21 Jun 17
1 edit
Originally posted by humyIt's a question (and a link to a study) about mental disorders/madness. There is no mention of computers. What about mental disorders makes you think about computers?
unambiguously define what you actually mean by 'free will' else the question is meaningless and unanswerable.
Saying you mean "the ability to make decisions" is not what you actually mean because computers can sometimes make decisions and you say computers don't have 'free will'; contradiction!
I didn't write the article, but I think the readers of the article understand what they mean by it. It's not ambiguous, it's reality.
edit: I understand your expertise is in computers, and you know a lot about that area and frame a lot of your thoughts on getting computers to exhibit human behaviors. That is great, and a cool subject area. However, this is a perfectly fine/functional/practical working definition of free will, used by neuroscientists studying decision making behaviors in animals. See the linked articles I've posted. You cannot call something pseudoscience just because their definitions don't neatly apply within your own specialty.
21 Jun 17
5 edits
Originally posted by wildgrasswhat has that got to do with it?
What about mental disorders makes you think about computers?
.
Computers sometimes go wrong; analogous to mental disorders. If an AI goes wrong, why not call that a mental disorder? As you seem to be saying our mind going wrong ( =mental disorder) demonstrates us having 'free will', according to you, does an AI going wrong show it has 'free will'? Using the same kind of faulty assertions you made about study of mental disorders means study of 'free will'; Sometimes I made a mistake in a program or the AI encountered a situation it cannot deal with and, as a result, it went wrong. If I study that, does that show it has 'free will'?
You cannot call something pseudoscience just because their definitions don't neatly apply within your own specialty
I didn't. Pseudoscience or no pseudoscience, If a definition fails in a situation to represent the meaning then that proves it invalid as a definition.
You cannot say the meaning is X but its not X in this situation and that situation; that means it is defined as both X and not X; contradiction! A fully valid definition must work in ALL situations.
22 Jun 17
Originally posted by wildgrassFrom your reference:
I have defined it this way throughout the thread until I was forced to read philosophy and look up Rudy Carnap, a legit philosopher, who had this to say [3]. I agree with him.
There is no contradiction between free choice understood in this way and determinism, even of the strong classical type.
Yet a few posts ago, you stated:
Did I say determinism rendered false anything that is measurable? I said that it rendered free will false, and since empirical evidence suggests free will exists, then there's something wrong with determinism.
Clearly you DO NOT agree with Carnap.
Free will isn't vague. Determinism, however, is vague pseudoscience.
I bet you cannot back that up. What is 'vague' about the concept of determinism? Why is it 'pseudoscience'?
27 Jun 17
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadSure that was imprecise, but I was attempting to correct your false impression that I wrote "determinism rendered false all things measurable" which was an odd misquote in the first place and I have no idea where you got it from. What I meant to say originally (which was taken out of context) was "deterministic and indeterministic model systems may be regarded as empirically indistinguishable".
From your reference:There is no contradiction between free choice understood in this way and determinism, even of the strong classical type.
Yet a few posts ago, you stated:
[b]Did I say determinism rendered false anything that is measurable? I said that it rendered free will false, and since empirical evidence suggests free will exis ...[text shortened]... annot back that up. What is 'vague' about the concept of determinism? Why is it 'pseudoscience'?
Very early in the thread humy argued "if your next decision is inevitably going to be whatever it is going to be, then that means the 'free will' is a contradiction because it isn't 'free' but rather determined."
We have been over and over how you think free will is vague. But what is determinism exactly? It seems that "compatibilist" philosophers are using the exact same terminology for free will, but they look at the doctrine of determinism differently than humy did above.
28 Jun 17
Originally posted by wildgrassThis is true by what YOU mean by 'free will', not by compatibilist who have no problem with 'free will' being determined.
Very early in the thread humy argued "if your next decision is inevitably going to be whatever it is going to be, then that means the 'free will' is a contradiction because it isn't 'free' but rather determined."
But what is determinism exactly?
I already been over this with you again and again. What part of its definition do you not understand?
It seems that "compatibilist" philosophers are using the exact same terminology for free will,
NOT the same as your terminology;you define 'free will' differently.
but they look at the doctrine of determinism differently than humy did above.
In what way?
28 Jun 17
Originally posted by wildgrassYes, it is a very odd misquote. But a misquote by YOU. The line you quote above is NOT in any post by me. You just made it up.
Sure that was imprecise, but I was attempting to correct your false impression that I wrote "determinism rendered false all things measurable" which was an odd misquote in the first place and I have no idea where you got it from.
What I meant to say originally (which was taken out of context) was "deterministic and indeterministic model systems may be regarded as empirically indistinguishable".
But that is clearly NOT what you actually said, so it wasn't a case of me taking you out of context, it was a case of you failing to communicate your point effectively. What you actually said, directly contradicts the claim that they are indistinguishable.
Very early in the thread humy argued "if your next decision is inevitably going to be whatever it is going to be, then that means the 'free will' is a contradiction because it isn't 'free' but rather determined."
And that is the position of many people based on a particular definition of 'free will' that is not compatible with determinism.
We have been over and over how you think free will is vague. But what is determinism exactly? It seems that "compatibilist" philosophers are using the exact same terminology for free will, but they look at the doctrine of determinism differently than humy did above.
No, compatibility philosophers are clearly redefining free will differently from the one humy used above.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism#Defining_free_will
What determinism is, is clearly explained on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
Basically it is the position that the universe is fully deterministic, ie every state of the universe uniquely determines all future states.
28 Jun 17
7 edits
Determinism means the belief that, for any given exact outcome, given all the exact initial conditions just before that exact outcome, that exact outcome couldn't have been any different from whatever exactly it was (this is stated here in past tense but the same applies in future tense).
Therefore, by the definition of determinism;
If there has occurred an outcome that, given all the exact initial conditions just before that outcome, could have been but wasn't different from whatever it was, then determinism is false else determinism is true (or at least so far always been true in the past).
I cannot understand why some people cannot understand this very simple concept.
28 Jun 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadSee page 19. You replied to my post regarding the impracticality of determinism by stating "No, it does not render false anything that is measurable."
Yes, it is a very odd misquote. But a misquote by YOU. The line you quote above is NOT in any post by me. You just made it up.
Indeed, it was a strange misconstruction of my comment.
28 Jun 17
Originally posted by humyIt's more doctrine than concept.
I cannot understand why some people cannot understand this very simple concept.
Have you ever run an experiment with all the exact initial conditions? Can you? If you have to believe in it to make it true, then it isn't science.
28 Jun 17
Originally posted by wildgrassYet above, you falsely quoted me saying: "determinism rendered false all things measurable".
See page 19. You replied to my post regarding the impracticality of determinism by stating "No, it does not render false anything that is measurable."
YOU misquoted ME, then had the nerve to suggest that I misquoted YOU.
Indeed, it was a strange misconstruction of my comment.
No, it wasn't. Your understanding of English is at fault. The word 'anything' in my sentence does not mean what you think it means.
There is a difference between:
1. It cannot do anything.
and
2. It cannot do everything.
Think about it.
I was saying that there is nothing that is measurable and rendered false by determinism.
I was NOT saying that you had claimed that determinism renders everything measurable false.
You DID claim that there was something measurable that WAS rendered false by determinism and have since tried to distance yourself from that claim by contradicting it over and over without ever admitting that you were flat out wrong - even to the point of misquoting me, and claiming you were quoted out of context, to try and place the blame for your error on me.
28 Jun 17
Originally posted by wildgrassIt is doctrine if you hold it to be true without supporting evidence. He does not and neither do I.
It's more doctrine than concept.
Have you ever run an experiment with all the exact initial conditions? Can you? If you have to believe in it to make it true, then it isn't science.
He doesn't believe in it and it is not known to be true. It is still science to consider the question of whether or not it is true.
28 Jun 17
12 edits
Originally posted by wildgrassNobody rational CLAMS to be currently able to prove determinism true and nobody who understands what science is CLAIMS that it is a scientific fact that determinism is true, although, because the distinction between science and philosophy is sometimes a bit blurred, it may still be considered to be a science subject for discussion only, NOT a science fact.
Have you ever run an experiment with all the exact initial conditions? Can you? If you have to believe in it to make it true, then it isn't science.
What has that got to do with how hard it is to understand the simple concept of determinism?
Are you saying that, if it cannot be proven, you don't understand what it is? That's nonsense. How does being unable to prove a theory make it hard to understand it? Exactly which part of the definition of determinism don't you understand and why?
28 Jun 17
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, the 'universe' we can see is even in our 4 dimension existence, not all we can see, since the time of the BB space, however you want to say it, 'exploded' has space pumped into it like air in a balloon, whatever, space started out expanding some 22 orders of magnitude faster than c and even now is still faster than c by some 3 odd times. So even in our 'own' universe there are parts we can not see, not now, not ever, since light has not had a chance to get here yet from that far reach, maybe 50 billion odd light years past the 14 we can actually see.
It must be noted that without even talking about time and origins, despite popular belief, it is not known whether or not the space dimensions of the universe we see around us are finite. I think the image of the big bang as an explosion from a point is partly responsible for this popular misconception, and the loose wording of scientists saying 'universe' when what they mean is 'visible universe' is also at fault.
And we will never see that either unless we invent a hyper space drive capable of a billion times the speed of light.
Think about that! Even at a billion c, it would take half a lifetime to get to the parts we can't see now. THAT is mind boggling for sure!
At that speed, it would take 14 years just to see the edge we now see!
28 Jun 17
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseMy point, which you apparently missed completely, is that the actual size of the universe is a complete unknown. It may even be infinite.
Think about that! Even at a billion c, it would take half a lifetime to get to the parts we can't see now. THAT is mind boggling for sure!
29 Jun 17
Originally posted by humyThat's not the definition for determinism.
Determinism means the belief that, for any given exact outcome, given all the exact initial conditions just before that exact outcome, that exact outcome couldn't have been any different from whatever exactly it was (this is stated here in past tense but the same applies in future tense).
Therefore, by the definition of determinism;
If t ...[text shortened]... rue in the past).
I cannot understand why some people cannot understand this very simple concept.
It is an implication from the actual definition, but a useless one. Exact initial conditions can't be recreated, unless you look at a mere subset.