because you cannot simulate our emotional state of being.
Why free will is impossible
- Thread starter litewave
- Start date
because you cannot simulate our emotional state of being.
That's why I said it was speculation.
I think( again, more speculation)... if you monitored someone for a good 20 years or so with some sort of onboard system that could record most of the input detail (including scent, say, of pheromones exposed to and responses thereof) along with the physiological responsed to said input...
You could get enough of a data set to make a pretty good approximation.
And still not be able to predict people 100% of the time.
Again, pulling this out of my butt with the winged monkeys.
I think( again, more speculation)... if you monitored someone for a good 20 years or so with some sort of onboard system that could record most of the input detail (including scent, say, of pheromones exposed to and responses thereof) along with the physiological responsed to said input...
You could get enough of a data set to make a pretty good approximation.
And still not be able to predict people 100% of the time.
Again, pulling this out of my butt with the winged monkeys.
That is SO false. Reread above.
Predetermined and not predictable in principle? Gibberish. Unless you are going supernatural on me, and then, again, gibberish.
Of course I can consciously perceive my freedom. I know when I'm being forced and compelled and under duress, and when I'm not. I think I can clearly perceive that and it qualifies as information, not a delusion. It's not a feeling like hot or cold, it is an observation of how the will was exercised in a particular case. We all know this. That's why you get a little pissed when someone exerts force over you, yet are happy as a clam when you get to do what you want.
Again, I just explained that. It absolutely can be changed (based on the very predictions you think predetermines everything). Anything can be changed by the predicting party. ANY predicting party. You have to keep the difference between predicting and explaining clear. You predict the future, you explain the present. If it has happened and is fully explained/caused, it's too late to change. But if it hasn't happened yet, and is predicted, the temporal gap allows a volition to make a change.
Now THAT is changing definitions to become entirely question begging.
Not outside at all. In it. Swimming along with the ability to see where we have been and where we are going and the ability to turn if we want. You have to be caused to do all that.
Yes. If there was no one to understand, predict, desire and change things to his liking, yes, it would be a billiard table/clock.
Baloney, thermostats don't decide if they are comfortable or not and what they want the temp to be. That's just a silly argument. You are going backwards.
Same laws, and not outside. It just has a capacity and skill that clocks don't.
I agree we don't yet have the neural mapping necessary to predict minute human behavior in all it's detail with much accuracy. We may never be able to. But that would just be a practical limitation. It doesn't have anything to do with whether our volition is unfettered by force or compulsion in any particular instance.
Last edited:
But you can't prove that you're conscious.RegularOldguy said:
And you can't prove that your perception of freedom is not an illusion.
All you've managed to "prove" so far, is that the idea of free will being an illusion is not very easy for most people to deal with. You've been having a lot of problems even understanding what other people, me included, have actually been saying.
I've been having problems trying to understand what makes you respond the way you do, as if this is some kind of battle of wills. It's meant to be a discussion, not a contest.
I have reread your misunderstanding... was there anything else?
You can call it gibberish all you like but it is now quite clear that you simply do not fully understand or appreciate the terms you throw around.
When something is predetermined it means that it can not be altered - it was always going to be that way. You agree with this?
A predetermined system CAN BE perfectly predictable ONLY IF you have perfect knowledge of the conditions at a given moment.
Therefore while all perfectly predictable systems are predetermined, NOT ALL predetermined systems are perfectly predictable... unless you also have perfect knowledge.
One is a subset of the other, for those situations where there is perfect knowledge.
Do you comprehend?
Perhaps you missed the implication that, speaking only of a conscious perception, it speaks nothing of the underlying nature. It reinforces the position that you are merely referring to "free-will" as a perception of our consciousness and that you are unable/unwilling to address the underlying nature, yet you continue to claim that this perception is more than illusory despite not addressing the core issue.
You just put your fingers in your ears and run around bleating "la la la la la".
You simply do not know or fully appreciate the terms you are using.
:shrug:
Then you are ignorant of the usage of such terms.
I don't say this lightly. It seems to be a rather key issue in discussions with you, that you misunderstand some of the important terms.
I say this again: If something is perfectly predictable then it WILL happen.
I.e. if the system is a predictable system, and everything is known about conditions at t=0 then the predicted position at t=1 WILL come about.
Learn this.
Understand this.
It is important.
Do you not see how these two positions are contrary to each other?
It merely adds to my conviction that you don't truly grasp the issues at play here, and that you merely hold a conclusion and are trying to create an argument to convince yourself.
Either consciousness is outside of the operation of the rest of the universe and thus you put consciousness on a pedestal, OR consciousness abides by the same operations as the rest of the "billiard table/clock" universe... which would make consciousness ALSO a "billiard table/clock".
You can't have it both ways.
So which is it?
While the issue of "comfort" is left to the human... the operation of thermostats is no different in many regards... they get input... they assess... they react.
You relegate the issue of complexity as a "silly argument". :shrug:
And your view of the Singapore metro system, or chess computers?
So it is a matter of complexity rather than underlying operation?
Last edited:
Unfortunately, this is the core of some pro-free will arguments, I've heard it even from an advanced Buddhist scholar. Namely, that free will comes down to randomness, or to complexity - but is nothing substantial.
Can you prove that you're not a zombie?
But perhaps you like being a zombie? Although it's not clear how a zombie could like this or that ...
That's right. Skeptics just aren't sure they're really in the dark!
Go get 'em!
The limits of one's language are the limits of one's world.
The conceptual system (ie. system of concepts) through which one sees determines what one will see.
If you insist in your version of physicalism - then you will see everything according to this physicalism.
If you adopted a different conceptual system, you would see different things.
This is the philosophy forum. Being able to switch between different conceptual systems is paramount here.
Then buy a dictionary.
No, it doesn't. We all see the same things.
Our interpretations may differ... and if your "conceptual system" CAN explain the questions raised then please do so... rather than just say "I don't agree - and if you saw it my way you'd agree as well!"
No - I would still see the same things.
We would interpret them differently.
The thing about these "conceptual systems" is that, no matter which one you adopt, they should be capable of answering the questions raised.
But unless you can have the decency to detail your position, and answer the questions posed...? :shrug:
No it's not.
This is basically you, rather than actually answering any questions that have been raised, falling back on "well, if you saw it my way you'd agree"?
If your "conceptual system" can answer those questions then please do so.
If they can't, or more likely just if you don't know, then man-up and admit as much.
But if all you're going to say is "I don't agree... and if you saw it my way you would agree with me!".... :shrug:
I guess I'll never understand your use of the word "proof". I'm certainly not doing this in a dream state (though it is quite bizarre), by dreams are not quite this detailed (understatement) nor can I get on my computers in my dreams and check my history. And my wife thought I was awake this morning. As did my cats, who want to be fed. OK, that was just for fun, but here is the rub for you. You have now painted "yourself" into the solipsistic corner of not even being able to decide if you are conscious. (That's worse shape than Descartes was in). That means all these responses I have written to you are really you, talking back to yourself. Wow, given what I have been saying, you must really be a genius. Now stop patting yourself on the back. When you have to run to solipsism to protect your position, you have no position left. Oldest bear trap in the book.
Let me see: all things are caused, therefore all things are predictable, therefore all things are predetermined, therefore I am caused, as are my decisions, therefore all my decisions are predetermined, A predetermined decision cannot be a free decision,therefore even if I think I am making free decisions, that must be an illusion. Is that about it?
Odd, I was saying that earlier, but I seemed to have altered my tone to match the insulting sarcasm and dismissive arrogance that seems to be rampant here. Doesn't feel that good when the shoe is on the other foot does it?
Last edited:
All the things you say I haven't explained have been explained. You just choose to forget or ignore them so you can shift the burden from your understanding and discussing a point to making me repeat it. That's the oldest lawyer trick in the book. Make someone restate their story over and over, hoping they won't be consistent and you can pick it apart. Also, it gives you time to think. Cheap.
Every point here has been addressed repeatedly. Clearly this really isn't about understanding. And I know that many who have been following this (lurking) think I'm an idiot to keep trying to get through to you (not convince, just get through) for this long. But, you being a particularly haughty individual, it was fun screwing with you, while at the same time getting to record my arguments for others to appreciate. So turn on some porn, and give it a go.
Last edited:
So you're sticking by your your lack of comprehension of concepts such as predictability, as well as the overtly contradictory responses you have given? :shrug:
You have certainly repeated your position, but you have certainly not addressed the criticisms of your position (such as your obvious misunderstandings of terms and your contradictory responses).
All you have basically done is stick your fingers in your ears and bleat "la la la la".
You tell me, as you fail to understand even the key terms you use.
I have understood your position: and have detailed what I find flawed with it.
You have clearly not understood the criticisms levelled at your position and just repeat the same drivel.
So you're right (let me catch my breath with surprise!): clearly this really isn't about understanding.
It's quite possible many do think you're an idiot, but whether it's for the reason you think I couldn't say.
But maybe you're right... 'cos if enough people agree with you then you must be right.
If you would rather get your kicks from any sense of superiority that might give you rather than be bothered to discuss and respond to the points raised, then go for it.
Next time just warn me in advance that you have no interest in discussing but merely in ego-stroking.
Arguments that have been shown to be flawed, limited, contradictory, and demonstrating a lack of comprehension of the key terms.
Yes - I'm sure many here will appreciate them.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Due to time constraints, I only responded to the first half of Pandaemoni's post yesterday. The second half is interesting and may even hint at a way out of the thread's quandary, so it's worthy of a response too.
Right.
The problem with that is that if there are chaotic situations in real life where it's impossible in principle to associate particular causes with particular effects, except in an ideal case when the cause is known with absolute mathematical precision with absolutely no margin of error, then the claims of determinism seem to shift from being scientific to being "metaphysical" (in the peculiar sense that the logical-positivists used the word). Determinism stops being a description of what's actually scientifically observed and starts to look more like the expression of a philosophical theory about how nature is imagined to operate.
And if it's true that according to quantum mechanics some variables in physical systems don't always have discretely defined values, if it's true that reality is a little fuzzy and probabilistic on the fine-scale in other words, then adding chaotic dynamics to that incendiary situation might create problems for some versions of determinism even in ontological principle.
If the graph of a deterministic function is a diffuse dust instead of a continuous line, where even infinitesimal changes in the value of X are associated with dramatically different values in Y, and if we find ourselves in a situation where even in physical principle we can't define the value of X without a finite range of error, the one-to-one correlation between cause and effect threatens to break down pretty dramatically.
Just speculatively, it might be the case that chaos represents a kind of information-theoretical entropy that's built into causality. In other words, causal chains might dissipate into randomness fairly rapidly when chaos appears. We could still talk about 'determinism', but it's a determinism in which information is continuously being lost and new information generated. Which would suggest that a lot of the structure that we observe in the universe (and in ourselves) here-and-now is generated by processes occurring in real-time, instead of everything that we obsere (and are) just being the unfolding of implicit states of affairs that were already present and encoded in the physical laws and initial conditions at the moment of creation in the big-bang.
Sure, we can still talk about everything still having a cause, and we can even continue talking about everything still being necessarily determined by previous states of affairs. But if deterministic causality doesn't always reveal precisely what is going to happen, we find ourselves after-the-fact piously repeating our metaphysical theory that whatever did happen was determined and happened necessarily. But we're still in need of some additional account that actually explains what we observed. Why did Sue do this instead of that? That calls for a shorter-range explanation that attributes her behavior to something more tangible than an airy wave at the entire universe.
In light of my speculations above, maybe an argument can be made that it still makes sense to attribute people's actions to their own inner neural processes, to their desires, motivation and choices in psychological words. That idea would seem to follow if there's a close and predictable relationship between those kind of inner states and people's immediate internal and external behavior. And I think that just about all of our experience testifies that there is. That's how our instinctive understanding of human behavior seems to have evolved, so thinking that way almost certainly has some utility and efficacy.
Right.
The problem with that is that if there are chaotic situations in real life where it's impossible in principle to associate particular causes with particular effects, except in an ideal case when the cause is known with absolute mathematical precision with absolutely no margin of error, then the claims of determinism seem to shift from being scientific to being "metaphysical" (in the peculiar sense that the logical-positivists used the word). Determinism stops being a description of what's actually scientifically observed and starts to look more like the expression of a philosophical theory about how nature is imagined to operate.
And if it's true that according to quantum mechanics some variables in physical systems don't always have discretely defined values, if it's true that reality is a little fuzzy and probabilistic on the fine-scale in other words, then adding chaotic dynamics to that incendiary situation might create problems for some versions of determinism even in ontological principle.
If the graph of a deterministic function is a diffuse dust instead of a continuous line, where even infinitesimal changes in the value of X are associated with dramatically different values in Y, and if we find ourselves in a situation where even in physical principle we can't define the value of X without a finite range of error, the one-to-one correlation between cause and effect threatens to break down pretty dramatically.
Just speculatively, it might be the case that chaos represents a kind of information-theoretical entropy that's built into causality. In other words, causal chains might dissipate into randomness fairly rapidly when chaos appears. We could still talk about 'determinism', but it's a determinism in which information is continuously being lost and new information generated. Which would suggest that a lot of the structure that we observe in the universe (and in ourselves) here-and-now is generated by processes occurring in real-time, instead of everything that we obsere (and are) just being the unfolding of implicit states of affairs that were already present and encoded in the physical laws and initial conditions at the moment of creation in the big-bang.
Sure, we can still talk about everything still having a cause, and we can even continue talking about everything still being necessarily determined by previous states of affairs. But if deterministic causality doesn't always reveal precisely what is going to happen, we find ourselves after-the-fact piously repeating our metaphysical theory that whatever did happen was determined and happened necessarily. But we're still in need of some additional account that actually explains what we observed. Why did Sue do this instead of that? That calls for a shorter-range explanation that attributes her behavior to something more tangible than an airy wave at the entire universe.
In light of my speculations above, maybe an argument can be made that it still makes sense to attribute people's actions to their own inner neural processes, to their desires, motivation and choices in psychological words. That idea would seem to follow if there's a close and predictable relationship between those kind of inner states and people's immediate internal and external behavior. And I think that just about all of our experience testifies that there is. That's how our instinctive understanding of human behavior seems to have evolved, so thinking that way almost certainly has some utility and efficacy.
Perfect.
How can I decide that, unless I can make decisions, and how can I make decisions unless I have free will?RegularOldguy said:
Does that sound circular? It sure does to me.
Besides, isn't there a difference between deciding you're conscious, and proving it? If I decide I'm awake, can I prove I am? To whom?
The first part is true as far as we know; the second part is false--we are unable to predict everything.
And so it goes. You seem to be rather confused and you're upset about being confused.
Last edited:
Cute pic, but rather ironic, since it is R0G that clings to his security-blanket of ignorance, unable or unwilling to address the criticisms and arguments against his position.
While you continue to troll...
Go figure. :shrug:
did anyone see Adjustment Bureau yet?
interesting Free will take..(reminds me of alot of things i have been posting)
interesting Free will take..(reminds me of alot of things i have been posting)
Saw it. It was pretty good.