Jump to content

Implausibility of Materialism


Recommended Posts

Guest Jeckyl
Posted

"someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:1183629321.899445.173950@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

> I haven't passed comment on it, as I haven't understood what your

> position is. I find it difficult to see how it could be claimed a

> mechanism that strictly follows the laws of physics has free will.

 

The 'laws' of physics are not fully deterministic

  • Replies 994
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Jeckyl
Posted

I've been unable to access the newsgroup for a while

 

Has glenn actually risen to the challenge and posted a single post with his

full argument presented yet?

Guest Jim07D7
Posted

"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> said:

>I've been unable to access the newsgroup for a while

>

>Has glenn actually risen to the challenge and posted a single post with his

>full argument presented yet?

>

No, he keeps going back to questioning, sort of "convince me it's

plausible."

Guest Jim07D7
Posted

"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> said:

>"someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message

>news:1183629321.899445.173950@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

>> I haven't passed comment on it, as I haven't understood what your

>> position is. I find it difficult to see how it could be claimed a

>> mechanism that strictly follows the laws of physics has free will.

>

>The 'laws' of physics are not fully deterministic

>

That's true. But we have been discussing what I've called "determinism

that allows for quantum events". Such a "determinism" makes some

statistical predictions. There are two contributors to events in such

a world: causal influences and random quantum events that may have

some larger scale effects. Strictly speaking this is not classical

determinism, but it fits well in this discussion, in the sense there

is no room for a third contributor, "free will" in such a world.

 

Someone2 has not given a definition of "free will". He's only just

started discussing it.

 

It, and personal responsibility, and ultimately, theism, are the real

issues for him, in this thread. He has said that determinism is

atheistic thinking.

 

But I have just reminded him that Predestination is a theistic concept

that meshes well with "determinism that allows for quantum events". It

meshes because it can be said that God has caused (predestined) large

scale events, that are predictable by us if we use the scientific

method, but has caused (predestined) small scale quantum events that

seem random and uncaused (but are directly caused by God) and make the

larger scale predictability subject to probability.

Guest Sippuddin
Posted

Jim07D7 wrote:

> "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> said:

>

>> "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message

>> news:1183629321.899445.173950@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

>>> I haven't passed comment on it, as I haven't understood what your

>>> position is. I find it difficult to see how it could be claimed a

>>> mechanism that strictly follows the laws of physics has free will.

>> The 'laws' of physics are not fully deterministic

>>

> That's true. But we have been discussing what I've called "determinism

> that allows for quantum events".

 

How is a change in human behavior a quantum event?

Guest Sippuddin
Posted

Jim07D7 wrote:

> "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> said:

>

>> "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message

>> news:1183629321.899445.173950@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

>>> I haven't passed comment on it, as I haven't understood what your

>>> position is. I find it difficult to see how it could be claimed a

>>> mechanism that strictly follows the laws of physics has free will.

>> The 'laws' of physics are not fully deterministic

>>

> That's true. But we have been discussing what I've called "determinism

> that allows for quantum events". Such a "determinism" makes some

> statistical predictions. There are two contributors to events in such

> a world: causal influences and random quantum events that may have

> some larger scale effects. Strictly speaking this is not classical

> determinism, but it fits well in this discussion, in the sense there

> is no room for a third contributor, "free will" in such a world.

>

> Someone2 has not given a definition of "free will". He's only just

> started discussing it.

>

> It, and personal responsibility, and ultimately, theism, are the real

> issues for him, in this thread. He has said that determinism is

> atheistic thinking.

>

> But I have just reminded him that Predestination is a theistic concept

> that meshes well with "determinism that allows for quantum events".

 

Predestination (The notion that God set every bit, 100%, of our

unavoidable destiny in motion when he created the world) is not the same

thing as the scientific understanding of the contingencies

(circumstances if you will) of factors a, b and c being the determinants

of event E. (Not causes, but determinants.)

 

Fire is determined by the contingencies of fuel, oxygen and a source of

ignition. Predestination is something entirely different.

Guest Sippuddin
Posted

Jim07D7 wrote:

> I've explained

> that, IMO, consciousness and determinism are not incompatible,

 

Right, if we were not conscious (alert and responding to stimuli) of the

events of our lives, whether those events are determined by factors a b

and c or by factors e f and g instead, then we would have nothing to

talk about would we?

 

I don't think Glen is ruling out behavior being determined, he is just

arguing that the behavior of humans is determined capriciously by the

individual, on the spur of the moment, based on the contingencies of the

moment, but this is not possible in a robot, because robots do not have

souls and thus do not have the free will God allegedly gave us.

 

(There seems to be a whole lot of begging the question coming from Glen.)

Guest Jim07D7
Posted

Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:

>Jim07D7 wrote:

>> "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> said:

>>

>>> "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message

>>> news:1183629321.899445.173950@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

>>>> I haven't passed comment on it, as I haven't understood what your

>>>> position is. I find it difficult to see how it could be claimed a

>>>> mechanism that strictly follows the laws of physics has free will.

>>> The 'laws' of physics are not fully deterministic

>>>

>> That's true. But we have been discussing what I've called "determinism

>> that allows for quantum events".

>

>How is a change in human behavior a quantum event?

 

It's not.

Guest Jim07D7
Posted

Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:

>Jim07D7 wrote:

>> "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> said:

>>

>>> "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message

>>> news:1183629321.899445.173950@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

>>>> I haven't passed comment on it, as I haven't understood what your

>>>> position is. I find it difficult to see how it could be claimed a

>>>> mechanism that strictly follows the laws of physics has free will.

>>> The 'laws' of physics are not fully deterministic

>>>

>> That's true. But we have been discussing what I've called "determinism

>> that allows for quantum events". Such a "determinism" makes some

>> statistical predictions. There are two contributors to events in such

>> a world: causal influences and random quantum events that may have

>> some larger scale effects. Strictly speaking this is not classical

>> determinism, but it fits well in this discussion, in the sense there

>> is no room for a third contributor, "free will" in such a world.

>>

>> Someone2 has not given a definition of "free will". He's only just

>> started discussing it.

>>

>> It, and personal responsibility, and ultimately, theism, are the real

>> issues for him, in this thread. He has said that determinism is

>> atheistic thinking.

>>

>> But I have just reminded him that Predestination is a theistic concept

>> that meshes well with "determinism that allows for quantum events".

>

>Predestination (The notion that God set every bit, 100%, of our

>unavoidable destiny in motion when he created the world) is not the same

>thing as the scientific understanding of the contingencies

>(circumstances if you will) of factors a, b and c being the determinants

>of event E. (Not causes, but determinants.)

>

>Fire is determined by the contingencies of fuel, oxygen and a source of

>ignition. Predestination is something entirely different.

 

It is not entirely different. Do your homework before replying.

Guest Jim07D7
Posted

Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:

>Jim07D7 wrote:

>

>> I've explained

>> that, IMO, consciousness and determinism are not incompatible,

>

>Right, if we were not conscious (alert and responding to stimuli) of the

>events of our lives, whether those events are determined by factors a b

>and c or by factors e f and g instead, then we would have nothing to

>talk about would we?

>

>I don't think Glen is ruling out behavior being determined, he is just

>arguing that the behavior of humans is determined capriciously by the

>individual, on the spur of the moment, based on the contingencies of the

>moment, but this is not possible in a robot, because robots do not have

>souls and thus do not have the free will God allegedly gave us.

>

>(There seems to be a whole lot of begging the question coming from Glen.)

 

I will let someone2 speak for himself.

Guest Jeckyl
Posted

"Jim07D7" <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote in message

news:g44q83d9ju144nj84ojjaac3akg9p66188@4ax.com...

> "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> said:

>

>>"someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message

>>news:1183629321.899445.173950@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

>>> I haven't passed comment on it, as I haven't understood what your

>>> position is. I find it difficult to see how it could be claimed a

>>> mechanism that strictly follows the laws of physics has free will.

>>

>>The 'laws' of physics are not fully deterministic

>>

> That's true. But we have been discussing what I've called "determinism

> that allows for quantum events". Such a "determinism" makes some

> statistical predictions. There are two contributors to events in such

> a world: causal influences and random quantum events that may have

> some larger scale effects. Strictly speaking this is not classical

> determinism, but it fits well in this discussion, in the sense there

> is no room for a third contributor, "free will" in such a world.

>

> Someone2 has not given a definition of "free will". He's only just

> started discussing it.

>

> It, and personal responsibility, and ultimately, theism, are the real

> issues for him, in this thread. He has said that determinism is

> atheistic thinking.

>

> But I have just reminded him that Predestination is a theistic concept

> that meshes well with "determinism that allows for quantum events". It

> meshes because it can be said that God has caused (predestined) large

> scale events, that are predictable by us if we use the scientific

> method, but has caused (predestined) small scale quantum events that

> seem random and uncaused (but are directly caused by God) and make the

> larger scale predictability subject to probability.

 

Indeed, the bible says that everyone's salvation and acceptance of god is

already preordained .. there is nothing you can do or not do that affects

this, as it was already decided by god. There are many examples of god

directly controlling the 'free' wills of people, and of god knowing what

will happen before it does (which is not possible if will was actually

free). An all-knowing and omnipotent god is completely at odds with free

will.

 

If a free will with no constraints is so essential .. then such gods cannot

exist. Someone2 has just gotten rid of god. Note also that his arguments

showing the subjective-experiences don't exist, and that we talk bout them

is just coincidental also applies when you substitute 'god' for 'subjective

experience'. So he's also provided another 'proof' that god doesn't exist.

 

For a theist he's doing wonders for the 'cause' of atheism.

Guest someone2
Posted

On 5 Jul, 14:51, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said:

>

> <...>

>

> >I haven't passed comment on it, as I haven't understood what your

> >position is. I find it difficult to see how it could be claimed a

> >mechanism that strictly follows the laws of physics has free will.

>

> This depends on your definition of free will. If it is being "not

> coerced" where being coerced is something you would know is happening,

> then you can have free will in a deterministic world, whenever you

> don't believe or feel you are being coerced.

>

> > If

> >there were a means by which quantum events could influence the

> >behaviour of the mechanism, as Penrose suggested for example with

> >alpha and beta microtubules, the difference being the presence of an

> >electron, then either the events wouldn't appear random, or the will

> >would have to be hidden within the general random distribution. Though

> >it could not be looked at in the sense that the choices were actually

> >made by each quantum event, or again it wouldn't matter what you

> >consciously experienced (as the choice makers wouldn't have the

> >conscious experience), and that you had the conscious experiences you

> >did would have to be coincidental to your behaviour.

>

> I don't buy the idea that randomness can somehow be the basis of free

> will.

>

> One problem I see with free will is sort of on the flip side. How can

> we perform an act of free will that we are responsible for? If it is

> free of all "outside" influence, then it's just us being ourselves.

> But that's just us, being however we were made. And we didn't make

> ourselves, under the usual theistic scheme.

 

But the behaviour of a robot has nothing to do with it consciously

experiencing, it behaves the way it does simply due to the mechanism

following the laws of physics. Yes atheists could make up a story that

it was different to a teddy bear with regards to conscious

experiences, but can't you comprehend, it wouldn't matter whether it

was or wasn't consciously experiencing, or what those conscious

experiences were like. You understand that right?

Guest Sippuddin
Posted

Jim07D7 wrote:

> Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:

>

>> Jim07D7 wrote:

>>> "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> said:

>>>

>>>> "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:1183629321.899445.173950@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

>>>>> I haven't passed comment on it, as I haven't understood what your

>>>>> position is. I find it difficult to see how it could be claimed a

>>>>> mechanism that strictly follows the laws of physics has free will.

>>>> The 'laws' of physics are not fully deterministic

>>>>

>>> That's true. But we have been discussing what I've called "determinism

>>> that allows for quantum events". Such a "determinism" makes some

>>> statistical predictions. There are two contributors to events in such

>>> a world: causal influences and random quantum events that may have

>>> some larger scale effects. Strictly speaking this is not classical

>>> determinism, but it fits well in this discussion, in the sense there

>>> is no room for a third contributor, "free will" in such a world.

>>>

>>> Someone2 has not given a definition of "free will". He's only just

>>> started discussing it.

>>>

>>> It, and personal responsibility, and ultimately, theism, are the real

>>> issues for him, in this thread. He has said that determinism is

>>> atheistic thinking.

>>>

>>> But I have just reminded him that Predestination is a theistic concept

>>> that meshes well with "determinism that allows for quantum events".

>>

>> Predestination (The notion that God set every bit, 100%, of our

>> unavoidable destiny in motion when he created the world) is not the same

>> thing as the scientific understanding of the contingencies

>> (circumstances if you will) of factors a, b and c being the determinants

>> of event E. (Not causes, but determinants.)

>>

>> Fire is determined by the contingencies of fuel, oxygen and a source of

>> ignition. Predestination is something entirely different.

>

> It is not entirely different.

 

They are not even close. The former is a metaphysical (non-empirical)

proposition and the latter is empirical (scientific).

Guest Sippuddin
Posted

Jeckyl wrote:

> "Jim07D7" <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote in message

> news:g44q83d9ju144nj84ojjaac3akg9p66188@4ax.com...

>> "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> said:

>>

>>> "someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message

>>> news:1183629321.899445.173950@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

>>>> I haven't passed comment on it, as I haven't understood what your

>>>> position is. I find it difficult to see how it could be claimed a

>>>> mechanism that strictly follows the laws of physics has free will.

>>> The 'laws' of physics are not fully deterministic

>>>

>> That's true. But we have been discussing what I've called "determinism

>> that allows for quantum events". Such a "determinism" makes some

>> statistical predictions. There are two contributors to events in such

>> a world: causal influences and random quantum events that may have

>> some larger scale effects. Strictly speaking this is not classical

>> determinism, but it fits well in this discussion, in the sense there

>> is no room for a third contributor, "free will" in such a world.

>>

>> Someone2 has not given a definition of "free will". He's only just

>> started discussing it.

>>

>> It, and personal responsibility, and ultimately, theism, are the real

>> issues for him, in this thread. He has said that determinism is

>> atheistic thinking.

>>

>> But I have just reminded him that Predestination is a theistic concept

>> that meshes well with "determinism that allows for quantum events". It

>> meshes because it can be said that God has caused (predestined) large

>> scale events, that are predictable by us if we use the scientific

>> method, but has caused (predestined) small scale quantum events that

>> seem random and uncaused (but are directly caused by God) and make the

>> larger scale predictability subject to probability.

>

> Indeed, the bible says that everyone's salvation and acceptance of god is

> already preordained .. there is nothing you can do or not do that affects

> this, as it was already decided by god. There are many examples of god

> directly controlling the 'free' wills of people, and of god knowing what

> will happen before it does (which is not possible if will was actually

> free). An all-knowing and omnipotent god is completely at odds with free

> will.

>

> If a free will with no constraints is so essential .. then such gods cannot

> exist. Someone2 has just gotten rid of god. Note also that his arguments

> showing the subjective-experiences don't exist, and that we talk bout them

> is just coincidental also applies when you substitute 'god' for 'subjective

> experience'. So he's also provided another 'proof' that god doesn't exist.

>

> For a theist he's doing wonders for the 'cause' of atheism.

>

>

Except that atheism is not a cause; just as asymmetry is characterized

simply by an absence of symmetry, atheism is characterized simply by an

absence of theism.

Guest Jim07D7
Posted

someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said:

>On 5 Jul, 14:51, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

>> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said:

>>

>> <...>

>>

>> >I haven't passed comment on it, as I haven't understood what your

>> >position is. I find it difficult to see how it could be claimed a

>> >mechanism that strictly follows the laws of physics has free will.

>>

>> This depends on your definition of free will. If it is being "not

>> coerced" where being coerced is something you would know is happening,

>> then you can have free will in a deterministic world, whenever you

>> don't believe or feel you are being coerced.

>>

>> > If

>> >there were a means by which quantum events could influence the

>> >behaviour of the mechanism, as Penrose suggested for example with

>> >alpha and beta microtubules, the difference being the presence of an

>> >electron, then either the events wouldn't appear random, or the will

>> >would have to be hidden within the general random distribution. Though

>> >it could not be looked at in the sense that the choices were actually

>> >made by each quantum event, or again it wouldn't matter what you

>> >consciously experienced (as the choice makers wouldn't have the

>> >conscious experience), and that you had the conscious experiences you

>> >did would have to be coincidental to your behaviour.

>>

>> I don't buy the idea that randomness can somehow be the basis of free

>> will.

>>

>> One problem I see with free will is sort of on the flip side. How can

>> we perform an act of free will that we are responsible for? If it is

>> free of all "outside" influence, then it's just us being ourselves.

>> But that's just us, being however we were made. And we didn't make

>> ourselves, under the usual theistic scheme.

>

>But the behaviour of a robot has nothing to do with it consciously

>experiencing, it behaves the way it does simply due to the mechanism

>following the laws of physics. Yes atheists could make up a story that

>it was different to a teddy bear with regards to conscious

>experiences, but can't you comprehend, it wouldn't matter whether it

>was or wasn't consciously experiencing, or what those conscious

>experiences were like. You understand that right?

 

This has nothing to do with what I said above it.

Guest Jim07D7
Posted

"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> said:

>"Jim07D7" <Jim07D7@nospam.net> wrote in message

>news:g44q83d9ju144nj84ojjaac3akg9p66188@4ax.com...

>> "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> said:

>>

>>>"someone2" <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in message

>>>news:1183629321.899445.173950@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

>>>> I haven't passed comment on it, as I haven't understood what your

>>>> position is. I find it difficult to see how it could be claimed a

>>>> mechanism that strictly follows the laws of physics has free will.

>>>

>>>The 'laws' of physics are not fully deterministic

>>>

>> That's true. But we have been discussing what I've called "determinism

>> that allows for quantum events". Such a "determinism" makes some

>> statistical predictions. There are two contributors to events in such

>> a world: causal influences and random quantum events that may have

>> some larger scale effects. Strictly speaking this is not classical

>> determinism, but it fits well in this discussion, in the sense there

>> is no room for a third contributor, "free will" in such a world.

>>

>> Someone2 has not given a definition of "free will". He's only just

>> started discussing it.

>>

>> It, and personal responsibility, and ultimately, theism, are the real

>> issues for him, in this thread. He has said that determinism is

>> atheistic thinking.

>>

>> But I have just reminded him that Predestination is a theistic concept

>> that meshes well with "determinism that allows for quantum events". It

>> meshes because it can be said that God has caused (predestined) large

>> scale events, that are predictable by us if we use the scientific

>> method, but has caused (predestined) small scale quantum events that

>> seem random and uncaused (but are directly caused by God) and make the

>> larger scale predictability subject to probability.

>

>Indeed, the bible says that everyone's salvation and acceptance of god is

>already preordained .. there is nothing you can do or not do that affects

>this, as it was already decided by god. There are many examples of god

>directly controlling the 'free' wills of people, and of god knowing what

>will happen before it does (which is not possible if will was actually

>free). An all-knowing and omnipotent god is completely at odds with free

>will.

>

>If a free will with no constraints is so essential .. then such gods cannot

>exist. Someone2 has just gotten rid of god. Note also that his arguments

>showing the subjective-experiences don't exist, and that we talk bout them

>is just coincidental also applies when you substitute 'god' for 'subjective

>experience'. So he's also provided another 'proof' that god doesn't exist.

>

>For a theist he's doing wonders for the 'cause' of atheism.

>

Determinism is metaphysical when taken as an ontology.

Guest someone2
Posted

On 6 Jul, 05:49, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said:

>

>

>

>

>

> >On 5 Jul, 14:51, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said:

>

> >> <...>

>

> >> >I haven't passed comment on it, as I haven't understood what your

> >> >position is. I find it difficult to see how it could be claimed a

> >> >mechanism that strictly follows the laws of physics has free will.

>

> >> This depends on your definition of free will. If it is being "not

> >> coerced" where being coerced is something you would know is happening,

> >> then you can have free will in a deterministic world, whenever you

> >> don't believe or feel you are being coerced.

>

> >> > If

> >> >there were a means by which quantum events could influence the

> >> >behaviour of the mechanism, as Penrose suggested for example with

> >> >alpha and beta microtubules, the difference being the presence of an

> >> >electron, then either the events wouldn't appear random, or the will

> >> >would have to be hidden within the general random distribution. Though

> >> >it could not be looked at in the sense that the choices were actually

> >> >made by each quantum event, or again it wouldn't matter what you

> >> >consciously experienced (as the choice makers wouldn't have the

> >> >conscious experience), and that you had the conscious experiences you

> >> >did would have to be coincidental to your behaviour.

>

> >> I don't buy the idea that randomness can somehow be the basis of free

> >> will.

>

> >> One problem I see with free will is sort of on the flip side. How can

> >> we perform an act of free will that we are responsible for? If it is

> >> free of all "outside" influence, then it's just us being ourselves.

> >> But that's just us, being however we were made. And we didn't make

> >> ourselves, under the usual theistic scheme.

>

> >But the behaviour of a robot has nothing to do with it consciously

> >experiencing, it behaves the way it does simply due to the mechanism

> >following the laws of physics. Yes atheists could make up a story that

> >it was different to a teddy bear with regards to conscious

> >experiences, but can't you comprehend, it wouldn't matter whether it

> >was or wasn't consciously experiencing, or what those conscious

> >experiences were like. You understand that right?

>

> This has nothing to do with what I said above it.

>

 

Yes it has, because how can a robot have 'free will'. As in it can't

'will' anything. The sensation of 'will' is a conscious phemonenon.

With a robot, as explained, its conscious experiences have nothing to

do with behaviour. Yet you were linking behaviour and 'will' and

whether the behaviour was coerced. If anything it would be 'coerced'

by its environment into acting as it does if it interacts with the

environment.

 

You avoided answering whether you understood my reply.

Guest Jim07D7
Posted

someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said:

>On 6 Jul, 05:49, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

>> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said:

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> >On 5 Jul, 14:51, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

>> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said:

>>

>> >> <...>

>>

>> >> >I haven't passed comment on it, as I haven't understood what your

>> >> >position is. I find it difficult to see how it could be claimed a

>> >> >mechanism that strictly follows the laws of physics has free will.

>>

>> >> This depends on your definition of free will. If it is being "not

>> >> coerced" where being coerced is something you would know is happening,

>> >> then you can have free will in a deterministic world, whenever you

>> >> don't believe or feel you are being coerced.

>>

>> >> > If

>> >> >there were a means by which quantum events could influence the

>> >> >behaviour of the mechanism, as Penrose suggested for example with

>> >> >alpha and beta microtubules, the difference being the presence of an

>> >> >electron, then either the events wouldn't appear random, or the will

>> >> >would have to be hidden within the general random distribution. Though

>> >> >it could not be looked at in the sense that the choices were actually

>> >> >made by each quantum event, or again it wouldn't matter what you

>> >> >consciously experienced (as the choice makers wouldn't have the

>> >> >conscious experience), and that you had the conscious experiences you

>> >> >did would have to be coincidental to your behaviour.

>>

>> >> I don't buy the idea that randomness can somehow be the basis of free

>> >> will.

>>

>> >> One problem I see with free will is sort of on the flip side. How can

>> >> we perform an act of free will that we are responsible for? If it is

>> >> free of all "outside" influence, then it's just us being ourselves.

>> >> But that's just us, being however we were made. And we didn't make

>> >> ourselves, under the usual theistic scheme.

>>

>> >But the behaviour of a robot has nothing to do with it consciously

>> >experiencing, it behaves the way it does simply due to the mechanism

>> >following the laws of physics. Yes atheists could make up a story that

>> >it was different to a teddy bear with regards to conscious

>> >experiences, but can't you comprehend, it wouldn't matter whether it

>> >was or wasn't consciously experiencing, or what those conscious

>> >experiences were like. You understand that right?

>>

>> This has nothing to do with what I said above it.

>>

>

>Yes it has, because how can a robot have 'free will'. As in it can't

>'will' anything. The sensation of 'will' is a conscious phemonenon.

>With a robot, as explained, its conscious experiences have nothing to

>do with behaviour. Yet you were linking behaviour and 'will' and

>whether the behaviour was coerced. If anything it would be 'coerced'

>by its environment into acting as it does if it interacts with the

>environment.

>

>You avoided answering whether you understood my reply.

 

I am done dealing with you on the robot consciousness issue. If you

want to reiterate that discussion, please select another person.

 

Let me start more simply. What, exactly is free will free of, besides

coercion by other agents?

Guest Sippuddin
Posted

Jim07D7 wrote:

> Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:

>

>> Jim07D7 wrote:

>>> someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said:

>>>

>>>> Human behaviour isn't 100% predictable, nor does it seem is animal

>>>> behaviour. There maybe trends, but if you asked the individual to do

>>>> something unpredictable, you can't predict what they will do.

>>> The question is, what is the reason a human's or an animal's behavior

>>> isn't predictable?

>>

>> But animal (including human) behavior is predictable (and controllable),

>> to a high level of confidence. Ask any dog trainer.

>>

>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/3ylb9t

>

> I agree. To a high level of confidence. But I was asking someone2 why,

> he thinks, it isn't 100% predictable.

 

Then you should have asked him, "Why do you think animal (including

human) behavior is not predictable when it is predictable?"

Guest someone2
Posted

On 6 Jul, 16:18, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said:

>

>

>

>

>

> >On 6 Jul, 05:49, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said:

>

> >> >On 5 Jul, 14:51, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

> >> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said:

>

> >> >> <...>

>

> >> >> >I haven't passed comment on it, as I haven't understood what your

> >> >> >position is. I find it difficult to see how it could be claimed a

> >> >> >mechanism that strictly follows the laws of physics has free will.

>

> >> >> This depends on your definition of free will. If it is being "not

> >> >> coerced" where being coerced is something you would know is happening,

> >> >> then you can have free will in a deterministic world, whenever you

> >> >> don't believe or feel you are being coerced.

>

> >> >> > If

> >> >> >there were a means by which quantum events could influence the

> >> >> >behaviour of the mechanism, as Penrose suggested for example with

> >> >> >alpha and beta microtubules, the difference being the presence of an

> >> >> >electron, then either the events wouldn't appear random, or the will

> >> >> >would have to be hidden within the general random distribution. Though

> >> >> >it could not be looked at in the sense that the choices were actually

> >> >> >made by each quantum event, or again it wouldn't matter what you

> >> >> >consciously experienced (as the choice makers wouldn't have the

> >> >> >conscious experience), and that you had the conscious experiences you

> >> >> >did would have to be coincidental to your behaviour.

>

> >> >> I don't buy the idea that randomness can somehow be the basis of free

> >> >> will.

>

> >> >> One problem I see with free will is sort of on the flip side. How can

> >> >> we perform an act of free will that we are responsible for? If it is

> >> >> free of all "outside" influence, then it's just us being ourselves.

> >> >> But that's just us, being however we were made. And we didn't make

> >> >> ourselves, under the usual theistic scheme.

>

> >> >But the behaviour of a robot has nothing to do with it consciously

> >> >experiencing, it behaves the way it does simply due to the mechanism

> >> >following the laws of physics. Yes atheists could make up a story that

> >> >it was different to a teddy bear with regards to conscious

> >> >experiences, but can't you comprehend, it wouldn't matter whether it

> >> >was or wasn't consciously experiencing, or what those conscious

> >> >experiences were like. You understand that right?

>

> >> This has nothing to do with what I said above it.

>

> >Yes it has, because how can a robot have 'free will'. As in it can't

> >'will' anything. The sensation of 'will' is a conscious phemonenon.

> >With a robot, as explained, its conscious experiences have nothing to

> >do with behaviour. Yet you were linking behaviour and 'will' and

> >whether the behaviour was coerced. If anything it would be 'coerced'

> >by its environment into acting as it does if it interacts with the

> >environment.

>

> >You avoided answering whether you understood my reply.

>

> I am done dealing with you on the robot consciousness issue. If you

> want to reiterate that discussion, please select another person.

>

> Let me start more simply. What, exactly is free will free of, besides

> coercion by other agents?

>

 

What do you mean your done with the issue, do you mean that you accept

that any robot following the known laws of physics couldn't be

influenced by any conscious experiences, or do you mean that you can't

face it?

 

Free will, is for example, that between 2 options, both were possible,

and you were able to consciously influence which would happen.

Guest Jim07D7
Posted

someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said:

>On 6 Jul, 16:18, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

<...>

>>

>> I am done dealing with you on the robot consciousness issue. If you

>> want to reiterate that discussion, please select another person.

>>

>> Let me start more simply. What, exactly is free will free of, besides

>> coercion by other agents?

>>

>

>What do you mean your done with the issue, do you mean that you accept

>that any robot following the known laws of physics couldn't be

>influenced by any conscious experiences, or do you mean that you can't

>face it?

 

I find your second alternative mildly insulting, considering the time

I have given to this.

 

I mean that any being (a robot or human or thermostat) that has imputs

and converts them to outputs has an influential role in what the

outputs are. If it consciously experiences and processes the imputs

and determines the outputs, then it consciously influences what the

outputs are.

 

I do not know if any robot following the known laws of physics

couldn't be influenced by any [of its own] conscious experiences. It

seems that robots currently do OK by outsourcing consciousness to us.

After all, they evolving amazingly fast, via us, symbiotically. ;-)

>

>Free will, is for example, that between 2 options, both were possible,

>and you were able to consciously influence which would happen.

 

From what is it free?

Guest Jim07D7
Posted

Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:

>Jim07D7 wrote:

>> Sippuddin <sipp@macrosoft.net> said:

>>

>>> Jim07D7 wrote:

>>>> someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said:

>>>>

>>>>> Human behaviour isn't 100% predictable, nor does it seem is animal

>>>>> behaviour. There maybe trends, but if you asked the individual to do

>>>>> something unpredictable, you can't predict what they will do.

>>>> The question is, what is the reason a human's or an animal's behavior

>>>> isn't predictable?

>>>

>>> But animal (including human) behavior is predictable (and controllable),

>>> to a high level of confidence. Ask any dog trainer.

>>>

>>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/3ylb9t

>>

>> I agree. To a high level of confidence. But I was asking someone2 why,

>> he thinks, it isn't 100% predictable.

>

>Then you should have asked him, "Why do you think animal (including

>human) behavior is not predictable when it is predictable?"

 

What are you the question-formation police? Let's see your badge.

Guest someone2
Posted

On 6 Jul, 18:02, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said:

>

>

>

> >On 6 Jul, 16:18, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

> <...>

>

> >> I am done dealing with you on the robot consciousness issue. If you

> >> want to reiterate that discussion, please select another person.

>

> >> Let me start more simply. What, exactly is free will free of, besides

> >> coercion by other agents?

>

> >What do you mean your done with the issue, do you mean that you accept

> >that any robot following the known laws of physics couldn't be

> >influenced by any conscious experiences, or do you mean that you can't

> >face it?

>

> I find your second alternative mildly insulting, considering the time

> I have given to this.

>

> I mean that any being (a robot or human or thermostat) that has imputs

> and converts them to outputs has an influential role in what the

> outputs are. If it consciously experiences and processes the imputs

> and determines the outputs, then it consciously influences what the

> outputs are.

>

> I do not know if any robot following the known laws of physics

> couldn't be influenced by any [of its own] conscious experiences. It

> seems that robots currently do OK by outsourcing consciousness to us.

> After all, they evolving amazingly fast, via us, symbiotically. ;-)

>

>

>

> >Free will, is for example, that between 2 options, both were possible,

> >and you were able to consciously influence which would happen.

>

> From what is it free?

 

Right, so you are saying:

 

That any mechanism that has inputs and converts them to outputs has an

influential role in what the outputs are.

 

Which is true in the sense that the configuration of the mechanism

will influence the outputs given the inputs.

 

In what sense would the outputs be influenced whether the mechanism

was consciously experiencing or not?

 

To put it another way, there is a robot which because of its

behaviour, an atheist claims is consciously experiencing. The robots

behaviour is explained to the atheist to simply be due to the

mechanism following the laws of physics. The atheist insists that the

mechanism is consciously experiencing, because of the behaviour of the

mechanism. You ask the atheist to point to where there is any evidence

of it consciously experiencing, and where any influence of those

conscious experiences are seen in the behaviour (which was the basis

of them claiming it was consciously experiencing in the first place).

Do you accept that there would be no evidence of any influence of it

consciously experiencing, thus no evidence of it consciously

experiencing.

 

Regarding the 'free will', it is free to choose either option A or B.

It is free from any rules which state which one must happen. As I said

both are possible, before it was consciously willed which would

happen.

Guest Jim07D7
Posted

someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> said:

>On 6 Jul, 18:02, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

>> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said:

>>

>>

>>

>> >On 6 Jul, 16:18, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

>> <...>

>>

>> >> I am done dealing with you on the robot consciousness issue. If you

>> >> want to reiterate that discussion, please select another person.

>>

>> >> Let me start more simply. What, exactly is free will free of, besides

>> >> coercion by other agents?

>>

>> >What do you mean your done with the issue, do you mean that you accept

>> >that any robot following the known laws of physics couldn't be

>> >influenced by any conscious experiences, or do you mean that you can't

>> >face it?

>>

>> I find your second alternative mildly insulting, considering the time

>> I have given to this.

>>

>> I mean that any being (a robot or human or thermostat) that has imputs

>> and converts them to outputs has an influential role in what the

>> outputs are. If it consciously experiences and processes the imputs

>> and determines the outputs, then it consciously influences what the

>> outputs are.

>>

>> I do not know if any robot following the known laws of physics

>> couldn't be influenced by any [of its own] conscious experiences. It

>> seems that robots currently do OK by outsourcing consciousness to us.

>> After all, they evolving amazingly fast, via us, symbiotically. ;-)

>>

>>

>>

>> >Free will, is for example, that between 2 options, both were possible,

>> >and you were able to consciously influence which would happen.

>>

>> From what is it free?

>

>Right, so you are saying:

 

Actually, I am asking, from what is it free?

 

I will rearrange your reply to put here, what seems to be a direct

reply.

>Regarding the 'free will', it is free to choose either option A or B.

>It is free from any rules which state which one must happen. As I said

>both are possible, before it was consciously willed which would

>happen.

 

How do we know whether something is free of any rules which state

which one must happen?

>

>That any mechanism that has inputs and converts them to outputs has an

>influential role in what the outputs are.

>

>Which is true in the sense that the configuration of the mechanism

>will influence the outputs given the inputs.

 

That is the sense in which I mean "influence". It doesn't require

conscious experience.

>In what sense would the outputs be influenced whether the mechanism

>was consciously experiencing or not?

>To put it another way, there is a robot which because of its

>behaviour, an atheist claims is consciously experiencing. The robots

>behaviour is explained to the atheist to simply be due to the

>mechanism following the laws of physics. The atheist insists that the

>mechanism is consciously experiencing, because of the behaviour of the

>mechanism. You ask the atheist to point to where there is any evidence

>of it consciously experiencing, and where any influence of those

>conscious experiences are seen in the behaviour (which was the basis

>of them claiming it was consciously experiencing in the first place).

>Do you accept that there would be no evidence of any influence of it

>consciously experiencing, thus no evidence of it consciously

>experiencing.

>

 

This boils down to whether you and the atheist can agree on an

influencing behavior that you both accept as evidence of conscious

experience. People have been looking for such things, for years.

Guest someone2
Posted

On 6 Jul, 19:48, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said:

>

>

>

>

>

> >On 6 Jul, 18:02, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

> >> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> said:

>

> >> >On 6 Jul, 16:18, Jim07D7 <Jim0...@nospam.net> wrote:

> >> <...>

>

> >> >> I am done dealing with you on the robot consciousness issue. If you

> >> >> want to reiterate that discussion, please select another person.

>

> >> >> Let me start more simply. What, exactly is free will free of, besides

> >> >> coercion by other agents?

>

> >> >What do you mean your done with the issue, do you mean that you accept

> >> >that any robot following the known laws of physics couldn't be

> >> >influenced by any conscious experiences, or do you mean that you can't

> >> >face it?

>

> >> I find your second alternative mildly insulting, considering the time

> >> I have given to this.

>

> >> I mean that any being (a robot or human or thermostat) that has imputs

> >> and converts them to outputs has an influential role in what the

> >> outputs are. If it consciously experiences and processes the imputs

> >> and determines the outputs, then it consciously influences what the

> >> outputs are.

>

> >> I do not know if any robot following the known laws of physics

> >> couldn't be influenced by any [of its own] conscious experiences. It

> >> seems that robots currently do OK by outsourcing consciousness to us.

> >> After all, they evolving amazingly fast, via us, symbiotically. ;-)

>

> >> >Free will, is for example, that between 2 options, both were possible,

> >> >and you were able to consciously influence which would happen.

>

> >> From what is it free?

>

> >Right, so you are saying:

>

> Actually, I am asking, from what is it free?

>

> I will rearrange your reply to put here, what seems to be a direct

> reply.

>

> >Regarding the 'free will', it is free to choose either option A or B.

> >It is free from any rules which state which one must happen. As I said

> >both are possible, before it was consciously willed which would

> >happen.

>

> How do we know whether something is free of any rules which state

> which one must happen?

>

>

>

> >That any mechanism that has inputs and converts them to outputs has an

> >influential role in what the outputs are.

>

> >Which is true in the sense that the configuration of the mechanism

> >will influence the outputs given the inputs.

>

> That is the sense in which I mean "influence". It doesn't require

> conscious experience.

>

> >In what sense would the outputs be influenced whether the mechanism

> >was consciously experiencing or not?

> >To put it another way, there is a robot which because of its

> >behaviour, an atheist claims is consciously experiencing. The robots

> >behaviour is explained to the atheist to simply be due to the

> >mechanism following the laws of physics. The atheist insists that the

> >mechanism is consciously experiencing, because of the behaviour of the

> >mechanism. You ask the atheist to point to where there is any evidence

> >of it consciously experiencing, and where any influence of those

> >conscious experiences are seen in the behaviour (which was the basis

> >of them claiming it was consciously experiencing in the first place).

> >Do you accept that there would be no evidence of any influence of it

> >consciously experiencing, thus no evidence of it consciously

> >experiencing.

>

> This boils down to whether you and the atheist can agree on an

> influencing behavior that you both accept as evidence of conscious

> experience. People have been looking for such things, for years.- >

 

Well I'd expect an influencing behaviour to be a behaviour other than

which you'd expect if the influence wasn't present. Maybe you could

explain how the atheist could explain the behaviour being that which

you would expect if there wasn't conscious experiences, to be one

influenced by conscious experiences?

 

 

With regards to how we would know whether something was free from

rules which state which one must happen, you would have no evidence

other than your own experience of being able to will which one

happens. Though if we ever detected the will influencing behaviour,

which I doubt we will, then you would also have the evidence of there

being no decernable rules. Any rule shown to the being, the being

could either choose to adhere to, or break, in the choice they made.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...