go back to answering them your justification will likely be the same and fi that is the case it's fine to just note that.

In regards to my challenge to act as if determinism were true you said "What we feel and what we know to be the case are often very different - I know I'm going to die, but I continue to live as if I don't;"
That is the point I was making. True belief doesn't always result in utility. So utility does correlate with true belief. Thus utility does not provide justification.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't think there is anyway to tie the success of Norways criminal system with determinism.

It's the kind of system that is likely to be adopted by a society that sees people's behaviour as determined by their circumstances rather than the common concept of free will.

You say your state of orientation correlates with the entire wiki article on personhood. Which is confusing as the article includes Christianity, whereas your description says Atheist.

I explained what I meant by that.

... if we are deterministic then it's more likely that the content of our 'beliefs' are wrong.

More likely than what, and why?

Knowledge is justified true belief (+ with no false premises) so if determinism is true, how can you have a justified belief in that.

If determinism is true, and I hold the opinion that it is probably true, then my opinion is correct. If determinism is false, and I hold the opinion that it is probably true, then my opinion is probably not correct (there's a possibility that the probability of determinism is high, but not realised in this universe).

I currently have the opinion I do because the evidence I have encountered (and I'm the sort of person that is inclined to encounter as much evidence on this topic as I reasonably can) appears to overwhelmingly support the qualified determinism I have described; equally, it doesn't fit with, and often contradicts, dualistic models I'm familiar with, and I see no evidential support for such a model.

When multiple independent lines of evidence point in the same direction, they tend to be compelling. Also, the abductive value of dualism seems extremely limited; it seems to lack testability, fruitfulness, explanatory scope, parsimony, and conservatism - unless you can show how that isn't the case...

OK; I think we're reached diminishing returns on this tack. You've expressed your views on what I've described of my opinion on determinism - perhaps you'd like to explain why you think dualism is the best description of the world. I'm particularly curious about the extent of application of your concept of dualism (e.g. is it mind-body only? does it apply to non-human creatures?), and how do you resolve the problem of interaction?

 

[Sanoy]

It's the kind of system that is likely to be adopted by a society that sees people's behaviour as determined by their circumstances rather than the common concept of free will.

In regards to Norway, it doesn't make any sense to say it is likely to be the thing adopted by determinism, because what Norway adopts will only be what they are determined to adopt. Is there some likelihood within the fundamental fields and forces that have the ultimate combining effect of rehabilitation practices? I also don't see how this couldn't be adopted under free will, which prevents it from being a distinguishing factor.

Ok well if the wiki article correlates with your belief on personhood then your belief includes the soul. So I guess I'll just drop the question and remain confused.

The reason why the content of any belief on determinism is probably wrong is because there is a multitude of logically possible belief contents that could result in utility. In regards to probable to what, that refers to what is logically possible. Which you could narrow but only by adding teleology.

Any diminishing returns are due to incoherence for your justification. Which continues. You list your justification as "If determinism is true, and I hold the opinion that it is probably true, then my opinion is correct."
That is not a justification that it is true. So far I can't see how to view your statements as any different than a tree growing a branch, or my pencil falling off the table.

You list evidence as your reason, but you are not operating from a rational inclusion of evidence, you are merely reacting based on the ingredients of your body and the outside world. You simply have the orientation that you analyzed evidence, not the actual ability to do so to any truth building effect..

Well you know I have a different view of dualism that I told you is more than mind body. I think other creatures have whatever life giving property that our spirit has, but beyond that I couldn't say. If you want to submit an incoherence in interaction I'll look at it, but not knowing precisely how is not a debilitating problem. I see nothing incoherent about a mind being an unmoved mover of the body. At the very least if the mind is simply information it has been shown that Maxwell's demon can increase potential energy.

You don't "believe" in dualism because of causal forces from the ingredients in your body and the external world. So when you present your objection to dualism, I am going to need a reason to consider that objection as a viable truth claim rather than simply the result of causal forces interacting in your body.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well you know I have a different view of dualism that I told you is more than mind body. I think other creatures have whatever life giving property that our spirit has, but beyond that I couldn't say. If you want to submit an incoherence in interaction I'll look at it, but not knowing precisely how is not a debilitating problem. I see nothing incoherent about a mind being an unmoved mover of the body.

Does this 'life giving property' mean that it will be impossible to make a living thing from non-living components without it? when Craig Venter removed the genome from a bacterial cell, placed a custom-made synthetic minimal genome into the bacterial shell, and so made a new species, did the spirit of the empty bacterial cell hang around long enough to give the new species life, did new spirit appear, or does the new species not count as life?

I was curious to hear your justification of dualism; presumably, it's not just that you think determinism is untenable - is there some justifiable substance to your belief? The spirit you describe seems so vague and lacking - just the odd nudge or intuition here and there; and that it loses it's memory when bodily consciousness is absent suggests a dependency on the body/brain rather than independence (and rather smacks of special pleading) - but it's exactly what one would expect of consciousness due to brain activity rather than 'spirit'.

 

[Sanoy]

Does this 'life giving property' mean that it will be impossible to make a living thing from non-living components without it? when Craig Venter removed the genome from a bacterial cell, placed a custom-made synthetic minimal genome into the bacterial shell, and so made a new species, did the spirit of the empty bacterial cell hang around long enough to give the new species life, did new spirit appear, or does the new species not count as life?

I was curious to hear your justification of dualism; presumably, it's not just that you think determinism is untenable - is there some justifiable substance to your belief? The spirit you describe seems so vague and lacking - just the odd nudge or intuition here and there; and that it loses it's memory when bodily consciousness is absent suggests a dependency on the body/brain rather than independence (and rather smacks of special pleading) - but it's exactly what one would expect of consciousness due to brain activity rather than 'spirit'.

I don't know how the life giving portion is applied. You can show it's false when you start from scratch.

I think deterministic materialism is self defeating, incoherent, and contrary to experience. I have internal justifications, but those are private. The spirit is vague and lacking for you who ignore it, but don't presume to speak for me. As far as the memory, you will have to speak on my view of dualism. Memory of spiritual things and memory of physical things are quite different, and of course they should be maintained by their proper sources.

It's good to see you have abandoned a defense of determinism. It would be incoherent if you tried to defend it after all. Only in abandoning it's defense have you have begun to be consistent with your world view.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't know how the life giving portion is applied. You can show it's false when you start from scratch.

That's what researchers are doing.

I have internal justifications, but those are private. The spirit is vague and lacking for you who ignore it, but don't presume to speak for me. As far as the memory, you will have to speak on my view of dualism. Memory of spiritual things and memory of physical things are quite different, and of course they should be maintained by their proper sources.

OK. Disappointing, but not unexpected.

 

[Sanoy]

That's what researchers are doing.


OK. Disappointing, but not unexpected.

Researchers have been trying to do in the lab what supposedly happened accidentally in the wild for a long time now. It is a fruitless effort, I would not put any faith in their efforts to find a natural origin to life. That hard and fast dead end will lead them to outer space, so get prepared for that.

Your disappoint is simply due to the structure of your brain and it's ingredients and not for any other reason. Dualism refers to an immaterial entity. You can't inspect your own ontology through empiricism, but you can comprehend it through logical thought. In contemplating ones ontology determinism can be ruled out, as we have seen here. In contemplating determinism one losses the ability to rationally contemplate and so it can be rejected. And because we can rationally contemplate it should be rejected. And because on determinism we can't form the knowledge that it's true. So if we are not material we are immaterial, a simple deduction. So you don't need to catch a soul in a cage to believe you have one, our ancestors believed it for thousands of years without any cages because it matches our experience.

On my world view, that includes the ability for rationality, I can give you a meaningful reply, but I'm failing to see how your replies have any grounds to be meaningful on your world view of determinism.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Researchers have been trying to do in the lab what supposedly happened accidentally in the wild for a long time now. It is a fruitless effort, I would not put any faith in their efforts to find a natural origin to life. That hard and fast dead end will lead them to outer space, so get prepared for that.

Your disappoint is simply due to the structure of your brain and it's ingredients and not for any other reason. Dualism refers to an immaterial entity. You can't inspect your own ontology through empiricism, but you can comprehend it through logical thought. In contemplating ones ontology determinism can be ruled out, as we have seen here. In contemplating determinism one losses the ability to rationally contemplate and so it can be rejected. And because we can rationally contemplate it should be rejected. And because on determinism we can't form the knowledge that it's true. So if we are not material we are immaterial, a simple deduction. So you don't need to catch a soul in a cage to believe you have one, our ancestors believed it for thousands of years without any cages because it matches our experience.

On my world view, that includes the ability for rationality, I can give you a meaningful reply, but I'm failing to see how your replies have any grounds to be meaningful on your world view of determinism.

OK. I think we've reached an impasse.