-->
@keithprosser
Like a video game.
What do you believe?
Posts
Total:
495
-->
@secularmerlin
Free will isn't a "feeling" it's an intellectual "seeming" that we have control over our decisions. So is there any difference between the way humans make decisions and the way robots or computers make decisions?
-->
@Fallaneze
So is there any difference between the way humans make decisions and the way robots or computers make decisions?
Without a better understanding of how humans make decisions I cannot make an informed evaluation. Was there a specific difference that you wished to point out (and can demonstrate)?
-->
@Fallaneze
Yes, they are differrent pathways, yet they are both technological procedures that stem, only from cause-and-effects of chemistry, atomic, sub-atomic, gravity ( ) and dark energy )(.Free will isn't a "feeling" it's an intellectual "seeming" that we have control over our decisions. So is there any difference between the way humans make decisions and the way robots or computers make decisions?
"feelings" are chemistry, that we then the attempt to identify and label, via our access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/mind.
1} spirit-1 { spirit-of-intent }, ergo metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts, ego and any concepts of Space, God, Feeliings, etc
...concepts of Space, not an actual Space, occupied or not..
...........line of demarctaion.............
2} spirit-2,occupied space fermions, bosons and any aggregate thereof,
3} spirit-3, occupied Space, ( ) Gravity { mass-attractive } ---contractive Pulling-IN integerative phenomena,
4} spirit-4, occupied Space of )( Dark Energy { repulsive } --- disintegrating phenomena.
-->
@secularmerlin
Without a better understanding of how humans make decisions I cannot make an informed evaluation.
And yet you have evaluated that humans do not actually make decisions, that decisions are made for us by external influences. I smell a contradiction.
-->
@TwoMan
I have not said that humans do not make (deterministic) decisions. My claim is not that you have no will just that there is no reason to consider this will free.
-->
@secularmerlin
My claim is not that you have no will just that there is no reason to consider this will free.
But you do realize that the word "free" is not mentioned in the definition of free will. The definition is "the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded." Do you dispute that the phenomenon described in the previous sentence actually happens?
-->
@TwoMan
Can you demonstrate the ability to choose differently than you actually do choose? What do you mean by unimpeded? Do your preferences not impede you from choosing against your preferences? Do laws and social standards not impede you from choosing in accordance with your preferences? I'm afraid until an unimpeded choice that did not have to be made can be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt I just have no reason to believe that the phenomenon as you define it is a part of our shared reality.
-->
@secularmerlin
Fair enough. It is probably never going to be a productive discussion with someone who does not believe that human agency exists.
Agency (sociology) : "the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices."
In your worldview, we are just biological machines programed by our preferences, environment, etc. with no ability to control our future. That is a very pessimistic outlook on human reality.
-->
@TwoMan
Depending on how you define human agency I wouldn't say I don't believe in it. There is a difference between a human walking down a hill and a rock rolling down a hill. That does not mean however that you could choose not to walk down the hill if that is what your circumstances dictate. My putlook is niether pessimistic nor optimistic. It is epistemologically honest.
-->
@secularmerlin
That reply was disingenuous to say the least. I give you the wikipedia definition of a term and you respond "depending on how you define human agency". You say you don't disbelieve it then go on to contradict yourself by stating that circumstances dictate actions, not agency. You appear to be trying to have your cake and eat it too.
-->
@secularmerlin
There is a difference between a human walking down a hill and a rock rolling down a hill.
Can we use that image for a moment?
What is the difference? Presumably we'd say the rock does not have free will, but the human does (if anything does).
A rock rolling down a hill needs no special explanation, but if it stopped, turned around and went back up the hill it would! If a person turned round and went back up the hill we'd look for the explantion within that person - 'Oh, he's forgotten something' or 'Oh, he's decided to go home instead'.
But if a rock changed direction we wouldn't look for the reason in terms of the rock's internal state - we'd look for causes external to the rock. So in normal usage 'free will' must have somthing to do with having internal states with causal power, ie it is not only external causes that have to be taken into account.
That is, I suggest, the difference SM refered to but did not identify.
-->
@TwoMan
Sorry read your definition again. At the very least we would have to remove the word free and ideally change the word choice to determinatio. So no I don't believe in that specific definition.
-->
@keithprosser
A rock rolling down a hill needs no special explanation
Since an object at rest tends to stay at rest any rick moving in any way would be expected to have some explanation.
Similarly any human is expected to have some (possibly internalized) explanation for their behavior. Is asking a being with freewill wht they did something sensible?
-->
@TwoMan
Actually I guess my agreement with the definition depends on the definition of one word within it. Freely. If by freely we can only mean "by means/ in possession of freewill then I disagree. If by freely you mean not restrained in any way that may change things. Does a person who is tied down have agency? Does a person whose child is being held hostage and doing What the kidnappers demand have agency? Does an insane person with no lucid grip on reality have agency? In all these examples why or why not?
-->
@secularmerlin
Since an object at rest tends to stay at rest any rick moving in any way would be expected to have some explanation.T
The explanation a rock goes down a hill is that matter tends to adopt configurations with lower energy.
If I go down the incline outside my front door its usually because I want to buy some milk from the shop there.
That is a commin place observation, and in common language we'd say the difference is that I have free will and the rock doesn't.
So rather than trying to define free will I think outs more productive to think about the two cases andbring out what it is that makes people say that people gave free will but rocks don't. Only a deliberately obstrucive individual wouldsay that rocks have free will but people don't!
I don't think its enough to say that free will is an illusion without trying to clear up what it is an illusion of!
-->
@TwoMan
In your worldview, we are just biological machines programed by our preferences, environment, etc. with no ability to control our future. That is a very pessimistic outlook on human reality.
Correct. Biological or non-biological stems from the exact same elements of Uni-V-erse. Biologicals do not some special kind element that all other aspects of Nature//Uni-V-erse //Cosmos does not have.
Access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts ergo access to absolute and relalive truths s a synergetic resultant, as is biologic life.
Does the truth set us free? No, the truth does not set us free from the inviolate, finite set of cosmic laws//principle.
All free will illusion stems only from cause-and-effects of chemistry, atomic, sub-atomic, gravity ( ) and dark energy )(.
"feelings" are chemistry, that we then the attempt to identify and label, via our access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/mind.
1} spirit-1 { spirit-of-intent }, ergo metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts, ego and any concepts of Space, God, Feeliings, etc
...concepts of Space, not an actual Space, occupied or not..
...concepts of Space, not an actual Space, occupied or not..
...........line of demarcation.............
2} spirit-2,occupied space fermions, bosons and any aggregate thereof,
3} spirit-3, occupied Space, ( ) Gravity { mass-attractive } ---contractive Pulling-IN integerative phenomena,
4} spirit-4, occupied Space of )( Dark Energy { repulsive } --- disintegrating phenomena.
-->
@keithprosser
Did you choose to want milk ? Did you choose for it to be available at the shop? Did you choose for the shop to be down the hill? Sounds like you and the rock are both reacting to your circumstances in accordance with your particular natures.
-->
@secularmerlin
If it was not me that desired milk, what is it that desired milk?
Rocks have no desires - I do. When i desire milk I can choose to satisfy that desire or to let it pass. A rock cannot choose to ignore the pull of gravity.
I am interested in the difference. Your approach seems a bit timid - it's as if you just want the 'problem of free will' to go away without having to think too much about things like the nature of self and its consequences for moral responsibility and so on.
It's all about 'What am I?'. I think that if free will is an illusion - which I think it probably is - then the self must also be an illusion. Is becoming an illusion a price I am willing to pay? Am I forced to accept I am an illusion, if so what does that actually mean? Can an illusion have an illusion of itself, or can an illusion be an illusion of itself? How does that work?
If free will is an illusion, who or what is the illusionist, and what is it an illusion of? 'Free will is an illusion' isn't an end point - it's a launch pad. but first off, what does 'free will is an illusion' mean? I repeat, who or what is the illusionist, and what is it an illusion of?
-->
@keithprosser
This does not address the question of whether you chose to desire milk.If it was not me that desired milk, what is it that desired milk?
When i desire milk I can choose to satisfy that desire or to let it pass.
Why would you not satisfy your desire for milk?
A rock cannot choose to ignore the pull of gravity
Neither can you.
I am interested in the difference. Your approach seems a bit timid - it's as if you just want the 'problem of free will' to go away without having to think too much about things like the nature of self and its consequences for moral responsibility and so on.
How does a lack of freewill illuminate consequences? How would it change the fact that ypu r fellow human beings will hold you morally responsible for your actions?
I think that if free will is an illusion - which I think it probably is - then the self must also be an illusion.
I'm not sure how the two are connected but the concept of self is as demonstrable as freewill. I can only ever experience my own anecdotal feeling of self.
Can we choose otherwise? If yes, free will. If not, no free will.
-->
@Fallaneze
There is a problem that having made a choice we cannot 'rewind time' to see if we could have choosen differently.
-->
@secularmerlin
A rock cannot choose to ignore the pull of gravityNeither can you.
Oops, Perhaps I should have said 'resist'.
I can go up hill if I want to. A rock can neither go up hill nor want to go up hill. What is it that gives me the ability to want to go up hill? A full answer would tell me how to make a machine that has the same sort of 'wanting'.
-->
@keithprosser
Right, but that only applies to decisions that have already been made. What about future decisions? If I'm thinking about whether to leave the house in 5 minutes has that decision already been made? Under hard determinism, yes, under free will, no.
You guys figure out the question to the answer "fourty-two" yet?
-->
@Fallaneze
Right, but that only applies to decisions that have already been made. What about future decisions?
Free will opponents will try to argue in hindsight. It's like telling someone "I knew you were going to say that" to which you respond "no you didn't" and they respond "I knew you were going to say that too". Free will should be argued as it applies to future possible actions.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
You guys figure out the question to the answer "fourty-two" yet?
Unless you are hitchhiking around the galaxy, why would you ask that?
-->
@Fallaneze
Right, but that only applies to decisions that have already been made. What about future decisions? If I'm thinking about whether to leave the house in 5 minutes has that decision already been made? Under hard determinism, yes, under free will, no.
Does a choice that belongs to the future exist in the present or past? If it does not exist yet, how can it be already made?
Cans of worms...
-->
@TwoMan
Unless you are hitchhiking around the galaxy, why would you ask that?
I may not be hitchhiking now, but I may in the future. Doesn't hurt to be prepared, and knowing the ultimate question may help me to know how many towels I should bring.
Wait... is that... no, it can't be...
-->
@keithprosser
Yes, because choosing not to do something is a choice. If you decide not to leave the house 5 minutes from now, that's a choice made in the present moment but affects future behavior.