Blue moon, and the failure of determinism

Author: 949havoc

Posts

Total: 196
#91
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@949havoc
You're confusing your argument with mine. Your determinist theory is the one that insists on consistency
No sir. Your claim is that the ability to make different decisions in the same circumstances proves freewill. If conditions are off by so much as the placement of an electron then the conditions are not the same. If your internal state is not the same then different causes are in play. Only by making different decisions under identical circumstances can your experiment have any value. Otherwise we can attribute any discrepancy to different initial conditions. 
#92
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Ramshutu
1.) Is choice an illusion.
No.

2.) Is the universe deterministic or stochastic.
Both.

Choice deals with possibility while stochasticism deals with probability. Both are properties of ignorance. 

Or to put it another way with an example I used before; imagine a highly advanced AI computer program was designed to make complex decisions, to constantly review and deliberate it’s own decision processes: it could be self aware, it could be creative, make decisions, or even describe the process it goes through: but everything it does is effectively down to its programming and program state - it has no true control. 

That computer program may be able to describe what it experiences in a similar way to us: it may describe itself as having agency because that’s how it  perceives its own program - free will for the AI would be an illusion in exactly the same way it is for us.
I’ve heard of this before and I like the concept. It’d be interesting to see in what regards the robot would be ignorant for it to experience the illusion of freewill comparable to that of a human. As a surface level example we consciously and unconsciously breath. It might tell us a lot about human cognition in terms of evolution, etc.
#93
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Reece101
1.) Is choice an illusion.
No.
This is the only part I really disagree with.

When we make a choice, it seems like we’re free to pick any side; the reality is that our brains are going through a process of the weighting all the values to come up with the most preferable option.

“Making a choice” can sound as if we have true agency. “Adding up the sum of inputs to determine whether A or B has the highest value” seems like something a computer can do.
#94
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Ramshutu
I agree although I seperate choice as a process from the feelings that accompany it such as ‘free-agency’ or freewill. 
Topic's author
#95
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@secularmerlin
If conditions are off by so much as the placement of an electron then the conditions are not the same. 
One electron? Tell me who has, can, or will be sensitive to the placement, or displacement, more properly said, of a single electron and its potential, monumental effect. That's not too exaggerated, is it?
I'm no chemist, but my father was. My high school chemistry classes taught me that the bonding of molecules [systems created by the bonding of atoms of one element, say H, and O, thus creating a molecule of water. That bonding is due to the displacement of electrons such that they are shared between the two atoms of H and the one of O. Further, my father taught that water does not exhibit the property of wetness until 6, or more molecules of water exist together, so, under that threshold, you may have "water," but it isn't yet wet. A single electron, though, even if displaced, is not sufficient to have any effect of bonding a molecule, let alone change properties that would affect human behavior consistently or randomly. 


#96
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@949havoc
One electron? Tell me who has, can, or will be sensitive to the placement, or displacement, more properly said, of a single electron and its potential, monumental effect. That's not too exaggerated, is it?

I'm no chemist, but my father was. My high school chemistry classes taught me that the bonding of molecules [systems created by the bonding of atoms of one element, say H, and O, thus creating a molecule of water. That bonding is due to the displacement of electrons such that they are shared between the two atoms of H and the one of O. Further, my father taught that water does not exhibit the property of wetness until 6, or more molecules of water exist together, so, under that threshold, you may have "water," but it isn't yet wet. A single electron, though, even if displaced, is not sufficient to have any effect of bonding a molecule, let alone change properties that would affect human behavior consistently or randomly. 
Glad you’re happily relying on the physics you repeatedly tell us can’t be relied upon…

Am Electron has a charge that can attract protons or repel other electrons. This means the position of a single electron may deflect or attract an atom within a molecule of neurotransmitter, that may delay or speed up the binding of the transmitter to the receptor in the synapse. Conversely, the position of a single electron can effect charge transferal as part of neurones firing. 

While the effect is definitely tiny; it’s impossible to know whether the tiny change to the firing of a neurone will be amplified over the course billion synapses that generate a thought or for making a choice such that a knife edge decision went one way instead of another.

I think the main issue here, is that you’re taking him too literally: I don’t think the position of a single electron can make a big difference to most decisions : but the combined sun of all electron positions in the brain certainly could. And given those can never be gaurenteed - the general point he raised still stands


But saying that, it’s largely irrelevant; as it’s impossible to repeat any individual decision under identical macro circumstances - one cannot tell whether making a different decision in a similar situation is due to free will - or because in the intervening time, your brain has learned, neurones have changed, connections have been reinforced, etc.

Topic's author
#97
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Ramshutu
it’s impossible to know whether the tiny change to the firing of a neurone will be amplified over the course billion synapses that generate a thought or for making a choice such that a knife edge decision went one way instead of another.
Impossible,  you say. Yet you're basing your determinism on that impossibility. Whereas, my argument of free choice has so many examples I've offered, with citations of support, that just the examples offer an occam's razor basis of far more simplistic explanations. How many choices have I made in a lifetime that rest on a knife edge, let alone a razor? I'd say less than five or ten. Even the choice of a house or a car is more blunt than that.  My marriage? Yeah, because that was a lifetime commitment, but that one was an easy edge. And, considering the success of its longevity... Career choices? Pretty dull and easy. What shirt to wear? Really?
I've had exactly two life-and-death consequence decisions over which I had control in my life. Yeah, those were tough, but, obviously, the right choice made both times. And both were preceded by prayer. That's one of the primary, sharp tools in my toolbox, and I'm speaking to my Father, not some electron.
#98
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@949havoc
Impossible,  you say. Yet you're basing your determinism on that impossibility.
No I’m not. I’m basing determinism on the fact that everything appears to operate based on repeatable laws of physics; and that there is no mechanism by which the functioning of physical things can be altered by anything else.

Whereas, my argument of free choice has so many examples I've offered, with citations of support.
No it doesn’t: it has critical key issues that you seem to ignore, and simply try and assert away (I can refer you to the posts where I showed this, but you ignored)

that just the examples offer an occam's razor basis of far more simplistic explanations.
It fails Occam’s razor: I can refer you back to the post you ignored where I showed this.

How many choices have I made in a lifetime that rest on a knife edge, let alone a razor? I'd say less than five or ten. Even the choice of a house or a car is more blunt than that.  My marriage? Yeah, because that was a lifetime commitment, but that one was an easy edge. And, considering the success of its longevity... Career choices? Pretty dull and easy. What shirt to wear? Really?
I've had exactly two life-and-death consequence decisions over which I had control in my life. Yeah, those were tough, but, obviously, the right choice made both times. And both were preceded by prayer. That's one of the primary, sharp tools in my toolbox, and I'm speaking to my Father, not some electron.
Personal incredulity and wild assertions that you cannot demonstrate is not a counter argument.
#99
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Drop two ping pong balls down a pachinko board. Did they go the same way? No? Funny that. Ping pong balls must have free will.
There it is.
#100
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
It doesn't matter what hypothetical situation you come up with. It doesn't matter if we are talking about humans or gods or ghosts or aliens. It doesn't matter if we are talking about the natural or the supernatural. It doesn't matter if there was a beginning or if there exists an infinite regress. Every conceivable person, thing and force including your behavior is either caused (not free) or uncaused (not subject to will).
End of story.
#101
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@949havoc
Drop two pingpong balls down a pachinko board and tell me the mechanism by which they choose different paths even under "identical" starting positions? Now imagine that neural signals run on the movements of electrons between neuro receptors. Now electrons are like ping pong balls. Your thoughts falling down the track as they will but not under your conscious control. You will think what you will think. Try as you may to stop. Trying not to think about something only brings it more to mind. Maybe these movements of electrons are caused (not free) or maybe they are uncaused (not by will) but either way they move as they will either immutable by the laws of physics or unprompted and outside our control for no reason whatsoever or it is partially caused (neither completely unfettered nor guided with the certainty of will). You can decide which you think is the most likely and that option will not be freewill. None of these options leads to unfettered choice.

Topic's author
#102
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Drop two pingpong balls down a pachinko board and tell me the mechanism by which they choose different paths
Before I tell you, you're going to have to demonstrate to me that ping pong balls have any intelligence to properly make a choice; a conundrum that saddles the high majority of the animal kingdom, and even most species of the plant kingdom, if not all. Choice is a matter of intelligent processing of information, and that is not a universal skill. But, I will offer you another exercise:

Santayana, is quoted to have said, “Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve, and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” 
There’s something else Santayana said relative to theory and ignorance: “Theory helps us bear our ignorance of fact.” 
What if you’re a good scientist, but only a passable philosopher? What does it mean? 
Suppose you are caught in a whirlpool in the ocean. What do you do to survive? If you haven’t the slightest idea, are you dead, already? 
It’s only a theoretical argument. There are at least three theories; no evidence suggests that any of the three is an absolute fact. They are urban myth at best, except that all three begin with a prudent suggestion and, inevitably, this much is fact. 
First, remain calm. Fear is a killer. From there, the methods vary. One theory says that being calm must even be a matter of physical relaxation, not just emotional. Remain still, and you will float out of danger.  
Another theory says to swim hard with the current, and you will reach the edge and swim out of it.  
Still another theory says give it up; your life is forfeit. 
Three theories. It is likely that only one of them is fact, but which? Ignorant of fact, we take some solace that somebody has thought it through. But, until proven, they are just theories and that, according to Santayana, is solace enough. But, it is solace and nothing else, or, is it even that? There’s no joy in a negative consequence.
Are we plunged into the whirlpool of Santayana’s philosophy? What if the irony is that either theory returns us to the savagery of perpetual ignorance?

You see, at least my theory of free choice requires intelligence to operate within it. Then Santanyana is right; ignorance is mere savagery. Your theory of determinism requires no intelligence whatsoever, because your ping pong balls will follow a path, surely, but they have no contribution to the course, and that requires no intelligence, either. Between the two theories, I prefer the one that acknowledges intelligence and avoids savagery.

#103
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@949havoc
Between the two theories, I prefer the one that acknowledges intelligence and avoids savagery.
There you have it: argument from personal preference. WTF the rest of that gish gallop is is entirely irrelevant, you're simply more comfortable thinking that you have free will, and cannot possibly imagine that everything you're doing is merely a result of events over which you had no control, it's the illusion that keeps you comfortable. You're also misrepresenting the case as usual: no one thinks the universe is actively "guiding" or "controlling" any decisions you make. Rather that it was simply set in motion and you act according to non-mysterious physical laws, and we all feel like we have choice in doing so. The universe, or the big bang more accurately, is what drops the ping pong balls. 
#104
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,595
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@949havoc

But the human mind/brain is deterministic.  Like everything else in the universe, our mind/brain is deterministic, if you accept that every event has a reason or cause. We can’t mechanistically predict what someone will think about anything because of the brain’s complexity – it has 86 billion neurons and a quadrillion synapses – and also because of the environmental, physical and cultural influences which affect our thinking.
#105
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@949havoc
Actions are (EITHER) influenced (OR) not-influenced
Yes, by free agency of choice - each of us independenttly.
What guides your "free-agency" ?

Does your "free-agency" act to preserve your general sense of well-being perhaps ?

Or does your "free-agency" act INDEPENDENTLY of your general sense of well-being ?

In other words, does your "free-agency" disregard your will ?
Topic's author
#106
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@ludofl3x
the big bang more accurately, is what drops the ping pong balls. 
Which big bang? The whole "timelessness" of the B-theory of time that is the argument given as the proof of determinism is not timeless at all if there is a beginning point. The argument that favors free will is that there is no beginning; that there is no time, but by our necessity for scheduling stuff; that there are cycles of universe expansion and contraction without a beginning, i.e., cycles of big bangs, and, therefore, n o beginning and no end = eternity.
#107
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@949havoc
Before I tell you, you're going to have to demonstrate to me that ping pong balls have any intelligence to properly make a choice
Directly after you prove the same about individual electrons in your cerebellum. Also and not to beat a dead horse but it doesn't matter because intelligence is EITHER deterministic (not free) OR uncaused (not by will)
#108
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@949havoc
Before I tell you, you're going to have to demonstrate to me that ping pong balls have any intelligence to properly make a choice
If we made an artificial general intelligence that was able to think, reason and create - but was running deterministic instructions on a CPU - would that computer program have free will?
Topic's author
#109
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Free will = free agency
Topic's author
#110
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Directly after you prove the same about individual electrons in your cerebellum
Neither electrons, nor other atomic particles, have intelligence. Come on, really? I have already equated free will with intelligence; that intelligence is a prerequisite of free will, and that it is not a property of inanimate objects.

Also and not to beat a dead horse but it doesn't matter because intelligence is EITHER deterministic (not free) OR uncaused (not by will)
I have yet to see your evidence of that claim. Show me. a scholastic source, pls.
Topic's author
#111
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Ramshutu
If we made an artificial general intelligence that was able to think,
according to your Secular buddy, that if-statement is a non-sequitur:

Also and not to beat a dead horse but it doesn't matter because intelligence is EITHER deterministic (not free) OR uncaused (not by will)
You've just offered AI as being determined or uncaused. 
#112
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
Neither electrons, nor other atomic particles, have intelligence. Come on, really? I have already equated free will with intelligence; that intelligence is a prerequisite of free will, and that it is not a property of inanimate objects.
There is no freewill. Either your intelligence is caused (determinism/not free) or it is uncaused (random/not will)
I have yet to see your evidence of that claim. Show me. a scholastic source, pls.
The argument stands in it's own and will continue to do so unless you have some alternative to these two states or some mix of the two. What is the third option between caused and uncaused?
Topic's author
#113
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@secularmerlin
There is no freewill. Either your intelligence is caused (determinism/not free) or it is uncaused (random/not will)
Woulds you like to repeat that a few more times. I don't thin k we hear you, yet.

The argument stands in it's own and will continue to do so unless you have some alternative to these two states or some mix of the two
No argument stands on its own, which is why I have offered source citations along with my own argument.

What is the third option between caused and uncaused?
Who says there's only a third option? Argue for your limitations...  And that option is just between the other two, cause and uncause? Do you love limitation, or what?
#114
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@949havoc
Woulds you like to repeat that a few more times. I don't thin k we hear you, yet.
Would you like to seriously engage the argument?
option is just between the other two, cause and uncause
Unless you know of a third option then yes. 
No argument stands on its own
It doesn't matter who said it the argument either stands or fails on it's own merit. Otherwise you are making an appeal to authority. 
#115
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@949havoc
If you respond to this message in an attempt to prove freewill then you are subject to cause and effect. You cannot respond to this post without showing a decided lack of freewill. 

If you refuse to answer in order to prove that you are not subject to cause and effect then you are subject to cause and effect. You cannot fail to respond to this post without showing a decided lack of freewill. 

You cannot do (or not do) anything for any reason without being subject to cause and effect. 

But even if you could the alternative is uncaused which is indistinguishable from random. If you simply wrote words that were not effected by the content of my message it would be essentially meaningless to the conversation for lack of context.

I am not engaged in a subjective determination here this is a logically inescapable fact. How could something be neither caused nor uncaused nor any combination of the two?

Topic's author
#116
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
Would you like to seriously engage the argument?
Posts:
#1. Launch of the topic with my initial argument.

#3. Rebuttal: "Since you argue that God cannot create imperfect things, how do you explain at least you? And the rest of us, as well..." But over 5 pages of posts, you have never met the challenge of this #3 post to explain your imperfection, or that God created imperfection on purpose while I have revisited the subject in #15, and #83.

#8. Non-living things do not direct thought and action of sentient beings. You're not compelling in your argument that electrons are living things.

#15 Challenged to put my argument into a syllogism, I offer one demonstrating the biblical day, month, year of creation which has not been directly rebutted.

That's just a small sampling of my "engagement." So, who isn't engaging the argument? Not Havoc.
Topic's author
#117
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@secularmerlin
You cannot... you cannot... You cannot...
As I said, argument for your limitations; they're yours, not mine. You don't believe in free will? I don't believe in limitations.
#118
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@949havoc
Since you argue that God cannot create imperfect things
I do not believe in any god(s) perhaps you are confused me with another poster.
Non-living things do not direct thought and action of sentient beings. 
The word direct is a loaded term that begs the question. Nothing directs your actions but the laws of physics determine your actions. I hope you understand the distinction. 
I offer one demonstrating the biblical day, month, year of creation which has not been directly rebutted.
I'm glad you have a book you like but the bible does not present any such date even if I were inclined to accept the bible as more than historical fantasy fiction or mythology. Some theologians claim to have figured out the date based on genealogies and other possibly apocryphal clues from the boom book itself (problematic since the claim can never be evidence of itself) but even there you see some disagreement over particulars. 
That's just a small sampling of my "engagement."
Yeah that belongs in quotes my dude.
You cannot... you cannot... You cannot...
As I said, argument for your limitations; they're yours, not mine. You don't believe in free will? I don't believe in limitations.
I mean motivational speeches aside you have physical and mental limitations put upon you by the laws of physics and the nature of your physical human body. Even if you were a disembodied spirit or a trans dimensional alien however and even if you were an omnipotent being with literally no limits whatsoever your thoughts and behaviors would still be by necessity either caused or uncaused. 
Topic's author
#119
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
Another perspective on free will vs. determinism: Justice and Personal responsibility.
 
Justice is the maintenance or administration of what is conforming to a standard of correctness, especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments.Since it is the actions of individuals that must be adjudicated in a legal charge of malfeasance, each individual’s actions are reviewed for merit of the charge[s]. As such, each person is individually, personally responsible for their actions.
 
It is an interrupt of logic to presume otherwise; that some other entity or force is responsible for the actions of an individual, regardless of the severity of threat imposed by any other entity or force to have that individual act in a specified manner. Were it not so, justice, itself, is impossible to mete out properly and justly.
 
Determinism would have it so; that an external force, and not the individual, themself, is ultimately responsible for their actions. To wit, were it a reality that the universe exerts a force on the brain chemistry of a person such that a person is denied the agency of choice, or even that the “choice” they make is not consciously determined and acted upon, but is the result of chemical alterations that individual did not personally and consciously effect, then justice cannot be properly exercised. The person is utterly absolved of personal responsibility, and mayhem is the ultimate result, not order.

If a person is not responsible for their choices, they are beings of complete entitlement, regardless of their actions, let alone their thoughts. Such a person is no better, nor worse, than anyone else else, and all lives lives of complete lack of personal accomplishment, for none are solely responsible, ever, for their thoughts, let alone their actions. Where there is no personal achievement for good, there is no reward, and where there is no personal lack of evil, they cannot be punished for it. Thus all live lives of purposelessness, and they are, as Santayana postulated, no better than savages of ignorance.
#120
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@949havoc
according to your Secular buddy, that if-statement is a non-sequitur:
No it’s not: not unless you engage in ridiculous idiotic straw man that completely misunderstands intelligence and thinking.

But hey. I’m not talking about my secular buddy, I’m talking about what you, in your world think about an AI that reasoned, made decisions and appeared intelligent. 

In your world: would this AI have free will?