why so angry ? part 2

Originally posted by knightmeister
I KNOW that's not what you said . Read more carefully. The point I was making was that that was what you SHOULD say. In other words what you say is not consistent with your view. If all actions are determined either by chance or programming then all actions MUST be determined in your view. It's logical , but you don't want to accept the logical implic bating with you , you don't accept the uncomfortable logical implications of your own view.

Hold on a second. This is a confusion with language. Yes, all things are either determined or random,
because those are the only choices: either something happens randomly or it is part of a chain of
events. To say 'Event X is either random or determined' is a tautology. It's like saying that either
a non-zero number is either negative or positive. Well, duh!

If you feel that something can be neither random nor determined by something, then I'm opened to
hearing it.

The question is: simply because my character determines my actions, does this fact make it impossible
to have free will? The answer is 'no.' Simply because my character determines my actions does not
entail that I am a hard determinist or that free will is an illusion. Perhaps this is where you are
having difficulty. Simply because my character determines my actions doesn't mean that it is
(pre)determined that I would act in a certain way such that my putative will doesn't exist.


Nemesio

Originally posted by knightmeister
QUOTE------------------------

I will say this for the computer analogy. Whereas a computer may be
able to indentically predict which choices I might elect, this doesn't necessarily
entail that it has free will. I think that free will requires the ability to be
self-aware, something that a computer crunching out variables or a worm
lacks. --- ...[text shortened]... like a magic rabbit. Randomness and programming just makes meat computers , that's all.

Whoa whoa whoa.

Let's define 'meat computer' because the way you say it suggest that it is necessarily an evil thing.
If this meat computer has free will, self-awareness, beliefs, opinions, interests, desires and the like --
that is, identical to me in every way except for the fact that it is made out of metal and not carbon-
based -- then, what's the problem?

If you mean that I am a 'meat computer' -- that is, I make judgments and interpretations based on
the facts, beliefs, and opinions I have at my disposal within the range of my thinking capacity -- then
what's the problem?

You're suggesting that 'meat computer' is necessarily a bad thing, but you aren't really defining what's
bad about it.

I mean, your stomach is like a little meat-processing factory, right? You put in nutritious food and
you poop out nasty waste, and in the process nourish your body, right? Nothing wrong with that.
What's the problem with chemical reactions?

The main difference that I see with a computer as distinct from me is the ability to be self-aware.
I may be wrong -- bbarr would have to ring in here -- it would seem that self-awareness is a necessary
criterion for the capacity to exercise free will (I'm not well versed enough to know whether there are
other conditions that are necessary). A computer and worm lack this. I don't.

If a computer did reach self-awareness (a la many science fiction stories), then I think it would
have the ability to exercise free will.

It sounds like you have some sort of problem with this idea or something, but I am unclear what it
is.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Hold on a second. This is a confusion with language. Yes, all things are either determined or random,
because those are the only choices: either something happens randomly or it is part of a chain of
events. To say 'Event X is either random or determined' is a tautology. It's like saying that either
a non-zero number is either negative or positive. ...[text shortened]... at I would act in a certain way such that my putative will doesn't exist.


Nemesio

QUOTE-----------------------

The question is: simply because my character determines my actions, does this fact make it impossible
to have free will? The answer is 'no.' Simply because my character determines my actions does not
entail that I am a hard determinist or that free will is an illusion. Perhaps this is where you are
having difficulty. Simply because my character determines my actions doesn't mean that it is
(pre)determined that I would act in a certain way such that my putative will doesn't exist.


Nemesio

RESPONSE---------------------------------


This is a statement not an argument . Where is your argument?

I would argues that any determined action is....urmh....determined. A worms actions are determined by it's charactor but worms are not free? Are they?

Originally posted by knightmeister
This is a statement not an argument . Where is your argument?

Which part of my statement do you disagree with? I'm not going to
write a treatise on something you either accept as true or already firmly
believe.

As far as I can tell, you agree that a person's character determines their
choices and the actions they strive to pursue.

As far as I can tell, you agree that self-awareness exists.

I would argues that any determined action is....urmh....determined. A worms actions are determined by it's charactor but worms are not free? Are they?

A worm doesn't have a character. Character requires self-awareness.
A worm's actions are determined by its instinct, which is why it doesn't
have free will. A worm doesn't choose because it lacks the capacity to
choose. It lacks the capacity to choose because, lacking self-awareness,
it lacks the ability to judge what is of best interest for itself (for it has no
concept of self to begin with). The reason that a person chooses a course
of action X over a course of action Y is because that person concludes
(to the best of his/her ability) that X optimizes that person's interests.

What precisely do you disagree with here?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
As far as I can tell, you agree that a person's character determines their choices and the actions they strive to pursue.

I am not aware of him making such a claim. I fact he has repeatedly claimed that a choice is uncaused thus it could not be determined by his character.

I then goes on to claim that it is also not random. His only explanation for such a contradictory claim is that the choice is made by the use of a part of God and that since God is not an event and therefore neither caused nor uncaused then he is somehow capable of creating events which are neither caused nor uncaused. I suspect he can see for himself the gaping flaws in that logic but refuses to discuss them as his whole world view will collapse if he is proved wrong.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]This is a statement not an argument . Where is your argument?

Which part of my statement do you disagree with? I'm not going to
write a treatise on something you either accept as true or already firmly
believe.

As far as I can tell, you agree that a person's character determines their
choices and ...[text shortened]... timizes that person's interests.

What precisely do you disagree with here?

Nemesio[/b]

QUOTE--------------------

A worm doesn't have a character. Character requires self-awareness.
A worm's actions are determined by its instinct, which is why it doesn't
have free will. A worm doesn't choose because it lacks the capacity to
choose. It lacks the capacity to choose because, lacking self-awareness,
it lacks the ability to judge what is of best interest for itself (for it has no
concept of self to begin with). The reason that a person chooses a course
of action X over a course of action Y is because that person concludes
(to the best of his/her ability) that X optimizes that person's interests.

What precisely do you disagree with here?

RESPONSE-------------------------

Do you not see that the worm is also making rudimentary choices? You see those choices as driven by the worms instinct. The worm is not free because it is not in the driving seat , instinct is.
You think that the fact you make choices proves you have free will , but it doesn't. All animals of various forms make choices of varying complexity , computers make very complex choices as well. So choice alone does not prove you have free will. You need to show not just that we make choices but that those choices are not determined to always be that choice.

You then talk about self awareness. So if I am aware that I am making a choice then that somehow means that that choice cannot be determined? how so? One can easily imagine an entity having self awareness and making choices but still being determined in the same way a worm is. It would just be a self aware choice making entity that , if you had enough information on , could have all it's actions predicted (apart from a random element).

Have a look at this , it's very interesting. If anything it's not supportive of theism , but it does question whether we really have free will.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/science/02free.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=7d7a58876163384d&ex=1325394000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Originally posted by knightmeister
Do you not see that the worm is also making rudimentary choices? You see those choices as driven by the worms instinct. The worm is not free because it is not in the driving seat , instinct is.

Instinct is part of the worm so how is the worm not in the driving seat? Who is this instinct fellow anyway? Which part of you is in the driving seat for your decisions? You made it quite clear in the past that it was a piece of God and not you.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Instinct is part of the worm so how is the worm not in the driving seat? Who is this instinct fellow anyway? Which part of you is in the driving seat for your decisions? You made it quite clear in the past that it was a piece of God and not you.

It doesn't matter whether instinct is within or external to the worm because instinct clicks it's fingers and the worms jumps to it's tune. It is DRIVEN by instinct , it is not the driver.

When God dwells with us in the Holy Spirit , the spirit is not like some blind force like biological instinct , it is personal , uncaused and distinct from natural law. Thus we are not talking instinct here or anything like instinct. We are given a spiritual self that can be empowered to override natural programming. This requires that God acts via his spirit but he won't be able to make us do things , he needs our co-operation. The spiritual self we have is ours but it is given to us by God. Everything we have/are ultimately belongs to God anyway. We can't even breath without God's grace. But we can still be given choices by him.

Originally posted by knightmeister
It doesn't matter whether instinct is within or external to the worm because instinct clicks it's fingers and the worms jumps to it's tune. It is DRIVEN by instinct , it is not the driver.

Why cant you read posts and think a bit before replying?
If the instinct clicks its fingers and the instinct is part of the worm then the worm is most definitely in the drivers seat. You are in fact directly claiming that instinct is not part of the worm by the phrase 'DRIVEN by instinct , it is not the driver'. So what is, and where is this worm? And does the fellow called instinct have free will or is he also driven?

Thus we are not talking instinct here or anything like instinct.
Sounds very like it to me. The only difference is its called 'the spirit' not 'insinct' and it follows the supernatural law not the natural law.
You just have this aversion to nature thats all.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why cant you read posts and think a bit before replying?
If the instinct clicks its fingers and the instinct is part of the worm then the worm is most definitely in the drivers seat. You are in fact directly claiming that instinct is not part of the worm by the phrase 'DRIVEN by instinct , it is not the driver'. So what is, and where is this worm? And do ...[text shortened]... he supernatural law not the natural law.
You just have this aversion to nature thats all.

QUOTE----

Why cant you read posts and think a bit before replying?
If the instinct clicks its fingers and the instinct is part of the worm then the worm is most definitely in the drivers seat. You are in fact directly claiming that instinct is not part of the worm by the phrase 'DRIVEN by instinct , it is not the driver'. So what is, and where is this worm? And does the fellow called instinct have free will or is he also driven? WHITEY

RESPONSE--------------------


Nature dictates to the worm what it will do. It does this via , genetics , biological mechanisms within the worm (eg chemical reactions etc) , a worm I think has a rudimentary nervous system which is structured a certain way via processes of evolution. Ultimately , all biological mechanisms are determined by the laws of physics laid down at the big bang. We understand these laws and so we are able to predict what worms will do with good levels of accuracy.

You know and I know we call this "instinct" but you can call it nature's programming if you like. It's all the same. The little worm is just a very basic ZX80 if you know your computers. Maybe "programmed" is a better word than driven. Call me stupid , but , I don't think a ZX80 is free just because it's programming is inside it's casing. I still have this funny idea that it's a blind programmed mechanism just doing as it can only do. Just like worms do.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why cant you read posts and think a bit before replying?
If the instinct clicks its fingers and the instinct is part of the worm then the worm is most definitely in the drivers seat. You are in fact directly claiming that instinct is not part of the worm by the phrase 'DRIVEN by instinct , it is not the driver'. So what is, and where is this worm? And do ...[text shortened]... he supernatural law not the natural law.
You just have this aversion to nature thats all.

QUOTE-------
Sounds very like it to me. The only difference is its called 'the spirit' not 'insinct' and it follows the supernatural law not the natural law.
You just have this aversion to nature thats all. WHITEY
RESPONSE------------

Yes , God's spirit is supernatural not natural , just a minor difference then?

BTW- I love nature , I just don't think it's capable of producing anything other than programmed biological entities that are a bit random at times. Without God , all of nature (including us) is just a complex unwinding machine of organic , gene produced carbon matter. Worms , stars , coral , elephants , humans ...all unfolding in a sea of causality making choices caused by natural laws. If I were an atheist I would find it hard to believe that all these things did not have free choices but we did.

Have a look at this , it's very interesting. If anything it's not supportive of theism , but it does question whether we really have free will.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/science/02free.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=7d7a58876163384d&ex=1325394000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss[/b]

Originally posted by knightmeister
Do you not see that the worm is also making rudimentary choices? You see those choices as driven by the worms instinct. The worm is not free because it is not in the driving seat , instinct is.

A worm does not make choices. In order to make a choice, you must be able to discern between
more desirable and less desirable states of affairs (where more desirable ones coincide more fully
with your interests). A worm doesn't choose because it doesn't have interests because interests
require consciousness.

You think that the fact you make choices proves you have free will , but it doesn't. All animals of various forms make choices of varying complexity , computers make very complex choices as well.

I think some animals do have free will in as much as their choices reflect their desire to make
favorable events obtain. A key difference between higher animals like us and lower animals like,
say apes, is that we are much less short sighted.

Computers do not make choices because computers do not have interests.

So choice alone does not prove you have free will. You need to show not just that we make choices but that those choices are not determined to always be that choice.

You then talk about self awareness. So if I am aware that I am making a choice then that somehow means that that choice cannot be determined? how so?

No. A sense of self is required because that is the basis upon which choices are made. The self
comprises interests, desires, motivations, dreams, and whatever else. Rational choices reflect the
striving to make events obtain that optimize these interests, desires, &c. A worm doesn't have
interests or dreams , &c, because a worm has no concept of self.

One can easily imagine an entity having self awareness and making choices but still being determined in the same way a worm is. It would just be a self aware choice making entity that , if you had enough information on , could have all it's actions predicted (apart from a random element).

I've now explained a few times now why this is not the case. In order to show that a worm and
a human make choices identically, you have to demonstrate why interests have no value in choice-
making.

Why do you think that simply because someone can predict what you will do means you don't have
free will? Let's say you really, really like strawberry cheesecake and really, really dislike Chunky
Monkey ice cream. Let's say I'm a friend of yours, and I know this about you. If we are at a
restaurant together, and the waiter says 'We have strawberry cheesecake dessert, or Chunky Monkey
ice cream, which would you like?,' is your choice not free? Is it less free because I could predict with
100% accuracy that you would pick the cheesecake?

I don't know about you, but I have a few very, very close friends who know me intimately.
Very often, they will tell me that they knew in advance exactly how I would react to certain information
or events. Often these events are very specific and complicated, and the reactions that I have are
peculiar and idiosyncratic. Does this mean that I am somehow less free?

Nemesio

Originally posted by knightmeister
If I were an atheist I would find it hard to believe that all these things did not have free choices but we did.

And why would you as an atheist want to believe that anyway? I don't know any atheists who do. Sounds like you are talking about an atheist holding on to theisms rather self centered views. Your love of nature clearly does not extend to the point of accepting that you are a part of it.

Of course nemesio would appear to contradict my statement but I think his definition of choice is slightly different from yours and mine.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]Do you not see that the worm is also making rudimentary choices? You see those choices as driven by the worms instinct. The worm is not free because it is not in the driving seat , instinct is.

A worm does not make choices. In order to make a choice, you must be able to discern between
more desirable an ...[text shortened]... peculiar and idiosyncratic. Does this mean that I am somehow less free?

Nemesio[/b]

QUOTE-------

If we are at a
restaurant together, and the waiter says 'We have strawberry cheesecake dessert, or Chunky Monkey
ice cream, which would you like?,' is your choice not free? Is it less free because I could predict with
100% accuracy that you would pick the cheesecake

RESPONSE--------------------

Oh dear , Yes , it IS less free because if you can predict it with 100% certainty then it must logically mean that there is no way I can ever pick the Ice Cream. Physically there is something that is preventing me from picking the ice cream--The physical nature of my brain structure are the barrier. My programming and character exclude 100% the possibility of picking the ice cream , therefore , you could replicate this situation a trillion times in a trillion universes and I will always pick cheesecake.

You could say that if I was a different person then I would choose ice cream , but you might as well say that if I was an eagle I could fly. It's meaningless because it can never be possible. You would have to change who I am to make me pick ice cream.

Essentially your problem is that you have said "with 100% accuracy" The 100% means that the actions are determined and not free. You could say that I might have a flash of inspiration and that there is nothing to prevent me from choosing ice cream , and there is nothing in the laws of physics that could stop me except from my own programming , BUT the problem you have got is then how is your prediction going to be 100% accurate? On what basis can you make such a decision unless my action is forced by the programming in my brain? The ice cream might as well not be there unless my character gives me some chance to choose ice cream. The ice cream then becomes irrelevant and impossible. I am forced by who I am to pick the cheesecake or you drop you 100% claim.

In the real world of course it would be impossible to make a prediction with 100% accuracy in this restaurant because you have no information that enables you to do so.

However, your 100% accuracy claim is completely at odds with your claim that my choice is free. It can only be truely free if choosing ice cream is a REAL possibility. But the moment choosing the ice cream becomes more than just a fantasy hypothetical then your 100% accuracy has to drop below 100% to something else. If you don't get this then we might as well stop here!

Originally posted by knightmeister
QUOTE-------

If we are at a
restaurant together, and the waiter says 'We have strawberry cheesecake dessert, or Chunky Monkey
ice cream, which would you like?,' is your choice not free? Is it less free because I could predict with
100% accuracy that you would pick the cheesecake

RESPONSE--------------------

Oh dear , Yes , it IS less fr ...[text shortened]... drop below 100% to something else. If you don't get this then we might as well stop here!

My programming and character is to enjoy drinking beer in the car. I'm not free to choose otherwise. At least, that's what I told the cops, but they didn't buy it for some reason.