Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
If you don't have the ability to know how your actions affect others beforehand then it's hard to be blameworthy.
What are your thoughts on cases like, if someone uses your backyard swimming pool unauthorized, while you are on vacation for example, and they are injured or killed, you are still liable for damages. What is your "moral instinct" in this type of case?
Or even cases of felony murder, where someone may be incidentally (tripped and fell down a flight of stairs for example) killed while you were committing a robbery. What is your "moral instinct" in this type of case?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Unpredictability itself is only evidence of lack of data (appeal to ignorance).That may not be so in the quantum realm. Confession time: I don't really understand Bell's theorem but AFAICT it does show that the unpredictabiity of quantum phenomena is not due to lack of data.
"Though it still leaves the door open for non-local hidden variables."
This ends up being a pretty large, aircraft-hangar-sized open door.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Apes can intentionally lie. Even in the wild, they can scream a "danger" signal in order to send their troop-mates scattering while they snatch a prized piece of fruit. They sometimes are able to do this undetected and reap the reward, however, if they are caught by their troop-mates, they are severely beaten. Would this example be enough to convince you that apes "know how their actions affect others"?Morality requires higher level cognition. If you don't have the ability to know how your actions affect others beforehand then it's hard to be blameworthy.
So while free will is a prerequisite for moral culpability, rudimentary free will is less advanced than rudimentary morality.
That sounds good, but I just want to be able to clearly distinguish between "rudimentary free-will" and "fully-fledged free-will".
Would you say that "rudimentary free-will" entails "rudimentary moral culpability"?
I don't believe computers will ever be morally culpable. They can't be conscious and harbor intent.
You seem to be moving the goal-posts with "conscious" and "intent". I'm talking about your original "able to choose between options" definition of free-will.
Don't get me wrong, you are welcome to modify or rephrase your definition at any point you wish, but I'm not sure "conscious" or "intent" is any more detectable or measurable or independently or scientifically verifiable than "free-will" or "morality", so adding those stipulations might not help much (unless you wish to simply muddy the waters).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
So conceivably, at least some animals have free-will and therefore have the same moral culpability as humans?Free will has lots of utility. We just cant be knowably certain whether animals have it. Yes, free will allows moral culpability
Do you think it is possible for a (sufficiently complex/sophisticated/quantum computer/neural network) robot to have free-will (make decisions based on rules, like a courtroom judge)?
Would such a robot also have moral culpability?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
What they all have in common is diminished or increased ability to choose between alternative courses of action. Animals may be purely instinctual - there's no way to know without first person knowledge
Animals can learn from experience (Pavlov), many of their actions are not purely instinctual.
If, as you say "there's no way to know" if another person or animal or robot has free-will or not, it would seem to have extremely limited utility as a concept.
Is your concept of "morality" in any way contingent on your concept of free-will?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I don't know if dogs have free will. If they do it's a rudimentary version.
Dogs and apes and many other creatures can apparently "choose alternative courses of action".
Does your personal conception of free-will exclude them somehow, and if so, how does it do this?
Do you personally believe that all humans have an equal measure of free-will?
I mean, do infant humans have free-will, toddlers, and or ninety-year-olds with dementia?
How can you determine who has free-will and who doesn't or how much each one has or if some people have more or less of it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Eventually we'll probably have technology that simulates sensations of real stuff in the brain.
The 1993 TV miniseries (which aired on the ABC network) "Wild Palms" did a pretty realistic job of portraying what this future might look like.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
"Acting according to causes" does not refute free will defined as the ability to choose alternative courses of action.
According to your personal opinion, can a dog "choose alternative courses of action"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
So cause and effect still applies, it's just not a material process.
Nobody stipulated that "cause and effect" is a "material process".
Tautologically, any conceivable non-material force, ghosts, spirits, gods, and or invisible pink elephants either act according to causes or act according to non-causes.
If any conceivable non-material force, ghosts, spirits, gods, and or invisible pink elephants act according to causes, then their actions are not free.
If any conceivable non-material force, ghosts, spirits, gods, and or invisible pink elephants act according to non-causes, then their actions are not willed.
If your mind is controlled by any conceivable non-material force, ghosts, spirits, gods, or invisible pink elephants, then your mind is either not willed or not free. your mind is either not willed or not free. your mind is either not willed or not free.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Do you personally believe that the concept of free-will is compatible with the concept of uncaused events?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Please be specific.None of this makes sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
An uncaused event is one that has no explanation as to how it occurred.
I agree.
If in-determinism is a mix of caused and uncaused events, then free-will is logically incoherent.
The concept of free-will is incompatible with the concept of uncaused events.
The concept of free-will is incompatible with the concept of caused events.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
A pattern of coloured LCDs exists - the cow it represent does not exist.A pattern of neural activity in the viewers brain exists induced by light fro the LCDs.The cow perceived by the viewer does not exist. What we can say the cow is perceived, but not that it exists.If you perceive a cow it is guaranteed that a pattern of neural activity encoding 'cow' exists in your brain. Perceving a cow not a gurantee that cow exists but obviously it will usually be case that it does.
I agree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
And please dont conflate random with uncaused. The rate of nuclear decay on certain molecules is random but this does not mean uncaused.
If you are unable to comprehensively identify the factors that contribute to "nuclear decay" you cannot say with any certainty if it is truly "random".
RAndom is not identical to "uncaused", however, the two are functionally identical and logically indistinguishable.
The very term "random" itself is a naked appeal to ignorance.
It is basically a placeholder for "we don't have any flipping clue why it does that sometimes and does this other thing at other times".
Random = Unpredictable = Unknown (and or possibly unknowable or non-existent) Variables and or lack of a proper predictive logical framework.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
You just got finished saying that our shift in views could be the nearest UNcaused quantum event. Now you're saying you dont believe in free will because it violates cause and effect.
Pure "randomness" is also incompatible with free-will.
An "uncaused" event is functionally identical to and logically indistinguishable from random.
Please explain how your personal concept of free-will is logically compatible with random coin flips.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Please be specific.Your philosophical views don't seem to be logically cohesive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
So you believe that in-determinism is most likely true but firmly believe nobody has free will.
I've already explained this.
Pure "cause and effect" is incompatible with free-will.
Pure "randomness" is also incompatible with free-will.
Any conceivable mix of the two is also, by pure logic, incompatible with free-will.
Ipso-facto, free-will is incoherent.
Certainly you have a Qualitative experience of free-will, but this merely leads to the conclusion that free-will is simply a feeling (personal perception, personal intuition) with no detectable basis in fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I think i see... we can change and learn.but we don't have any control over how we change or what we learn - presumably all that stuff is deterministic too. if i change from liberal-ish to being a neo-con it is becuse that shift was decided on a billion years ago.
Not necessarily "a billion years ago".
In a hypothetical framework of IN-DETERMINISM, the proximate "cause(s)" of your apparent political shift could be as recent as the nearest "uncaused" quantum event.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
So the logical conclusion is indeterminism yet you're a determinist?
I never claimed to be "a determinist".
Logic dictates hypothetical in-determinism.
I side with Logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Possibly true and possibly false (unfalsifiable).All events are determined by a linear chain of preceding material causes. True or false?
A much more durable hypothesis is that some phenomena are caused and some phenomena are uncaused.
The logical conclusion of this (tautological) hypothesis is IN-DETERMINISM.
In a framework of IN-DETERMINISM the future is NOT (even hypothetically) perfectly predictable.
In other words, in a framework of IN-DETERMINISM, perfect knowledge of initial conditions does not inform the ultimate conclusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
You seem to be suggesting that "change" is "impossible".We've agreed that free will is not real - i'm not quite sure what it is 3RU and I disagree over now, but he's definitely wrong!
This is demonstrably FALSE.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Determining if we should punish criminals is a remarkably simple equation. You just need to identify your goal. Ostensibly, the goal of the justice system is to make people feel safe (protect society) and to reduce dangerous and anti-social behavior.You seem to have your cake and eat it! What do mean 'identify your goal'? There's no 'identifying' going on. Whatever I 'identify' as my goal was set before i was even born and 'I' can't change it. I'm just a cog in some clockworks, a link in a fixed causal chain.Of course i go through the motions of choosing, deciding, 'identifying' and so on, but I have no more independent volition than a string puppet, with raw causality as the puppetteer.You can't have it both ways.
Genetic programming. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_programming
Artificial neural networks - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network
Marvin Minsky and Ray Kurzweil explain - https://youtu.be/RZ3ahBm3dCk?t=588
If a machine can learn and modify its output/behavior, then a human can learn and modify its output/behavior.
The fact that you know the ending of the movie doesn't (perceptibly) change while you are watching it, does not in any way diminish your ability to enjoy watching it.
Humans are not static particles. Humans are microscopic elements in a wildly dynamic process.
Think of everything as a scatter-pattern. Everything is constantly changing. SAMENESS is an illusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
We might say a virtual reality world, seen while wearing goggles or a helmet or whatever, "exists" but isn't real. If it both doesn't exist and isn't real, then how would we be seeing it?
Virtual reality produces an illusion.
The product of virtual reality "exists" as an illusion.
Does an illusion "exist"?
Well, we can say the underlying mechanisms of the illusion exist (as Quanta) but the perception of the illusion itself does not exist (it is Qualia).
Created:
Posted in:
So you believe in unfalsifiable theories
No, I accept they are unfalsifiable and as such, may or may not be true pending further data.
I only "believe" in TAUTOLOGY.
For example, "cause and effect" is demonstrable.
Inductively (don't forget Humorous Hume), we can reason that "if cause and effect" is presumed to apply to all possible phenomena, then determinism is true.
TAUTOLOGICALLY "cause and effect" either applies to all phenomena or it does not (applies to some but not all).
Can you or anyone else prove that any particular phenomena has no cause and thus violates "cause and effect"?
Well, some people will point to the unpredictability of the quantum flux as possible evidence of non-causal phenomena.
However, it is currently impossible to know or demonstrate if the unpredictability of the quantum flux is evidence of non-causal phenomena.
Unpredictability itself is only evidence of lack of data (appeal to ignorance).
HOwever, we can compare unfalsifiable claims and logically deduce the ramifications.
For example,
"Cause and effect" may only apply to some things and not other things.
Any phenomena that is non-causal would necessarily be indistinguishable from random.
A mix of causal and non-causal phenomena is unfalsifiable (in-determinism), but also TAUTOLOGICALLY accounts for all possible options and does not conflict with scientific data and is parsimonious.
The concept of in-determinism is superior to determinism because it accounts for all possible variables (TAUTOLOGY).
Although multiple, competing hypotheses may be technically unfalsifiable, they can still be compared based on logical coherence and TAUTOLOGICAL comprehensiveness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
So you believe in unfalsifiable theories
No, I accept they are unfalsifiable and as such, may or may not be true pending further data.
I only "believe" in TAUTOLOGY.
For example, "cause and effect" is demonstrable.
Inductively (don't forget Humorous Hume), we can reason that "if cause and effect" is presumed to apply to all possible phenomena, then determinism is true.
TAUTOLOGICALLY "cause and effect" either applies to all phenomena or it does not (applies to some but not all).
Can you or anyone else prove that any particular phenomena has no cause and thus violates "cause and effect"?
Well, some people will point to the unpredictability of the quantum flux as possible evidence of non-causal phenomena.
However, it is currently impossible to know or demonstrate if the unpredictability of the quantum flux is evidence of non-causal phenomena.
Unpredictability itself is only evidence of lack of data (appeal to ignorance).
HOwever, we can compare unfalsifiable claims and logically deduce the ramifications.
For example,
"Cause and effect" may only apply to some things and not other things.
Any phenomena that is non-causal would necessarily be indistinguishable from random.
A mix of causal and non-causal phenomena is unfalsifiable (in-determinism), but also TAUTOLOGICALLY accounts for all possible options and does not conflict with scientific data and is parsimonious.
The concept of in-determinism is superior to determinism because it accounts for all possible variables (TAUTOLOGY).
Although multiple, competing hypotheses may be technically unfalsifiable, they can still be compared based on logical coherence and TAUTOLOGICAL comprehensiveness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
He's right, all future choices would be predetermined at the big bang and no alternate realities would be possible. He's saying that although many believe in the B-theory of time, there's still the illusion of A-theory and people will still die (as if there's an arrow of time). He was making a comparison between B-theory and determinism.
B-Theory is unfalsifiable, just like unicorns.
B-Theory makes no predictions that are quantitatively different than what we can verify.
When you say "people will still die", that is obvious and B-Theory never predicts "people will live forever".
It sounds like B-Theory = Determinism. No "comparison" needed.
And, A-Theory is also unfalsifiable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Well the choice to punish criminals was also predetermined back at the big bang so we only think we have any choice about doing it!
The fact that humans were predetermined to live in feudal societies absolutely does not mean we are DOOMED to live in feudal societies FOREVER.
Accepting predetermination (or more specifically pre-indetermination) as fact, does not mean humans are suddenly and shockingly incapable of learning and improvement. Even though this, "we're all DOOMED" argument is a common defense of logically incoherent free-will, it is simply false.
For example, would you advocate that all people should believe in Santa Claus (or gods) or other so called "noble lies", solely because they might arguably make people feel happy and or allow society to function in a manner we are currently accustomed to?
If I had all the measurements needed and enough compting power I could work out if we will punish criminals in 100 years - but not if we should punish them or not.
Determining if we should punish criminals is a remarkably simple equation. You just need to identify your goal. Ostensibly, the goal of the justice system is to make people feel safe (protect society) and to reduce dangerous and anti-social behavior.
If we analyse our prison population, they are overwhelmingly poorer, less educated, and have lower average serotonin levels and have higher than average testosterone levels than the typical law abiding productive member of society. There is a particular spike in anti-social criminal behavior in males between the ages of 16 and 20 that seems to directly correlate with our human evolutionary spike in testosterone production. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaFca9vZvn8
After more than 83,000 brain scans, we can pretty clearly distinguish a healthy brain from a malfunctioning brain. The logical conclusion would seem to be that we need to promote systems that restore healthy brain function as well as systems that reduce and or inhibit the development of unhealthy brains. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esPRsT-lmw8
Imagine the scene in court:Prisoner: You can't blame me, it was predermined I'd rob that bank!Judge: Yes, and it was predetermined I'd give you 15 years hard. Next!
Imagine this scene in court:
Prisoner: I committed a crime because my brain is malfunctioning.
Judge: Well, I guess we could try to teach you how to be a better functioning member of society (by promoting trust and empathy for other human beings) and verify your progress with scientifically verifiable data based on your brain scans, OR we could put you in a barrel full of psychopaths for seven years and then release you.
If what we do is predetermined, it is hard to know what to do at all!
This is pure nonsense. The concept of free-will is in absolutely no way directly related to our ability to set goals and achieve them.
The concept of free-will only affects who gets the credit and or blame for successes and failures.
Although I reject free will as an airy-fairy intellectual, I'd be an idiot to take that into 'real life'.
I'm not sure the data backs you up on this particular assertion.
It's like the B-theory of time - you can believe in b-theory all you like but you'll still get old and die!
The B-theory_of_time makes no such prediction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
First off, let me say, well stated.
I knew about libet's previous work mentioned in the article. I think it goes a long way to telling us what is going on when we make (or seem to make) choices. And what I really like is that it makes it an empirial issue to be decided by experiment not a word game nor reduce it to logical contradiction.Let me suggest we did not evolve to imagine we have free will for its own sake. We did it to help understand the behaviour of others, such as prey or potential mates. Although their behaviour is ultimately deterministic, there is no way to get the all the information required to predict behaviour that way - critters behave very much as if they had free will, ie as if they can make choices. The deep truth - that the world is deterministic - is not important when all you want to do is eat or mate with something.That remains true. It is still only of academic interest that choices are in fact pre-determined. 'For practical purposes' the fiction of free will is a very useful one.
HOwever, the question of free-will does seem to have some important philosophical/political/moral implications.
For instance, without free-will, punitive action would seem to make about as much sense as spending years on end and hundreds of millions of dollars flogging a tire for going flat instead of repairing or replacing it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
"Is it possible to predict what a person's choice will be using only measurements of physical states?"
A brain scan can predict an action several seconds before the subject reports consciously making that decision.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
You can't verify logic using science.
HOwever, if you have a generally accepted standard of logic (which we do), you can verify any statements against that standard to determine if, in-fact, the statements are logical or not.
You verify the statements using empirical (Quantifiable) data (your eyes and ears) and a rigorously defined, Quantifiable, independently verifiable standard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Thank you. Please feel free to modify your definition in any way during the course of our continued discussion.So any action you take after having a logical (rational) thought, but not because of that rational thought and in no other way directly related to that particular rational thought?I'm not modifying definitions.An action taken after, because of and directly related to that particular rational thought. There, I fixed that for you.Not an uncaused action. Not random.
Ok, so free-will is 100% exclusively influenced by logical (rational) thought alone.
Ok, this doesn't sound like it's very "free". This sounds more like what an insect or a robot does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
(IFF) "rational thought" is logical (AND) logic is predetermined by initial conditions (THEN) "rational thought" is incompatible with choiceCan you prove that rational thought can result in only one outcome? I contend that rational thought provides the option of more than one possible outcome in some cases. I can't prove either proposition so where does that leave us? And please don't say that an outcome that didn't happen could not have existed because only one outcome does exist.
I like where you're going with this.
Think of a game of chess.
Do you always (logically) have a "best move"?
A chess Grandmaster actually has less choice than a novice.
The Grandmaster's nearly comprehensive knowledge of the game allows them to logically deduce the best possible move.
To a novice, they have tons of choices, they might even believe (imagine) they have choices that actually violate the rules of the game.
The novice is unable to logically deduce the best move and therefore they have many apparent choices.
The Grandmaster is able to logically deduce the best move and therefore they have very few choices.
In some cases, the Grandmaster may be presented with two (or more) moves that have, at least apparently, an equal chance of attaining their goal.
In such cases, the Grandmaster is unable to adequately distinguish the pros and cons of the choices at the moment, and the outcomes may actually be nearly identical (absolutely incidental and utterly meaningless). However, they might find themselves reflecting after the match, and realize that one of the moves they neglected could have had some distinguishable advantage over the move they chose.
The point is that in such a model, a "free-will" decision is only free if the decision is apparently incidental.
If you have logically processed all of the pertinent data, and the data itself is inconclusive, only then do you have "free-will".
In such a case, this perfectly incidental decision would not be based on logic, because your data is inadequate.
In such a case, this perfectly incidental decision would be the equivalent of a mental coin flip.
In such a case, "free-will" = ignorance. The more ignorance you have, the more "free-will" you have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
An action taken after rational thought and not because of internal or external influences is what I mean by free will.
Thank you. Please feel free to modify your definition in any way during the course of our continued discussion.
So any action you take after having a logical (rational) thought, but not because of that rational thought and in no other way directly related to that particular rational thought?
And, then, "not because of internal or external influences" which sounds like a very long way of saying "zero influences" which sounds like "uncaused".
So, free-will is an uncaused action.
This would seem to severely limit free-will to strictly unexpected situations that you have absolutely no way of predicting (or even guessing) the outcome of.
This version of free-will would apparently be a purely uninformed choice.
This version of free-will is indistinguishable from a random act.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Please explain why you seem to believe that "rational thought" cannot exist without "choice".I didn't say that. I said that choices based on rational thought are by definition free will.
(IFF) "rational thought" is logical (AND) logic is predetermined by initial conditions (THEN) "rational thought" is incompatible with choice (THEREFORE) attempting to define "free-will" as "choices based on rational thought" results in a logical contradiction.
Because "rational thought" is incompatible with choice.
If "thought" is rational, it is logical and is therefore incapable of "choice".
If "thought" is choosy (the mechanism of choice), then it is not logical and therefore cannot properly be described as "rational".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Yes, and...?Logic is also abstract and science operates under logical constraints.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Yes, we can have definitions of things that aren't real.
I agree.
We can have something that is defined by its physical characteristic while it doesn't actually exist. Why is that a problem?
Because it is a logical contradiction.
You seem unable to distinguish "apparently physical characteristics" from "real physical characteristics".
For example, in a common optical illusion, two squares are apparently two different shades of gray (intuitively), but when measured scientifically, outside of the context of the illusion, they are shown to be exactly the same colour. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checker_shadow_illusion
You are conflating Quanta with Qualia.
A unicorn is not scientifically verifiable because it is defined as mythical = fictitious = imaginary = not real = not physical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Logic is an axiomatic system.Logic is logically verifiable
Logic is independently verifiable.
Logic is a fundamental characteristic of science.
Logic is a fundamental characteristic of rational thought.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
The fact that "rational thought" produces (independently) verifiable evidence in the form of logic, strongly implies that it exists (at least as a black-box process).It is possible but that would mean that rational thought does not exist. I don't maintain that notion.
Please explain why you seem to believe that "rational thought" cannot exist without "choice".
Logic is not a choice. The logical soundness of a statement is determined by its axioms (initial conditions).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
"Logical" and "rational" is not functionally equivalent to "verifiable." Verifiable implies empirical methods while both logic and rationality are abstract
The common dictionary definition of "rational" is "logical".
Logic is verifiable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Neither love nor rational thought involves choice. Is it then not also possible that the feeling you refer to as freewill also does not involve choice but rather the post hoc justification of thoughts and actions that your brain makes for you before you are consciously aware of them?
Free-will is a feeling.
Bingo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
If moral realism is based on "rational thought" and "rational thought" is independently verifiable, then you've conceded that morality has an objective basis.
Rational = Logical = Verifiable.
Are you suggesting that "moral realism" = Logical = Verifiable?
Please rigorously define "moral realism", and reveal its logic so it can be independently verified. It appears to be a contradiction in terms.
Science (and logic) is currently unable to detect and or measure a "moral", therefore "moral" is not a scientifically (logically) verifiable "thing" and as such is not "real".
Moral = Qualia
Real = Quanta
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Of course mythical is not a physical characteristic. But saying "a mythical exists" tells us nothing about what is being referred to. A yeti is also a mythical creature that's large and hairy and resembles a bear. Both of these mythical creatures are defined according to their physical characteristics.
The qualifier "mythical" means "fictitious" which means "not physically real".
FICTITIOUS - "not real or true, being imaginary or having been fabricated" - https://www.google.com/search?q=Dictionary#dobs=fictitious
These mythical creatures may have apparently physical characteristics (just like a mirage), however, they are categorically "not real" and therefore do not have physical properties like real things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
"Rational thought is independently verifiable."You've just allowed an avenue for moral realism.
In the name of all that is holy, please be more specific.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
How does that change anything about a unicorn being defined according to its physical characteristics?
Mythical is not a physical characteristic.
Seriously? You really really really DO want to talk about unicorns?!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
If you actually construct verifiably logical phrases and statements, then, at least apparently, you are (or were) capable of "rational thought".If one is capable of rational thought, by definition one is capable of free will.
Rational thought is independently verifiable.
Free-will is not independently verifiable.
Please explain why you believe the two terms are (or should be) interrelated in any way whatsoever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Unicorn:"a mythical, usually white animal generally depicted with the body and head of a horse with long flowing mane and tail and a single often spiraled horn in the middle of the forehead."If we were looking for a unicorn we would use empirical methods to do so.
Mythical = Fictitious - https://www.google.com/search?q=Dictionary#dobs=mythical
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Do you believe that rational thought exists? If so, how can it be quantified?
Rational thought, according to the common dictionary definition is LOGIC.
Logic can be verified. Logic is quantifiable.
Your thoughts can't be independently examined or scrutinized scientifically (at this time) but, your words, as evidence of your thoughts CAN be clearly determined to be either logical or illogical.
If you actually construct verifiably logical phrases and statements, then, at least apparently, you are (or were) capable of "rational thought".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
So you were pointing out the logical fallaciousness of your counter-argument?
I was contesting your definition of unicorn as being purely physical. Unicorns have magical properties, one of which is that they can only be seen by "true believers".
I was not creating a "counter-argument" to your definition of unicorns. I was merely appending your definition. If you really want to talk about unicorns please just let me know.
The entire subject of unicorns was brought up purely as an example of something that is unfalsifiable.
The falsifiable principle is a foundational concept of the scientific method.
You can't logically contend that something is simultaneously unfalsifiable AND real.
You can say, "it might be real", but that same argument also applies just as well to unicorns.
If your personal epistemological standards can't distinguish between what is real and what is merely unfalsifiable, then you MUST believe in unicorns.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
In response you said:"But unicorns can only be seen by 'true believers.' No True Scotsman. ..."I never once said or implied that unicorns can only be seen by "true believers." You then proceeded to attack the bizarre claim you created
I disagreed with you that unicorns are defined as purely physical.
I then proceeded to use the unicorn example to highlight the fallacies inherent in your proposed "moral intuition".
Please let me know if you require further clarification.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
What is the practical observable difference? How would freewill differ from the illusion of freewill?Keith's answer seems correct. You can ask that about almost any [Qualitative] thing. How would any [Qualitative] thing differ from the illusion of that thing? How does love [Qualitative] differ from the illusion of love? How does rational thought [Qualitative] differ from the illusion of rational thought [like artificial intelligence]? I don't see the utility in asking that question [specifically about Qualitative concepts].
How does speed differ from the illusion of speed? Well, speed can be Quantified scientifically. The illusion of speed is merely opinion based.
How does weight differ from the illusion of weight? Well, weight can be Quantified scientifically. The illusion of weight is merely opinion based.
I'm sure you get the idea.
How do we determine reality from illusion?
Try using The Scientific Method.
If something falls outside of the scope of science, it is indistinguishable from pure imagination.
If free-will is not Quantifiable, it is not necessarily false on that basis alone, however it is indistinguishable from an illusion of free-will on that basis.
My contention does not rely on this "illusion" argument. My contention is that free-will is logically incoherent and therefore cannot exist as anything other than an illusion (a feeling or personal experience, Qualitative).
Created: