Absolute determinism and the illusion of free will.

0 Replies

brilliant explanation twyvel.

thats what i was trying to say for four pages and you said it in two paragraphs.

0 Replies

turth
Subtle thoughts all. Let me add some off the cuff notions: There is the illusion: "'I' choose". In actuality the choosing just happens as a result of an array of forces, some chemical, some cultural conditioning, and most, unconscious, except for the most consciously pragmatic decisions. "Choosing" then is a term we apply to the end product (some kind of action) of a series of natural events. There is no free will--even in the case of consciously pragmatic decisions--because there is no agent to possess it. Nevertheless, there IS something we might call freedom. The "natural events" resulting in a choice are part of the spontaneity of nature. I say spontaneity because nature is not restrained by something outside of "it." Yet nature's "freedom" is not the freedom of some macro-agent; nature has no agency; it just is (and mysteriously so, I must add). Nevertheless, like you, I AM that nature, and THAT is "my" (oh the chains of grammar) freedom. So there IS freedom if you identify with the totally of this cosmic process but none if your point of reference is the ego/self.

0 Replies

jonat3 wrote:

According to you A=B+C+D. This is FALSE. The correct form is A=D AND A=B+C.
You talk about "freedom" and "choice". But what is freedom? And what is choice? If one were to ask these, we would stumble upon the same base components as those of free will. Freedom is the ability to choose. Choice is thus free will. Free will is B+C. When you say that we do not have the freedom to choose X, it is the same as traveling back in time killing your parents, thus creating a paradox.

This is, without question, one of the most incomprehensible pieces of gibberish ever uttered in these forums. It's not just that it defies logic -- it defies the rules of language and grammar as well. It's the kind of circular argument that gives circular arguments a bad name. I won't even attempt to address it, as it is the purest nonsense.

jonat3 wrote:

You yourself stated that thought is neither energy or matter. And even though that is all that has been found, it has not been conclusively proven that that is all there is. This is clearly inductive reasoning. If you are able to prove it with scientific tests, that is deductive reasoning.

There must come a point in these types of discussions where one can do no more than throw up one's hands in futility. That point, in this discussion, came here with your convincing demonstration that you don't know the difference between induction and deduction. Scientific tests are examples of inductive reasoning.

jonat3 wrote:

Weren't you the one who brought up deductive and inductive reasoning in the first place? How could you not tell the difference?!

Accusing me of not knowing the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning approaches the very zenith of irony.

We have reached the point, jonat, where I no longer feel obliged to respond to your posts. Not only am I confident that you are not profiting from my responses, but, more importantly, I am not getting anything out of them either. I am, therefore, content to say that we must agree to disagree.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

brilliant explanation twyvel.

thats what i was trying to say for four pages and you said it in two paragraphs.

Considering that twyvel's position is, I believe, 180 degrees different from yours, Centroles, I find your endorsement a stunning reversal.

But that still does not answer the question: "is the cadaver thinking?"

0 Replies

how is his position different from mine joe.

he clearly states that actions are a direct result of causal relationships. everything happens for reasons beyond our control, because we have no control. in fact he goes farther than this, to even state that there is no actual us.

we are very much a part of these casual relationships, no different from a rock being carried off by the tide or a leave being blown by the wind. external forces cause us to do what we do.

if we don't exist as distinct entities as I have stated over and over again, and as twyvel's arguement also states, then that inherently eliminates the possibilty of a free will. for without us as a seperate entity that is distinct from natural laws, that acts on it's own behalf, there is actual choosing being done. the mechanisms that determine the way we are blown by natural laws are far more complex than the mechanisms that determine how a leaf is blown by the wind. but never the less, they are the same in that there is no choice being made in either case.

joe, either you haven't read my posts, are you failed to understand them. because this is exactly what i have been saying all along. and because you failed to note that i have already answered your question two pages ago though admittedly, in a very indirect manner.

Quote:

do you think a person could be brought back from the dead?

i believe so. once medicine has advanced somemore and we are able to reconnect the nutrient delivery systems and reverse any degeneration of the issues that has occured, we could bring someone back from the dead.

this belief is why so many people are willing to fork over millions of dollars to have themselves cryogenically frozen.

in a similar fashion, i beleve that we can theoretically create a "living" organism for inanimate matter. once science advances a great deal, i believe we may one day we able to re organise protons and electrons from something "inanimate" like sand that you don't believe has a soul into new complex shapes forming proteins, memberanes, sugars, and essentially all the components that make up a person. and that person will be very much "alive" provided they are supplied with nutrients. and i believe this because i am convinced that there is no such thing as a soul and even if there was (ie. there is randomness to the universe), all matter must possess it to some degree including nonliving matter like sand.

so clearly, i do believe that a cadaver can be made to think, i believe a cadaver can even be brought back the dead. but by assuming that stimulating one neuron to fire off is analogous to thought is a great oversimplification. that which we percieve to be thought is the byproduct of millions of neurons firing off in varying patterns stimulated by information recieved from other sensory organs. and these organs in turn need an intact nutrition delivery system (a blood supply) in order to function. but if you can stimulate a cadaver to have a fully functioning neurological system and the circulatory system and sensory systems that influence this neurological system. then yes, the cadaver can indeed experience thoughts. and i believe this precisely because i don't believe in the existence of a soul. and as a result of this, i believe that a cadaver with all essentially components physiologically fully functioning is no different from what he was before death. there was no inherent soul that somehow made him alive and somehow spontanously disappeared the moment he "died".

This is why I say over and over again that your argument presupposes a soul. By soul, I mean a distinct individual entity that seperates you from the rest of the world. Without one, as tweryl pointed out, there is no choice that can be made. because there is no individual to make it. it is no different than a leaf being blown around in the wind.

0 Replies

A few words of summary might be useful on this one since we all seem to be talking across each other. Here's my take. (with apologies for ensuing simplification)

Twyvel starts from the axiom that there is "no self"
hence there is no entity to have "free will".

JLN starts from the position that there is "freedom" of something which we might call "thought" but it is often constrained by illusions of a constructed "reality".

Fresco starts from the position that social interaction is a priori and "reality of self", "freedom", "neurons" or anything at all is matter of consensus, in which "logic" plays a contentious role because of the shifting of agreement about set membership boundaries (i.e. truth values are probabalistic, not binary)

Joe takes "logic" as the the only arbiter in debate.

Jonat3 assumes consensus on a descriptive universe and is prepared to argue "upwards" from derived entities (electrons,circuits etc) rather than "downwards" from the consensus of purpose from which those entities came.

Centroles fluctuates between the upper and lower levels of discourse (i.e. "no self" and " deterministic causal interactions of lower level entities") in order to expose the "myth of free will".

0 Replies

Centroles,
What did you do? I sincerely hope you merely identified with Raskolnikov, or some other such character. If not, turn yourself in now! You strike me as the scariest person I've encountered thus far on A2K. You are a monster! For your own sake, for your families sake and for societies sake; do the right thing and turn yourself in to the authorities! Do it right now!
OCCOM BILL
Ps Boy am I ever glad I'm not responsible for saying any of that stuff.

0 Replies

Quote:

This is, without question, one of the most incomprehensible pieces of gibberish ever uttered in these forums. It's not just that it defies logic -- it defies the rules of language and grammar as well. It's the kind of circular argument that gives circular arguments a bad name. I won't even attempt to address it, as it is the purest nonsense.

On the contrary, yours defies logic. I must admit though, that once upon a time i thought the same way you do. However, someone pointed out the error in my logic by using mathematical formulas (like we just did). If i insert what you proposed into a computer, the computer would be unable to compute, it would show an error message. Why? Because the statement is not according that of logic. Reasoning is based in logic. That is why all reasoning can be represented through formulas.
You brought up freedom, choice and free will. All these things have close relations to each other. They are practically the same thing. First you must analyze each of these concepts. When can one say that we have freedom, free will or choice? Eventually, we would stumble upon conditions. If all the conditions are fullfilled, then logically we can say that that situation represents that concept. What you have been doing is applying the concept on a situation where it's base components were already applied. That's why i said that it was like traveling in time killing your parents. Doing that will create a paradox, a mathematical error. Actually, highschool mathematics is all one would need to understand this situation. A teacher or professor would only have to look at this to verify the logic. And they would agree with me.

In short, i said A=B+C. If a situation comes up wher you can apply B and C , one can say that A has been fullfilled. However, you went backwards and also tried to apply A to the situation, where B and C already applied. By applying A again to the situation, where B and C were already true, you found out A was false. However that kind of reasoning resulted in a paradox. If B and C were true, that would follow that A is true, but by applying A again, A was found false. A cannot be true and false at the same time. This is mathematically incorrect. Mathematical formulas can often show us our mistakes in logic. This one represented yours.

Quote:

There must come a point in these types of discussions where one can do no more than throw up one's hands in futility. That point, in this discussion, came here with your convincing demonstration that you don't know the difference between induction and deduction. Scientific tests are examples of inductive reasoning.

Heck, i tried to be patient most of the time. I already said i thought like you once in the past, so i can somewhat understand the confusion. And i must say in return that most of your posts seemed incomprehensible. An example is this link. This link explains the difference. Anyone could see that i went from bottom to up. Deductive reasoning is the opposite. If you search with google, you end up with this description:"Unlike deductive reasoning, Inductive reasoning is not designed to produce mathematical certainty". Meaning that scientific tests are examples of deductive reasoning and NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!!
I'm supposed to be the one throwing my hands up in the air. I believe it was you who brought up inductive reasoning in the first place. I'm too lazy to go look back in the thread to verify that, so i'm sorry if it was not you. But this could have been easily solved if you bothered to look up the terms!!

Quote:

Accusing me of not knowing the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning approaches the very zenith of irony.

We have reached the point, jonat, where I no longer feel obliged to respond to your posts. Not only am I confident that you are not profiting from my responses, but, more importantly, I am not getting anything out of them either. I am, therefore, content to say that we must agree to disagree.

I read trhough some of your post history and i'm beginning to understand why some posters were rather annoyed and refused to argue with you. Unlike them though, i'm an almost infinitely patient man. I will be happy to point out any mistakes in logic wherever i see one. And yours i'm afraid had lots. LOTS...

PS: And i must say i DID profit from your responses. It made me come in contact with terms like deductive and inductive reasoning. I must say that helped me out ALOT. It's a pity the meaning was confused in this thread. Or is it just merely IRONY?

0 Replies

Bill, I do hope you're joking. Don't make the assumption that what's argued on an internet forum is how I live my life if that is what you're getting at. That's a rather close minded perspective. If the ideas we express here reflect our lives, then based on what you have posted over and over again at "Racism cured or only in temporary remission?," I would have no choice but to conclude that you are a white supremist and a racist. But I don't believe that's the case. Atleast I would like to believe that you lead life based on how you yourself would like to be treated and do what's best for everyone instead.

Besides, I think it's rather close minded of you to assume that I favor determinism in order to defend my past actions. That is as far from the truth as possible. I haven't done anything very regrettable in my whole life.

I view determinism as the path to compassion and understanding of fellow human beings. Only when you stop viewing yourself as morally superior, more good, than others can you put yourselves in their perspective and emphatize with others that you previously viewed as "bad". And only then can you understand the social roots that lead to problematic behavior.

If more people abandoned the current focus on just locking people up in jail for as long as possible and acting as though the problem has been dealt with, if more people viewed other humans with compassion and tried to understand them, if more people focused on the social roots that compel one to do things that are harmful to society as a whole and insisted on addressing the sources of criminal behavior, then our society would be a million times better off.

Jail is a place for reformation. The current approach of locking people up for every little thing from light mariajuana use to openly stating your disagreements with president Bush outside of the designated free speech zone is not the course that we should be setting. Infact, some districts have even insisted on throwing children in juvinille jail for such "terrorist" behavior as pointing their fingers into a gun like shape in the typical cowboys and indians fashion and saying bang or for saying such things as, "man I'm so sick of shool, I just wish it would burn down." Throwing people including children in decrepit cells and forgetting about them doesn't accomplish anything. It merely increases the likelihood that they would disengage from prosocial behavior and engage in more "criminal behavior" once they get out.

This my friend is social application of determism, compassion and understanding even towards those that you vehemently disagree with.

0 Replies

truth
Joe, I have just experienced the extreme in empathy. I am referring to your almost desperate expression to Jonat: "We have reached the point, JOnat, where I no longer feel obliged to respond to your posts. Not only am I confident that you are not profiting from my responses, but, more importantly, I am not getting anything out of them either. I am, therefore, content to say that we must agree to disagree." This so clearly expresses my frustration and refusual to engage some others on these threads. Thanks.

0 Replies

Quote:

Joe, I have just experienced the extreme in empathy. I am referring to your almost desperate expression to Jonat: "We have reached the point, JOnat, where I no longer feel obliged to respond to your posts. Not only am I confident that you are not profiting from my responses, but, more importantly, I am not getting anything out of them either. I am, therefore, content to say that we must agree to disagree." This so clearly expresses my frustration and refusual to engage some others on these threads. Thanks.

I think we ALL have that in this thread. Neutral

0 Replies

Centroles,
I do hope you got a laugh out of my post. I apologize for anything you inferred from my it apart from humor. I laughed out loud while writing it and it struck me as funny enough to share. Peace, out.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

how is his position different from mine joe.

Twyvel can correct me if I err, but I believe she holds that there is no such thing as a unitary self. In contrast, Centroles, not only do you believe in the self, you are so firmly convinced of it that you are willing to bring it back from the dead.

And on that point, I must confess that I am at a loss for words. Rarely do I see something on these forums that I find astounding, or even mildly shocking. But your firm conviction that the dead can be brought back to life is, without question, one of the weirdest positions I have ever seen anyone hold in earnest. Seriously, who was your high school biology teacher? Mary Shelley?

I cannot envision this discussion going forward, now that you have made clear your ideas on the reanimation of the dead. So dream your dreams of immortality, Centroles, I will do my best not to disturb them.

JLNobody: Thanks for the words of empathy. I consider myself to be fairly patient, and my participation in this thread has actually exceeded my interest in the topic. But I have little patience for those who accuse me of not understanding logic when they themselves have only a passing acquaintance with the subject. I can only tolerate so much of their sort of arrant nonsense and insolent pipsqueakerie. Consequently, if they wish to further their philosophical education, they will have to find a new teacher.

0 Replies

Quote:

JLNobody: Thanks for the words of empathy. I consider myself to be fairly patient, and my participation in this thread has actually exceeded my interest in the topic. But I have little patience for those who accuse me of not understanding logic when they themselves have only a passing acquaintance with the subject. I can only tolerate so much of their sort of arrant nonsense and insolent pipsqueakerie. Consequently, if they wish to further their philosophical education, they will have to find a new teacher.

Hey, hey. We may disagree, but at least i tried to respect your opinion. If you are so confident of yourself, atleast try to argue the reasoning, instead of insulting it. Unable to do so testifies your weakness, not your strenght.You are acting if only you can be right. That is arrogance. Such an attitude is best done without on these boards.
And if you say that you already argued the reasoning, i already said why i understood your point, but rejected it. I suspect it has come to a point that you do not see, because you do not wish to see. In that case, perhaps it is best if you indeed did not reply to any of my posts.

And about the subject of raising the dead, i disagree on that point. For an outside influence to have an effect, the body must be able to respond in kind. If the body is dead, no reaction will occur. In a reactionary world dead ends exist. Death is a reactionary dead end. No other reactions (that can govern the human mind) will be able to occur in that event.

0 Replies

Joe, clearly you have misunderstood my stand. What's disturbing is that I couldn't have made it more crystal clear.

When have I ever in any of my posts suggested that I believe in a self. On occasion I merely referenced it as so many others including I suspect yourself believe in some form individual concious.

My posts have clearly suggested that we are all made up of the same essence, the same essential substances that make up rocks and leaves. Molecules, atoms and the energy that binds them. If you bothered to try to understand my posts, you would easily see that though the approaches to the arguements are different, the essential arguments are identical.

And it is precisely because I believe that we are all made up of atoms and molecules that I believe that a person cannot die, because there is no such thing as alive are dead. The reactions may stop and we may refer to this as death. If they can be reinitiated, then this is what we refer to as alive.

I am frankly quite entertained by how poorly you understand my points and contentions and insist on attack things that I never suggested.

0 Replies

And about your point about not being able to raise the dead, science has already proven you wrong joe.

I'll try to find an electronic source I can reference but surely, you must have heard about the cryogenically frozen dog that cnn had a story on a few months ago.

In case you missed, there was a dog which suffered from brain death due to some form of tumor I believe. The family had it cryogenically frozen after death. Due to recent advances in surgery, the tumor was easily removed. And the dog was unfrozen and its heart and respitory system stimulated. Unfortunately it didn't survive for long but never the less, the dog was indeed alive for a few seconds, respiring, and I believe even made a whimper. keep in mind, i am by no means endorsing the ethical basis for this procedure. i think it was rather inhumane.

but nevertheless, it essentially destroys your arguement. The dog was frozen for godsake. And yet, it was brought back from "death." I'll edit in the electronic source as soon as I find it.

0 Replies

Centroles

0 Replies

truth
What did the sceptic say? "No matter, never mind."
Only observation with no observer.

0 Replies

I have no idea.

Idea

....minus the bulb.

0 Replies

Absolute determinism and the illusion of free will.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know