free will

Author: keithprosser

Posts

Total: 712
#631
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
I know what it is I am speaking of with experiential knowledge. It would be beyond your own epistemological limits to say, "I don't know, I don't know how I could know, nobody can know."
It's really quite simple.  Is the noumenon a human?  Is the ultimate reality a human?

If not, then it can't have human characteristics.

You may have private gnosis, but that "truth" is specific and exclusive to YOU ALONE.

Your gnosis =/= evidence.
#632
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
You can't say whether or not god is any of these things.

You don't truly know.

You were educated in such a way as to blindly accept what you are taught.

Not because they are real true facts, but because they are redefinings and newspeaks very specifically intended to divorce (skeptical, rational) thought from Christianity.
#633
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
I defy anyone to put what it is like to be 'subjectively conscious' or 'aware' into plain unamiguous words without relying on circularity.
This should be your first clue.

"Consciousness" is purely Qualitative, logically incoherent, unmeasurable, unfalsifiable nonsense.

Any sufficiently sophisticated device indistinguishable from a human being would necessarily have the same (unverifiable) quality of "consciousness".

It's not a secret sauce or magic fairy dust.

It's simply a complex collection of evolutionary social behaviors.

We identify "consciousness" by its associated behaviors.

The behaviors themselves are "consciousness".

Whatever mechanism causes those behaviors is interchangeable (chemical or electrical or mechanical).
Topic's author
#634
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Any sufficiently sophisticated device indistinguishable from a human being would necessarily have the same (unverifiable) quality of "consciousness".
If so, it should be possible to at least outline the operation of a device that would manifests human like consciousness.   As to verifiability, I cannot verify you are conscious, but I know that I am conscious!   That is to say whatever consciouness is, it is present in me, that is it is produced by my brain,even if it is present nowhere else. Even if that is so unless my consciusness has a magical origin it shouldbe implementable in a machine.

Put another way,the challenge is to design a machine that experiences red in the same subjective way I do.  Note - I said 'subjectively', not 'functionally'.  Functionally is easy!
#635
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
Acomputer with the number $0000FF in a memory cell is not having the same experince of redness that I do when I see a london bus.  I know that because I know a bit about how computers work - they are not designed or constructed to have subjective experience.   I suppose someone could ask how I can be so sure aout that comutersdon't have the same subective exeriences as people.  My answer is that even if that were so, it doesn't explain how it works!   
Here's an interesting bit of info, some humans who were born blind, and who have had their sight restored, choose to keep their eyes closed because they are unable to make sense of shapes and colors.  To them, sight is a mass of fractured kaleidoscope nonsense.
#636
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
Put another way,the challenge is to design a machine that experiences red in the same subjective way I do.  Note - I said 'subjectively', not 'functionally'.  Functionally is easy!
You only need to design a machine that DESCRIBES its experience of red in the same subjective way you do.
Topic's author
#637
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
You only need to design a machine that DESCRIBES its experience of red in the same subjective way you do.
That depends on what the obective is.  If the end point is to make a toy that appears to have subjective experience that might do,but it wouldn't explain how subjectivity actually arises in human brains.  I take it you do have subjective experiences?   You don't just utter descriptions of experiences you don't actally have?  

You must have read about p-zombies?
      

#638
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
It's really quite simple.  Is the noumenon a human?  Is the ultimate reality a human?

If not, then it can't have human characteristics.


Noumenon by nature is very human because noumenon exists in thought, and we certainly think.


Noumenon =/= The Ultimate Reality.


Certainly God is not man, but God became man. 

It is this God becoming creation that deifies all of creation, bringing it into unity with God. All of creation is united to God in the flesh of God's word.

#639
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
That depends on what the obective is.  If the end point is to make a toy that appears to have subjective experience that might do,but it wouldn't explain how subjectivity actually arises in human brains.  I take it you do have subjective experiences?   You don't just utter descriptions of experiences you don't actally have?  

You must have read about p-zombies?
So, Minsky has analysed human thought processes extensively and concludes that a human brain is not like a single cohesive "computer" but is instead like a fluid hierarchy of 400 different "computers" that all have somewhat different problem solving strategies.

We know, from the field of neuroscience, that the hippocampus and thalamus and amygdala all play critical and exclusive roles in filtering and sorting inbound data-streams and prioritizing data storage.

We have no "experience" of 400 "computers" or of a fluid hierarchy in our heads.  We have no "experience" of the specific functions of our hippocampus and thalamus and amygdala.  All of these functions are hidden to "us" (our consciousness).

All indications are that "consciousness" is simply the end-result, or final, or even post-hoc top layer process that has evolved to facilitate social interactions between humans.  Not "fundamental" in any way shape or form.

"Consciousness" is merely a complex set of behaviors that rely on a large number of underlying, much simpler (hidden) processes.

The only way to identify "consciousness" in others is to intuitively gather social data.

If it "seems like" "authentic" "consciousness" then it IS "authentic consciousness".

You are a p-zombie.  I am a p-zombie.  We are bags of chemicals that have evolved as complex hosts (shells) for bacteria.
#640
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
It's really quite simple.  Is the noumenon a human?  Is the ultimate reality a human?

If not, then it can't have human characteristics.
Noumenon by nature is very human because noumenon exists in thought, and we certainly think.
By this logic, a chair is human because chairs exist in thought.

Noumenon =/= The Ultimate Reality.
It seems to be a perfect match.  Noumenon is the logically necessary prerequisite to phenomenon.  It is the scaffolding for "reality".

Certainly God is not man, but God became man. 
Man is "part of" noumenon, but that does not make noumenon a man any more then it makes noumenon a chair.

It is this God becoming creation that deifies all of creation, bringing it into unity with God. All of creation is united to God in the flesh of God's word.
Logically, anything presupposed as (1) the first and only thing in existence and (2) the sole originator of all things would NECESSARILY be all things (not just humans).

All things would be logically inseparable from such a hypothetical god.  All things must be parts of this hypothetical god.
Topic's author
#641
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
My hunch is that you and minksi are right.  I am not a new-age hippy!

The unresolved problem can be illustrated if you look at some coloured obect in the room - a pink pencil sharpener, anything.
It is almost fatuous to say when you look at it you experience pinkness.  It is a different experience from that you would get if it was a blue pencil sharpner.   To you, pink things look pink and blue things look blue.

If you hook up your webcam to your computer and point it at the pink pencil sharpener, what colour does your computer experience?  My guess is that because you and I share evoltionary history, if we both look at the same pink pencil sharpener we will have the same experience of its pinkness, but I am not convinced a webcam/computer combo has the same experience of pinkness we do.  If the computer has any experence at all, 'pink' will be a range of numbers.   But to you and I pinkness is not a range of numbers, is it? Pink is a particular quale.

My argument is that reductive physicalism is almost certainly correct, but we have no adequate theory to account for subjective experience.  I cannot deny that pink things look pink - I wish i could!  I feel that a theory of consciousness that glosses over the problem of qualia is unsatisfactory.  It might be a good partial theory, but it leaves the door wide open to dualism.

If brains can experience qualia but machines can't then dualism must be true.     


#642
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
By this logic, a chair is human because chairs exist in thought.
Let me clarify

Thought itself is noumenon.

When you equate God with noumenon, you are essentially equating God with the idea of God which is a fallacy.



It seems to be a perfect match.  Noumenon is the logically necessary prerequisite to phenomenon.  It is the scaffolding for "reality"


Thought is not The Ultimate Reality.


You don't know what noumenon means because Kant either didn't understand Greek, or this was a subtle way of him admitting that his god is science or really even, himself.




Logically, anything presupposed as (1) the first and only thing in existence and (2) the sole originator of all things would NECESSARILY be all things (not just humans).

All things would be logically inseparable from such a hypothetical god.  All things must be parts of this hypothetical god.


It should be apparent that a pile of dog shit does not share the same essence as The Ultimate Reality.

It isn't that all things are parts of God, for God is without division. It is moreso that God fills all things as all of creation manifest from divine energies.

Or

Everything that exists was made by and through The Word of God

And 

Everything that exists is enlivened by and through The Holy Spirit


Both The Word and The Holy Spirit having their origin in The Father.

The Father, The Word, and The Spirit are One. All of creation is united to this Trinity in the flesh of The Word which is creation.







#643
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
The unresolved problem can be illustrated if you look at some coloured obect in the room - a pink pencil sharpener, anything.
It is almost fatuous to say when you look at it you experience pinkness.  It is a different experience from that you would get if it was a blue pencil sharpner.   To you, pink things look pink and blue things look blue.
Perhaps a "better" example would be our personal, Qualitative experience of love.

I've been "in love" and you've probably been "in love" at some point in your life, however, can you say for certain if it was "true love"?

If you experience "falling in love" in your teens or twenties, do you have enough life experience to tell if the feeling is "true love"?

When you say you know what it's like to be "in love", does that mean that you know exactly what my experience of being "in love" is like?

Is perhaps the experience of being "in love" simply an involuntary evolutionary survival mechanism that triggers high levels of dopamine?

The feeling is simply the end result of a complex set of very mechanistic biological interactions.

Love itself does not cause any of this.  Love is simply what we call a particular collection of uncontrollable impulses.  The more "sincere" the love, the more uncontrollable these impulses become.

The Qualitative experience of love is not fundamental, it is not the origin of anything, it is simply an afterthought, a shadow of our instincts. [LINK]
#644
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Thought itself is noumenon.
Thought is certainly PART OF noumenon.  Thought is certainly EVIDENCE OF noumenon.  But since thought cannot possibly "cause itself", it cannot BE (the whole of) noumenon.

When you equate God with noumenon, you are essentially equating God with the idea of God which is a fallacy.
Noumenon is the logically necessary (unknown/unknowable) origin and sustainer of all things.

(IFF) you believe a god is the logically necessary origin and sustainer of all things (THEN) god and noumenon are essentially interchangeable terms.
#645
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
As I said and will repeat....

Kant used the word noumenon incorrectly because he either didn't know Greek or he is some kind of forerunner to the new age hippie bullshit movement.

#646
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Kant used the word noumenon incorrectly because he either didn't know Greek or he is some kind of forerunner to the new age hippie bullshit movement.
Citation please.
Topic's author
#647
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
What aword means is what it denotes.  it's history and etmology is only of acaemic and historical interest.   A case in point is 'billion' which has evolved in meaning from million million to thousand million.   A pedant might claim everbody uses billion incorrectly, but in the real world it is correct to use billion for 10^9 and incorrect for 10^12.

Kant's use of phenomon and noumemon have superceded any previous meanings and are now the 'correct' meanings.  Language is not static which is why new editions of dictionaries become necessary from time to time.   I am not saying that is a good thing and it is a source of confusion and miscommunication - it's a fact of life we have to put up with.

Wikipedia identifies this as the 'etymolocical fallacy', a variant of the 'genetic fallacy'.  I offer no solution. other than to try avoiing reliance on the greek,latin (or french orerman) roots of a term.  I'm not a fan of posh words.   I don't think you will findmany appearsances of 'noumeon' or 'apodictic' in my posts!  if I don't use aword in my everyday speech, I try to avoid it in my posts.  But I readily admit what works for my style may not work for anybody else.

Topic's author
#648
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
There is relevant material in the wikipeia article on noumena.  I think its true that Kant adopted non-standard meanings, but they were pretty rare and obscure terms beore he adopted them for his own purposes.

The wikipedia article quotes Schopenhauer's crticism of Kan't usage compare to that of ancient greek philosophers.

I've never read Kant, and I doubt I ever will!   But what I have read about him doesn't interest or impress me.  German philosophers like Kant and Hegel are unreadable!   Give me the analytics any day over the waffle of the continentals...
#649
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
Noumenon

In metaphysics, the noumenon is a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception. The term noumenon is generally used when contrasted with, or in relation to, the term phenomenon, which refers to anything that can be apprehended by or is an object of the senses. Wikipedia
Topic's author
#650
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
On the rare ocasions I may have said 'noumenon' I would have meant it in Kant's sense, regardless of what meant to an ancient greek.

#651
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
I spit at your justification for perverting language in order to make right a fool's sophistry.

#652
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
I spit at your justification for perverting language in order to make right a fool's sophistry.
Citation please.
#653
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
I think you may be conflating Noumenon and Nous.

Nous

Nous, sometimes equated to intellect or intelligence, is a philosophical term for the faculty of the human mind which is described in classical philosophy as necessary for understanding what is true or real.  Wikipedia
Topic's author
#654
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
I spit at your justification for perverting language in order to make right a fool's sophistry.
A rather stronger reaction to what I thought was a very uncontroversial post!  

The way language works it's normal for the same word to have different meanings depending on context.   Orthodox theologians may well use the word 'noumenon' in a particular sense when talking to each other which is quite different from what it means when Kantians meet up to discuss the categorical imperitive, or whatever it is Kantians do amonsgt themselves!

I'd say orthodox theology was a small niche field outside of which Kant's usage dominates.  As you, Mopac, are not talking to orthodo theologians you should be the one that adapts, just as you should adapt to posting in English even if your preferred languge is croatian because it's up to you to make youself understood - its not our job to understand weird specialist jargon.

'darmok and jalad at tanagra'.

I'll go and wipe your spittle off now.





#655
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't really care what Kant says noumenon is, because he is wrong. One man's perverse and unenlightened philosophy doesn't get to wreck language anymore than the godless can redefine the language of theology to match their own idiotic superstitions about the subject. Especially when he took the word from Greek which he didn't even speak!

You know how I use the word nous? Noumenon and nous are related even. Do you remember my reaction to you when you first equated noumenon to God? Do you remember how I said I did not like that word? Do you remember why I said I did not like that word? Now we are coming full circle.

Noumenon is not God because noumenon, is something that exists as a thought or an idea. 


So when you say noumenon is God, you might as well be saying "God is consciousness" or some other new agey bunk.

So I dispute the usage of the word, and noumenon is certainly not The Ultimate Reality.


That is really my issue with your usage of the word noumenon, I think it is bad language that leads to atheistic thinking.






#656
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
I have maintained since I joined this forum that atheism is largely the result of superstition due to bad language. I certainly believe there is a conspiracy to make Christian theology unintelligible, which is why these things offend me a great deal. 

But in the case noumenon, this is a Greek word being appropriated by a German now being used by English speakers.


This is something else entirely than words even being changed in the same language.









#657
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
I think you may be conflating Noumenon and Nous.

No, I am not, but the word noumenon is certainly related to this word.


And it is precisely this relation that justifies my assertion that Kant used the word improperly. Connect the dots!




#658
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
No, I am not, but the word noumenon is certainly related to this word.

And it is precisely this relation that justifies my assertion that Kant used the word improperly. Connect the dots!
Great, so you don't like "noumenon".

How about TLNUUOASOACP (the logically necessary, unknown/unknowable origin and sustainer of all comprehensible phenomena)?
#659
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
How about "God", there is already a word for this.



#660
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
My argument is that reductive physicalism is almost certainly correct,
I agree.

...but we have no adequate theory to account for subjective experience. 
Forget about "no adequate hypothesis" - we don't even have a rigorous DEFINITION.

I cannot deny that pink things look pink - I wish i could! 
Behavioral analysis of poultry has shown that the color, just a colored tile, that approximates the reddish brown of a fox pelt, will induce Quantifiable symptoms of anxiety in chickens.

This strongly implies that the chickens have evolved some ancillary automatic mechanism that takes the color input and triggers cortisol and adrenal injections into the chicken physiology.

This is all a simple case of cause-and-effect.

If you could talk to a chicken, they'd probably say they "hate" that color.

Any "emotional" response you have to color or sound is very likely of similar origin.

I feel that a theory of consciousness that glosses over the problem of qualia is unsatisfactory. 
Please convince me there is a "problem of Qualia".

A self-driving car is given a destination, but there are many options.  The self-driving car (EITHER) picks the first solution it discovers (OR) runs a subroutine that narrows down the possible routes based on time of day and traffic and weather data.

The self-driving car makes a choice but it is reasonable to assume that it is not aware of its own underlying (subconscious, instinctive) programming.

If you could ask the car why it chose that particular route, it would likely respond with "it just felt like the right thing to do".

In the same way humans are not generally cognizant of their own hippocampus.  Our conscious human "explanation" for our actions is purely incidental.  It is merely a dumbed-down, post-hoc abbreviation of what we don't have direct access to (subconscious, chemical, physiological causal factors).

It might be a good partial theory, but it leaves the door wide open to dualism.
Nothing "leaves the door open to dualism" because dualism is LOGICALLY INCOHERENT.

Things either affect each other or they don't. 

If they don't affect each other, then they can safely be ignored and treated as de facto non-existent.

If things (ghosts and gods, spirits and souls) DO affect the "material world" then they are NECESSARILY - part of - the material world (or vice versa), ipso facto - MONISM.