free will

Topic's posts
Posts in total: 707
--> @keithprosser
Yet...suppose god arranged for a dice(*) to come up 6 every single time forever, no matter how it was thrown or even placed very carefully with the wrong side up.

Coming up 6 every time forever is distinguishable from random noise!
Right, however, if this hypothetical god had a REASON to make this happen, if this hypothetical god had some PURPOSE or GOAL in mind, then even this would be part of the causal chain.

A hypothetical god's desire and ability to create magical dice must (EITHER) be part of the causal chain (OR) indistinguishable from random (involuntary and uncaused glitch).
--> @Mopac
The Ultimate Reality is not the same thing as noumenon, a word that Kant used incorrectly.
It is an unwarranted anthropomorphic fallacy to attribute human characteristics to "The Ultimate Reality".

"The Ultimate Reality" cannot be intelligent, or conscious, or compassionate, or just, or right, or good, or evil.

It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
--> @keithprosser
It's not far removed from the problem of writing a computer program that hates losing at chess.  It's trivial to et achess root to simulate eing angry, but no one (afaik) nows how to make a root feel 'real anger'.  Nor do we know how to make a machine with a desire or preference.
Please Quantify the difference between "real anger" and "programmed anger".

Aren't emotions involuntary physiological responses to neurochemical levels that serve as (evolutionarily efficacious) social signals?
--> @3RU7AL
Given the absurdity of expressing the Uncreated through the medium of creation, it should be apparent why it is we use these images to relate the divine revelation to people.

I know what it is I am speaking of with experiential knowledge. It would be beyond your own epistemological limits to say, "I don't know, I don't know how I could know, nobody can know."


You can't say whether or not God is any of these things. You don't truly know. You were educated in such a way as to negate what we teach. Not because they are true negations, but because they are redefinings and newspeaks very specifically intended to divorce thought from Christianity.

This happens to be the inevitable outcome of protestant scholasticism. Scholasticism itself being an error of the Latin church. Without the authority of that Latin Church to regulate this error that it embraced, anti-Christ philosophy is the inevitable outcome.

This is, after all what happens when people overly rely on outward reasonings rather than purifying the intellect. With that, it is easy to reason away the most enlightened of doctrines and the truest sayings of our fathers. It is true you can rationalize just about anything.

--> @3RU7AL
I think it's very hard to express things clearly in this area - ordinary language wasn't invented for doing philosophy!   But i was a programmer and I know what I can get a computer to do and what I can't get it to do.

I defy anyone to put what it is like to be 'subjectively conscious' or 'aware' into plain unamiguous words without relying on circularity.  All I can do assume is that you - and people in general - have the same sort of experience I do.  but however it is described,  i cannot imagine how code can instaniate subective experience

Consider the classic examle of the colour red.   To you or I red is a particular subective exerience ('quale'), but to a computer red is,say $0000FF.  Acomputer with the number $0000FF in a memory cell is not having the same experince of redness that I do when I see a london bus.  I know that because I know a bit about how computers work - they are not designed or constructed to have subjective experience.   I suppose someone could ask how I can be so sure aout that comutersdon't have the same subective exeriences as people.  My answer is that even if that were so, it doesn't explain how it works!  
A computer 'sees' a scene rather like a 'paint by numbers' before its filled in, with regions having no 'quale' but marked with a subectively neutral code number.
but we don't eperince the world like that, with uncoloured regions labelled '3' or '5'!  

I don't know if I can express what interests me about computerising subjectivity any better, inadequate though the attempt is.         




--> @Mopac
I know what it is I am speaking of with experiential knowledge. It would be beyond your own epistemological limits to say, "I don't know, I don't know how I could know, nobody can know."
It's really quite simple.  Is the noumenon a human?  Is the ultimate reality a human?

If not, then it can't have human characteristics.

You may have private gnosis, but that "truth" is specific and exclusive to YOU ALONE.

Your gnosis =/= evidence.
--> @Mopac
You can't say whether or not god is any of these things.

You don't truly know.

You were educated in such a way as to blindly accept what you are taught.

Not because they are real true facts, but because they are redefinings and newspeaks very specifically intended to divorce (skeptical, rational) thought from Christianity.
--> @keithprosser
I defy anyone to put what it is like to be 'subjectively conscious' or 'aware' into plain unamiguous words without relying on circularity.
This should be your first clue.

"Consciousness" is purely Qualitative, logically incoherent, unmeasurable, unfalsifiable nonsense.

Any sufficiently sophisticated device indistinguishable from a human being would necessarily have the same (unverifiable) quality of "consciousness".

It's not a secret sauce or magic fairy dust.

It's simply a complex collection of evolutionary social behaviors.

We identify "consciousness" by its associated behaviors.

The behaviors themselves are "consciousness".

Whatever mechanism causes those behaviors is interchangeable (chemical or electrical or mechanical).
--> @3RU7AL
Any sufficiently sophisticated device indistinguishable from a human being would necessarily have the same (unverifiable) quality of "consciousness".
If so, it should be possible to at least outline the operation of a device that would manifests human like consciousness.   As to verifiability, I cannot verify you are conscious, but I know that I am conscious!   That is to say whatever consciouness is, it is present in me, that is it is produced by my brain,even if it is present nowhere else. Even if that is so unless my consciusness has a magical origin it shouldbe implementable in a machine.

Put another way,the challenge is to design a machine that experiences red in the same subjective way I do.  Note - I said 'subjectively', not 'functionally'.  Functionally is easy!
--> @keithprosser
Acomputer with the number $0000FF in a memory cell is not having the same experince of redness that I do when I see a london bus.  I know that because I know a bit about how computers work - they are not designed or constructed to have subjective experience.   I suppose someone could ask how I can be so sure aout that comutersdon't have the same subective exeriences as people.  My answer is that even if that were so, it doesn't explain how it works!   
Here's an interesting bit of info, some humans who were born blind, and who have had their sight restored, choose to keep their eyes closed because they are unable to make sense of shapes and colors.  To them, sight is a mass of fractured kaleidoscope nonsense.
--> @keithprosser
Put another way,the challenge is to design a machine that experiences red in the same subjective way I do.  Note - I said 'subjectively', not 'functionally'.  Functionally is easy!
You only need to design a machine that DESCRIBES its experience of red in the same subjective way you do.
--> @3RU7AL
You only need to design a machine that DESCRIBES its experience of red in the same subjective way you do.
That depends on what the obective is.  If the end point is to make a toy that appears to have subjective experience that might do,but it wouldn't explain how subjectivity actually arises in human brains.  I take it you do have subjective experiences?   You don't just utter descriptions of experiences you don't actally have?  

You must have read about p-zombies?
      

It's really quite simple.  Is the noumenon a human?  Is the ultimate reality a human?

If not, then it can't have human characteristics.


Noumenon by nature is very human because noumenon exists in thought, and we certainly think.


Noumenon =/= The Ultimate Reality.


Certainly God is not man, but God became man. 

It is this God becoming creation that deifies all of creation, bringing it into unity with God. All of creation is united to God in the flesh of God's word.

--> @keithprosser
That depends on what the obective is.  If the end point is to make a toy that appears to have subjective experience that might do,but it wouldn't explain how subjectivity actually arises in human brains.  I take it you do have subjective experiences?   You don't just utter descriptions of experiences you don't actally have?  

You must have read about p-zombies?
So, Minsky has analysed human thought processes extensively and concludes that a human brain is not like a single cohesive "computer" but is instead like a fluid hierarchy of 400 different "computers" that all have somewhat different problem solving strategies.

We know, from the field of neuroscience, that the hippocampus and thalamus and amygdala all play critical and exclusive roles in filtering and sorting inbound data-streams and prioritizing data storage.

We have no "experience" of 400 "computers" or of a fluid hierarchy in our heads.  We have no "experience" of the specific functions of our hippocampus and thalamus and amygdala.  All of these functions are hidden to "us" (our consciousness).

All indications are that "consciousness" is simply the end-result, or final, or even post-hoc top layer process that has evolved to facilitate social interactions between humans.  Not "fundamental" in any way shape or form.

"Consciousness" is merely a complex set of behaviors that rely on a large number of underlying, much simpler (hidden) processes.

The only way to identify "consciousness" in others is to intuitively gather social data.

If it "seems like" "authentic" "consciousness" then it IS "authentic consciousness".

You are a p-zombie.  I am a p-zombie.  We are bags of chemicals that have evolved as complex hosts (shells) for bacteria.
--> @Mopac
It's really quite simple.  Is the noumenon a human?  Is the ultimate reality a human?

If not, then it can't have human characteristics.
Noumenon by nature is very human because noumenon exists in thought, and we certainly think.
By this logic, a chair is human because chairs exist in thought.

Noumenon =/= The Ultimate Reality.
It seems to be a perfect match.  Noumenon is the logically necessary prerequisite to phenomenon.  It is the scaffolding for "reality".

Certainly God is not man, but God became man. 
Man is "part of" noumenon, but that does not make noumenon a man any more then it makes noumenon a chair.

It is this God becoming creation that deifies all of creation, bringing it into unity with God. All of creation is united to God in the flesh of God's word.
Logically, anything presupposed as (1) the first and only thing in existence and (2) the sole originator of all things would NECESSARILY be all things (not just humans).

All things would be logically inseparable from such a hypothetical god.  All things must be parts of this hypothetical god.
--> @3RU7AL
My hunch is that you and minksi are right.  I am not a new-age hippy!

The unresolved problem can be illustrated if you look at some coloured obect in the room - a pink pencil sharpener, anything.
It is almost fatuous to say when you look at it you experience pinkness.  It is a different experience from that you would get if it was a blue pencil sharpner.   To you, pink things look pink and blue things look blue.

If you hook up your webcam to your computer and point it at the pink pencil sharpener, what colour does your computer experience?  My guess is that because you and I share evoltionary history, if we both look at the same pink pencil sharpener we will have the same experience of its pinkness, but I am not convinced a webcam/computer combo has the same experience of pinkness we do.  If the computer has any experence at all, 'pink' will be a range of numbers.   But to you and I pinkness is not a range of numbers, is it? Pink is a particular quale.

My argument is that reductive physicalism is almost certainly correct, but we have no adequate theory to account for subjective experience.  I cannot deny that pink things look pink - I wish i could!  I feel that a theory of consciousness that glosses over the problem of qualia is unsatisfactory.  It might be a good partial theory, but it leaves the door wide open to dualism.

If brains can experience qualia but machines can't then dualism must be true.     


By this logic, a chair is human because chairs exist in thought.
Let me clarify

Thought itself is noumenon.

When you equate God with noumenon, you are essentially equating God with the idea of God which is a fallacy.



It seems to be a perfect match.  Noumenon is the logically necessary prerequisite to phenomenon.  It is the scaffolding for "reality"


Thought is not The Ultimate Reality.


You don't know what noumenon means because Kant either didn't understand Greek, or this was a subtle way of him admitting that his god is science or really even, himself.




Logically, anything presupposed as (1) the first and only thing in existence and (2) the sole originator of all things would NECESSARILY be all things (not just humans).

All things would be logically inseparable from such a hypothetical god.  All things must be parts of this hypothetical god.


It should be apparent that a pile of dog shit does not share the same essence as The Ultimate Reality.

It isn't that all things are parts of God, for God is without division. It is moreso that God fills all things as all of creation manifest from divine energies.

Or

Everything that exists was made by and through The Word of God

And 

Everything that exists is enlivened by and through The Holy Spirit


Both The Word and The Holy Spirit having their origin in The Father.

The Father, The Word, and The Spirit are One. All of creation is united to this Trinity in the flesh of The Word which is creation.







--> @keithprosser
The unresolved problem can be illustrated if you look at some coloured obect in the room - a pink pencil sharpener, anything.
It is almost fatuous to say when you look at it you experience pinkness.  It is a different experience from that you would get if it was a blue pencil sharpner.   To you, pink things look pink and blue things look blue.
Perhaps a "better" example would be our personal, Qualitative experience of love.

I've been "in love" and you've probably been "in love" at some point in your life, however, can you say for certain if it was "true love"?

If you experience "falling in love" in your teens or twenties, do you have enough life experience to tell if the feeling is "true love"?

When you say you know what it's like to be "in love", does that mean that you know exactly what my experience of being "in love" is like?

Is perhaps the experience of being "in love" simply an involuntary evolutionary survival mechanism that triggers high levels of dopamine?

The feeling is simply the end result of a complex set of very mechanistic biological interactions.

Love itself does not cause any of this.  Love is simply what we call a particular collection of uncontrollable impulses.  The more "sincere" the love, the more uncontrollable these impulses become.

The Qualitative experience of love is not fundamental, it is not the origin of anything, it is simply an afterthought, a shadow of our instincts. [LINK]
--> @Mopac
Thought itself is noumenon.
Thought is certainly PART OF noumenon.  Thought is certainly EVIDENCE OF noumenon.  But since thought cannot possibly "cause itself", it cannot BE (the whole of) noumenon.

When you equate God with noumenon, you are essentially equating God with the idea of God which is a fallacy.
Noumenon is the logically necessary (unknown/unknowable) origin and sustainer of all things.

(IFF) you believe a god is the logically necessary origin and sustainer of all things (THEN) god and noumenon are essentially interchangeable terms.
--> @3RU7AL
As I said and will repeat....

Kant used the word noumenon incorrectly because he either didn't know Greek or he is some kind of forerunner to the new age hippie bullshit movement.

--> @Mopac
Kant used the word noumenon incorrectly because he either didn't know Greek or he is some kind of forerunner to the new age hippie bullshit movement.
Citation please.
--> @Mopac
What aword means is what it denotes.  it's history and etmology is only of acaemic and historical interest.   A case in point is 'billion' which has evolved in meaning from million million to thousand million.   A pedant might claim everbody uses billion incorrectly, but in the real world it is correct to use billion for 10^9 and incorrect for 10^12.

Kant's use of phenomon and noumemon have superceded any previous meanings and are now the 'correct' meanings.  Language is not static which is why new editions of dictionaries become necessary from time to time.   I am not saying that is a good thing and it is a source of confusion and miscommunication - it's a fact of life we have to put up with.

Wikipedia identifies this as the 'etymolocical fallacy', a variant of the 'genetic fallacy'.  I offer no solution. other than to try avoiing reliance on the greek,latin (or french orerman) roots of a term.  I'm not a fan of posh words.   I don't think you will findmany appearsances of 'noumeon' or 'apodictic' in my posts!  if I don't use aword in my everyday speech, I try to avoid it in my posts.  But I readily admit what works for my style may not work for anybody else.

--> @3RU7AL
There is relevant material in the wikipeia article on noumena.  I think its true that Kant adopted non-standard meanings, but they were pretty rare and obscure terms beore he adopted them for his own purposes.

The wikipedia article quotes Schopenhauer's crticism of Kan't usage compare to that of ancient greek philosophers.

I've never read Kant, and I doubt I ever will!   But what I have read about him doesn't interest or impress me.  German philosophers like Kant and Hegel are unreadable!   Give me the analytics any day over the waffle of the continentals...
--> @keithprosser
Noumenon

In metaphysics, the noumenon is a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception. The term noumenon is generally used when contrasted with, or in relation to, the term phenomenon, which refers to anything that can be apprehended by or is an object of the senses. Wikipedia
--> @3RU7AL
On the rare ocasions I may have said 'noumenon' I would have meant it in Kant's sense, regardless of what meant to an ancient greek.