Blue moon, and the failure of determinism

Author: 949havoc

Posts

Total: 196
#121
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@949havoc
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.
I roughly agree although there are always influencing factors that need to be accounted for to carry out the appropriate sentence. Sometimes those influencing factors are people with power dangling something over your head. It may be a bribe, it may be blackmail. Someones life may be at risk. Would you cut a deal if it was possible to catch a larger fish?

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.
There’s a whole lot of nuance you’re missing. I didn’t even need to argue from a deterministic perspective with the arguments you’ve presented so far.

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.
Determinism doesn’t put the individual below the influence of the universe. Humans are the universe. Humans are the universe being self-aware.
We learn. What does rehabilitation aim to achieve? It’s probably not what you envision justice to be. Justice to you is revenge and the dehumanisation of inmates. Am I wrong? What does that do to them and to societies they’ll live in once they’re released? I admit some people are near impossible to rehabilitate due to their psychopathy or other conditions they might have. That should be taken into account. 

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.
Why wouldn’t people be responsible for their choices and actions in a deterministic world view? Like I perviously said, we are self-aware and we learn.
But for vulnerable people such as the mentally-handicapped, should we tend to give them the same sentence as someone functioning? Again, you lack nuance with your slippery slope arguments. 
Topic's author
#122
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Ramshutu
You just cannot avoid being un civil, can you?  "...you engage in ridiculous straw man...?" That's me, not my argument, as you stated before was your method, so, no, it is, rathwer, your method to ridicule your opponents. 

No matter, it's who you are, by your choice. Let's parse your original challenge

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?
You suggest having created an AI...

Then you give that AI deterministic instructions - a program to run...

And you ask if the program has free will?

And you counter that I am throwing up a stawman? Absurd. Let's use your word: ridiculous. That's your strawman , my friend. The answer? No. The program does not have free will, it is already defined as determinist.

Now, do you want to ask if the AI has free will?

Topic's author
#123
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Reece101
Sometimes those influencing factors are people with power dangling something over your head. 
W/hat have those potential mitigating circumstances have to do with the original action of the person charged with a crime? Those are follow-on consideration in consequence of the charged person's actions. His original actions are still actions he, himself, performed. You're trying to tie these subsequent potential actions of others to the charged person's original act. No, it foes not work that way.

There’s a whole lot of nuance you’re missing.
And that nuance is...?

Humans are the universe. Humans are the universe being self-aware. 
Humans area sub-set of the universe, not the universe, itself. All things are sub-sets of the universe, and the universe is the sum total of those sub-sets, not the collection, of a single part of it. My finger is just part of me, not the whole me. My finger operates for different purpose than my brain, as does my tongue, my foot, my lungs. The universe is the systems, containing, itself, many sub-systems and components.

But for vulnerable people such as the mentally-handicapped, should we tend to give them the same sentence as someone functioning?
This point you raise is the best of the lot; the most in line with my thinking, and appreciated since I did not raise the issue, but it does have merit. Yes, there are people who, through no fault of their own, are less capable of making decisions that must include allowing for mitigating circumstances of their abilities. But this consideration comes after an action by an individual has been done. First, has a criminal act occurred? Let's say it has. Therefore, justice demands to be served. However, the consideration of mitigating circumstances affecting a person's ability to take personal responsibility for their actions must now be considered. This is the alternative to meting out justice; it is meting out mercy. Mercy is the qualified atonement for a criminal act, strictly because that limited-ability person just not fully understand good and evil, or does not at all. It would, therefore, be unjust to exact the same punishment for the crime on that limited-ability person as on one who had full capacity of personal responsibility. Free will is still, therefore, in play, because both justice and mercy must always be considered when assessing the actions of individuals who act contrary to society's standards.
#124
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@949havoc
You just cannot avoid being un civil, can you?  "...you engage in ridiculous straw man...?" That's me, not my argument, as you stated before was your method, so, no, it is, rathwer, your method to ridicule your opponents. 
I’m actually calling your argument a ridiculous strawman; because it is.

You’re argument suggests that by virtue of being caused by random events, or deterministic laws - that we are arguing that thought and intelligence is somehow non existent, or can’t exist.

This is just absurd; that’s neither what any of us is arguing, nor is there any implication from our arguments that this is the case. The reality is that functional intelligence and thought exists - of course it exists: only that our conscious control over decisions is an illusion. 

That you presume that we are arguing intelligence and thought does not exist - is indeed a ridiculous strawman.

And you ask if the program has free will?

And you counter that I am throwing up a stawman? Absurd. Let's use your word: ridiculous. That's your strawman , my friend.
I’m going to deal with this one first. So one tactic I have seen from those that are, shall we say, argumentally challenged, is to throw out accusations of fallacies - without any explanation. It’s sort of this lazy approach. Invariably, they get it wrong.

For instance: you accuse me of a straw man. But don’t really explain how.

To be a strawman, I must misrepresent your position - and attack the misrepresentation : like you did in your last post.

While I am indeed asking a question with intent: I’m not attacking your position, nor am I making any representation of it at all.

Your position is that free will exists; I’m not asserting that free will existing means that computers have free will, I’m not actually suggesting anything at all.

So; really nothing I said was a straw man and the accusation is just silly.

The answer? No. The program does not have free will, it is already defined as determinist.
Now we come to the guts of the argument; so let’s get to the point.

The question was really a thought experiment - there is no reason to believe that we can’t make AGI. There is no fundamental reason why we can’t make software that can reason, can learn, can interact and converse, that is aware of its own thinking and which can make complex reasoned decisions

Of course it won’t have free will; I completely agree. The issue here is - what’s the difference? The software would be incredibly intelligent,  could talk and act just like us, could make decisions based on their own inclinations - all just like us.


Why I raised this, is that such an AI could act like us, decide like us, and feel like it’s free to act as it wishes: but it is all an illusion, because it’s underlying programming is deterministic.

We don’t have a software program - we have neurones, and electrochemical interactions in our heads that broadly obey deterministic rules every bit as much as the computer program.

The reason the question is relevant is this:

If that AI can make intelligent choices and be intelligent, thoughtful and self aware - and feels like it is in control of its own decisions - without actual free agency: why can’t the same be true of us?



Topic's author
#125
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Ramshutu
we are arguing that thought and intelligence is somehow non existent, or can’t exist.
Where have I ever suggested that? My argument is that our intelligence produces thought and action on our own ability of free will, not by any external determination.

As to your thought experiment, you first suggested an AI. Then you suggested instructions; determinist-derived instructions. In other words, a program. Then you asked if the program - you specifically called it that - not the AI, had free will. So, what does the AI have to do with anything in your posit? Since you raise an AI, then discuss the instructions/program, then ask if the program has free will, the AI becomes irrelevant to your exercise. So the exercise description is flawed since thought/programming is irrelevant without an entity to convert the thought/program to action, because thoughts/programs do nothing of the sort without an entity to perform the thought/program. So, you leave the thought/program dangling in the wind, and who knows where the person/AI has gone. If you really are asking if the thought/program has free will of its own, no, it does not, simply because it has no means to carry out the action stipulated by the program. What sense of purpose does free will or determinism have if there is no action that can be performed?
#126
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,595
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
From  LIFE WITHOUT FREE WILL by Sam Harris

A person’s conscious thoughts, intentions, and efforts at every moment are preceded by causes of which he is unaware. What is more, they are preceded by deep causes—genes, childhood experience, etc.—for which no one, however evil, can be held responsible. Our ignorance of both sets of facts gives rise to moral illusions. And yet many people worry that it is necessary to believe in free will, especially in the process of raising children.
This strikes me as a legitimate concern, though I would point out that the question of which truths to tell children (or childlike adults) haunts every room in the mansion of our understanding. For instance, my wife and I recently took our three-year-old daughter on an airplane for the first time. She loves to fly! As it happens, her joy was made possible in part because we neglected to tell her that airplanes occasionally malfunction and fall out of the sky, killing everyone on board. I don’t believe I’m the first person to observe that certain truths are best left unspoken, especially in the presence of young children. And I would no more think of telling my daughter at this age that free will is an illusion than I would teach her to drive a car or load a pistol.
Which is to say that there is a time and a place for everything—unless, of course, there isn’t. We all find ourselves in the position of a child from time to time, when specific information, however valid or necessary it may be in other contexts, will only produce confusion, despondency, or terror in the context of our life. It can be perfectly rational to avoid certain facts. For instance, if you must undergo a medical procedure for which there is no reasonable alternative, I recommend that you not conduct an Internet search designed to uncover all its possible complications. Similarly, if you are prone to nightmares or otherwise destabilized by contemplating human evil, I recommend that you not read Machete Season. Some forms of knowledge are not for everyone. 
Generally speaking, however, I don’t think that the illusoriness of free will is an ugly truth. Nor is it one that must remain a philosophical abstraction. In fact, as I write this, it is absolutely clear to me that I do not have free will. This knowledge doesn’t seem to prevent me from getting things done. Recognizing that my conscious mind is always downstream from the underlying causes of my thoughts, intentions, and actions does not change the fact that thoughts, intentions, and actions of all kinds are necessary for living a happy life—or an unhappy one, for that matter.
#127
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@949havoc
W/hat have those potential mitigating circumstances have to do with the original action of the person charged with a crime? Those are follow-on consideration in consequence of the charged person's actions. His original actions are still actions he, himself, performed. You're trying to tie these subsequent potential actions of others to the charged person's original act. No, it foes not work that way.
You moved from ‘justice and punishment’ to the ‘charged persons original act.’

Why the pivot. No need to answer, I know why.

You’re such bad faith. 
Topic's author
#128
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Reece101
You’re such bad faith. 
No, you truncate my whole argument and address only half. You'll note in my original subject of justice and personal responsibility [#119], I cover both punishment and reward. Your reply cut-off reward to address only punishment, and at that, only by someone who is handicapped and may not bear full responsibility for actions since they lack, partially or completely, the ability to distinguish right and wrong. My explanation by answer to your question did not shift the focus as you charge. I explained why the handicapped should be allowed consideration of their handicap in the punishment phase of justice due to their mitigating circumstance which allows mercy to adjust the properly just decision. All of it, as I originally argued in my #119 is based upon a person's actions, so, where's the shift of focus you accuse me of making?

You're such bad comprehension.
Topic's author
#129
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@FLRW
A person’s conscious thoughts, intentions, and efforts at every moment are preceded by causes of which he is unaware. What is more, they are preceded by deep causes—genes, childhood experience, etc.—for which no one, however evil, can be held responsible.
I realize you are citing from Sam Harris, so the criticism I have is directed to Harris.
The first sentence is an oxymoron to the second, because it makes no sense to me that things of which we are unaware  ["deep causes"] can affect our conscious thinking and decision-making process, particularly assuming we register as "normal" by our friendly neighborhood psychobablist. In other words, we are dealing with an ignorance that, as Santayana explained, reduces us to a degree of savagery [see my #102]. The demands of justice dictate that we cannot be held responsible for things that occur  beyond our control; otherwise, justice is mismanaged and is not satisfied. Worse, society cannot be satisfied it can be compensated for the unlawful actions of others in society. And that yields chaos, not civilization. Knowing that ignorance of the laws of society is not a valid defense against charges of violating those laws, how can we allow that deep causes can interrupt our lives without an ability to defend ourselves?
No, the means and ends of justice demand that we have free will, and that, even by free will, we can and should be responsible for our choices that run aground of social law and order. How else can society function, since we are all individuals with individual choices of behavior. Civilization depends upon our mutual free choice to be law-abiding, and we have no recourse of proper justice against actions that have deep causes outside of our control.
#130
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@949havoc
Free will = free agency
Free from what ?
Topic's author
#131
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@3RU7AL
From? What a pessimistic attitude. Consider the use of "free" or "freedom" in the Constitution, It is not "freedom from," but rather, "freedom for." It is a positive, not a negative sense. Freedom for, not from, the opportunity to have personal will to think and act.
#132
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@949havoc
No, you truncate my whole argument and address only half.
Are you kidding me? Don’t you see the hypocrisy. So much brain worms. From what I can tell there’s only one argument you’re talking about which I didn’t reply to. We can discuss it. 

You'll note in my original subject of justice and personal responsibility [#119], I cover both punishment and reward.
Which I replied at the top of #121 which then you completely pivoted at the start of #123.  
Although reward is a different topic from justice and punishment, we can talk about it. 

So when it comes to reward what is the contention? For people to do good, we act to achieve good.
Reward is a means to do so. Where is freewill required? 

Your reply cut-off reward to address only punishment, and at that, only by someone who is handicapped and may not bear full responsibility for actions since they lack, partially or completely, the ability to distinguish right and wrong. My explanation by answer to your question did not shift the focus as you charge. I explained why the handicapped should be allowed consideration of their handicap in the punishment phase of justice due to their mitigating circumstance which allows mercy to adjust the properly just decision. All of it, as I originally argued in my #119 is based upon a person's actions, so, where's the shift of focus you accuse me of making?

You're such bad comprehension.
You’re discussing two different paragraphs with two or more different arguments. The first paragraph you completely ignored and pivoted, while the second paragraph you’re discussing here is the only one you replied to in length (although you ignored the first couple of sentences which I previously didn’t care about). 
Topic's author
#133
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
Any doctrine that insists that all events, including human thought and action, are externally determined and ordered to occur, externally driven at odds with free will to think and act autonomously, infers that no person can be held responsible for their thoughts and resulting actions. Such a doctrine limits and belittles the grandeur that humanity has the potential to be divine. Such a progression of ability defies this contrary doctrine of limitations and personal insult. 

Einstein once said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all that there ever will be to know and understand." 

The theory of determinism, that contrary doctrine of limitation of human potential, amounts to even less than knowledge; i.e., just what we think we know for sure. As Mark Twain once said, "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." Yes, determinists can turn this on me for my assurance that man has free will, but it cannot be avoided that determinists may "know" that which is not so, as well.

Another view: Look in side a quantum particle, delve in to its deepest, secreted places so small, the word is too big for it, you will find...
strings.

And this says nothing for imagination, i.e., "all that will ever be to know and understand," which determinism dismisses out of hand, because it decrees that all has already been determined. That would seem to indicate that knowledge, itself, is finite, along with humanity. Whereas, with the argument of free will, imagination can explore what is not known and reveal it. Determinism has no definition, nor any contemplation of such imagination, and it's vehicle is on a dead-end road. Imagination is the driving force of free will, and humanity is, and can be, and will be in the driver's seat of that vehicle, and the road ahead is eternal.
#134
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@949havoc
"freedom" in the Constitution
FREEDOM FROM TYRANNY, SPECIFICALLY
Topic's author
#135
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@3RU7AL
No, not really even that. Freedom to seek redress from tyrannical government. That's the promise of the 1A. I know you may think that is semantics, but it is truly the better way to look at freedom, since freedom really imposes a responsibility to act in and by virtue of freedom, and not just passively expect it.

You see, the constitutional language is carefully constrructed, and James Madison was no dummy. He knew what he was saying. One may think that because there is a freedom of religion [the phrase is actually "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." which is not merely "freedom of religion," because the unwritten logic is that a citizen may also engage an attitude of not exercising religious practice at all, and there will be no coercion by government otherwise.

The same thing occurs with [Congress shall make no law] "abridging the freedom of speech," whose unwritten logic includes that citizens are free to be offended by anyone's speech, but neither Congress, nor any citizen, may censure. It also implies that just because speech is unbridled, it does not mean anyone is compelled to speak anything at all. Thus the Miranda right, "...you have the right to remain silent..." which is something I wish the press would remember. with its constant harassment of people to get a story. The fact is, the press does not have a right to get a story if a possible witness to an even wishes to remain silent. "No comment" is often ignored by them.
#136
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@949havoc
Any doctrine that insists that all events, including human thought and action, are externally determined and ordered to occur, externally driven at odds with free will to think and act autonomously, infers that no person can be held responsible for their thoughts and resulting actions. Such a doctrine limits and belittles the grandeur that humanity has the potential to be divine. Such a progression of ability defies this contrary doctrine of limitations and personal insult. 
Externally and internally determined to occur*
All causes are responsible for their effects. With humans, we alter our behaviour on learnt knowledge just like we have been for hundreds of thousands of years. Or are you a Young Earth Creationist? That spiel about humanity has the potential to be divine is contrary to the argument you’re trying to make if you believe in a omniscience and omnipotent god that created the universe. Sorry but he would be deterministic if he knew everything before it happens. 
Believing in such religions has been the real limitation and insult to human expression. 

Einstein once said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all that there ever will be to know and understand." 
 The imagination which propels scientific intrigue has been stifled countless times within religious households. Schools are pretty bad too just in terms of how curricular is setup and how it’s taught. 

The theory of determinism, that contrary doctrine of limitation of human potential, amounts to even less than knowledge; i.e., just what we think we know for sure. As Mark Twain once said, "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." Yes, determinists can turn this on me for my assurance that man has free will, but it cannot be avoided that determinists may "know" that which is not so, as well.
Just to make sure you know, determinism isn’t a scientific theory, it’s philosophy just as freewill. All determinism basically describes is that all effects are determined by causes. That’s the only firm description of determinism. Determinism isn’t held down by a bunch of dogma.

Another view: Look in side a quantum particle, delve in to its deepest, secreted places so small, the word is too big for it, you will find...
strings.

And this says nothing for imagination, i.e., "all that will ever be to know and understand," which determinism dismisses out of hand, because it decrees that all has already been determined. That would seem to indicate that knowledge, itself, is finite, along with humanity. Whereas, with the argument of free will, imagination can explore what is not known and reveal it. Determinism has no definition, nor any contemplation of such imagination, and it's vehicle is on a dead-end road. Imagination is the driving force of free will, and humanity is, and can be, and will be in the driver's seat of that vehicle, and the road ahead is eternal.
Can you please explain how you’re getting finite knowledge from determinism? Determinism describes a process. That’s it. It doesn’t say anything about all of existence. It’s as if you’re treating determinism as an apposing religion. 
Topic's author
#137
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Reece101
That spiel about humanity has the potential to be divine is contrary to the argument you’re trying to make if you believe in a omniscience and omnipotent god that created the universe. Sorry but he would be deterministic if he knew everything before it happens. 
There are just a couple of things wrong with this statement. I'll start with the most obvious first: What God knows is not what we know, and you're trying to say there is no difference; that if God knows all things we must, as well, because determinism says so. Nope. We do not know what God knows until we learn it for ourselves by our own research with its drawn conclusions, or God reveals it to us. 
Nest, that God knows and that we do not is resolved simply by God's third great gift to us. The first is life, itself. The second is the atonement of Christ, which is given to all of mankind to accept or reject. And that accept/reject potential is the third great gift: our free agency, or free will, to determine for ourselves what's what, and what to do about it.

The imagination which propels scientific intrigue has been stifled countless times
That is no argument that defeats free will. Yes, the power of others to be oppressive, which I have previously discussed, and added that oppression is the first result of determinism, to combat free will. But that does not discount that we each, individually, have the power if we will use it to think for ourselves, and act according to our own thinking, regardless of oppression.

determinism isn’t a scientific theory
It is based upon scientific theory, namely, quantum physics, and B-theory time.

how you’re getting finite knowledge from determinism
Re-read my first sentence, "Any doctrine..." By its nature, determinism is a limiting philosophy, because it would disallow imagination beyond what it determines.
Topic's author
#138
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
determinism is nothing more than another attempt to disavow God; it is atheism in science jargon; including philosophic thought as science
Topic's author
#139
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
Something I just encountered completely outside the topic of this string - dream states - made a wild connection to determinism. A Scientific American article from 11/1/2010, almost literally 11 years ago [Happy Halloween, goblins], titled "Dream States: A Peak into Consciousness." It makes the statement, "Dream consciousness is not the same as wakeful consciousness. We are for the most part unable to introspect—to wonder about our uncanny ability to fly or to meet somebody long dead. Only rarely do we control our dreams; rather things happen, and we go along for the ride."

That would seem to align with determinism - just along for the rise, that we have no will to do otherwise. 
#140
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,595
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@949havoc

Yes, I remember reading that article in Scientific American when it came out.  It was written by  Christof Koch.
In an atricle in The Atlantic magazine he states.

Koch: I'm not a conventional atheist who believes it's all just a random formation. I believe there is meaning. But as you said, I don't believe in a personal god or any of the standard things that you're supposed to believe as a Christian.
#141
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@949havoc
There are just a couple of things wrong with this statement. I'll start with the most obvious first: What God knows is not what we know, and you're trying to say there is no difference; that if God knows all things we must, as well, because determinism says so. Nope. We do not know what God knows until we learn it for ourselves by our own research with its drawn conclusions, or God reveals it to us. 
The difference between your god  and us is that your god knows what will happen, but we don’t. Determinism occurs regardless. Do you understand?

Nest, that God knows and that we do not is resolved simply by God's third great gift to us. The first is life, itself. The second is the atonement of Christ, which is given to all of mankind to accept or reject. And that accept/reject potential is the third great gift: our free agency, or free will, to determine for ourselves what's what, and what to do about it.
Do we have free-agency of freewill if God knows how everything would play out before the creation of the universe? 

That is no argument that defeats free will. Yes, the power of others to be oppressive, which I have previously discussed, and added that oppression is the first result of determinism, to combat free will. But that does not discount that we each, individually, have the power if we will use it to think for ourselves, and act according to our own thinking, regardless of oppression.
Wait, are you saying proponents of determinism oppress people who believe in freewill? Childish. I care about what’s true, not what makes you feel good. How about you oppress me with better arguments.

It is based upon scientific theory, namely, quantum physics, and B-theory of time.
They may influence determinism, but being based upon? The philosophy of determinism is over 2000 years old. How can you blatantly lie like that?

Re-read my first sentence, "Any doctrine..." By its nature, determinism is a limiting philosophy, because it would disallow imagination beyond what it determines
Determinism doesn’t determine what we’re capable of, or else its wikipedia page would be very long. Do some reading because it seems to me you have no idea what determinism is. 
Topic's author
#142
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Reece101
The difference between your god  and us is that your god knows what will happen, but we don’t.
Therefore, knowledge known by one person, and ignorance by another person means that the latter's life is determined by the former? That's not even true among ourselves as a mortal species. That implies a slavery of the latter to the former, and that is not an absolute, either. The difference is not the knowledge, but the experience coupled with that knowledge that makes God who he is; enhanced by wisdom [knowledge + experience]. God has already been through a complete mortal life; he did not start as a god, but grew into one, as we will ultimately grow. As we are now, God once was; as God is, we may become, dependent on our choices made in mortality to be obedient to God, or not. It is precisely the same situation in comparing a parent to a child. A parent may teach a child that to touch a hot stove is going to hurt, badly, or that avoiding touching the hot stove while still making use of it will not hurt. The parent knows by experience what will happen when the child does touch the hot stove, while the child knows by education, but lacks the experience. The child may choose either action, and will reap the result, but the result is not forced by God or by determinism. It's a simple matter that, even to child, once of an age of accountability, i.e., the child is aware of right action and wrong action, generally, but in earlier years, that knowledge of good and evil is a bit vague. Mistakes are made, and sometimes those mistakes have tragic results. But we observe that, whether we are responsible for our actions, or not, the consequences of our actions are, in vthe high majority of cases, allowed to proceed without God's intervention.

You see, we complain that God is omnipotent, and makes things happen to us without our choices, and we complain that he does not act omnipotently if we get ourselves into trouble except in vary rare exceptions in all of human history. Your determinism insists that that is exactly what happens. Both conditions. Nope. Obviously, if we our actions were always determined in advance, God would cease to be God. As I have stated before, while many believe that God is totally responsible for everything that ever happens, I believe he is not totally responsible for anything that happens. There are other forces at play, here; usually ourselves and our choices, right or wrong.
#143
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
A bunch of b******* and the science and nature section when it should be in the religion section. 
#144
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,595
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Polytheist-Witch

There are different interpretations of quantum physics that suggest a deterministic universe (eg. Many-Worlds interpretation) , so I would say that this topic should be in the Science and Nature section.
#145
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@949havoc
Therefore, knowledge known by one person, and ignorance by another person means that the latter's life is determined by the former? That's not even true among ourselves as a mortal species. That implies a slavery of the latter to the former, and that is not an absolute, either. The difference is not the knowledge, but the experience coupled with that knowledge that makes God who he is; enhanced by wisdom [knowledge + experience].
You’re acting as if determinism is a power to be wielded over others. It’s not. I said it occurs regardless. 
How can God have experience if he’s omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal? What does experience even mean in that context? 

God has already been through a complete mortal life; he did not start as a god, but grew into one, as we will ultimately grow. As we are now, God once was; as God is, we may become, dependent on our choices made in mortality to be obedient to God, or not.
Alright so you’re starting to focus on Jesus which doesn’t address the arguments I’ve proposed. 
Just to let you know, many Christians would probably call you blasphemous for saying we will ultimately grow into gods.

It is precisely the same situation in comparing a parent to a child. A parent may teach a child that to touch a hot stove is going to hurt, badly, or that avoiding touching the hot stove while still making use of it will not hurt. The parent knows by experience what will happen when the child does touch the hot stove, while the child knows by education, but lacks the experience. The child may choose either action, and will reap the result, but the result is not forced by God or by determinism.
Determinism isn’t a force. It describes causation. Can you tell me how choice takes place? If you think freewill, can you tell me how?

It's a simple matter that, even to child, once of an age of accountability, i.e., the child is aware of right action and wrong action, generally, but in earlier years, that knowledge of good and evil is a bit vague. Mistakes are made, and sometimes those mistakes have tragic results. But we observe that, whether we are responsible for our actions, or not, the consequences of our actions are, in vthe high majority of cases, allowed to proceed without God's intervention.
Technically I would say we’re responsible for our actions regardless. Can you give me an argument why that wouldn’t be the case in a deterministic worldview? 

You see, we complain that God is omnipotent, and makes things happen to us without our choices, and we complain that he does not act omnipotently if we get ourselves into trouble except in vary rare exceptions in all of human history. Your determinism insists that is exactly what happens. Both conditions. Nope. Obviously, if our actions were always determined in advance, God would cease to be God. As I have stated before, while many believe that God is totally responsible for everything that ever happens, I believe he is not totally responsible for anything that happens. There are other forces at play, here; usually ourselves and our choices, right or wrong.
Yet God knew how everything would play out before he created the universe, correct?
#146
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@949havoc
we are arguing that thought and intelligence is somehow non existent, or can’t exist.

Where have I ever suggested that? My argument is that our intelligence produces thought and action on our own ability of free will, not by any external determination.

You suggested that here:

“according to your Secular buddy, that if-statement [if an artificial intelligence exists with the ability to think] is a non-sequitur:”
That is the only rational way I can interpret your statement.

Let’s break it down. Firstly; you don’t offer any sort of explanation or rationalization of why you think it’s a non sequitur. I find this fairly typical of people who either aren’t engaging in good faith, or just don’t understand the principles of how arguments work.

A non sequitor is typically when a conclusion doesn’t follow the premise. In this case, I’m not making an argument - I’m offering a thought experiment; so the term doesn’t really apply.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt and suggesting that you’re simply not using the right label - the only possibility is that you think, somehow, that thinking and intelligence are somehow not valid things or don’t follow in a deterministic universe. 

This matches up with the broad themes you’re arguing and your general incredulity.

If that’s not the case, then it’s completely unclear as to what your point is, which I guess could be the point. I mean, why bother constructing an argument where you can throw out a couple of assertions that don’t make sense then attack your opponent for not understanding when they point out it doesn’t make sense.

As to your thought experiment, you first suggested an AI. Then you suggested instructions; determinist-derived instructions. In other words, a program. Then you asked if the program - you specifically called it that - not the AI, had free will. So, what does the AI have to do with anything in your posit? Since you raise an AI, then discuss the instructions/program, then ask if the program has free will, the AI becomes irrelevant to your exercise. So the exercise description is flawed since thought/programming is irrelevant without an entity to convert the thought/program to action, because thoughts/programs do nothing of the sort without an entity to perform the thought/program. So, you leave the thought/program dangling in the wind, and who knows where the person/AI has gone. If you really are asking if the thought/program has free will of its own, no, it does not, simply because it has no means to carry out the action stipulated by the program. What sense of purpose does free will or determinism have if there is no action that can be performed?

So you’re argument here appears to be that I used both the words “program” and “artificial intelligence”, and you’re suggesting that these are totally different things; so AI has nothing to do with the program, and without an “entity” you can’t think.

So what you’re doing here is a simply a strawman, you’re just inventing a perceived error in the discussion, and attacking it; the error you manufacture is itself, beyond my ability to adequately ridicule.


There is no error at all: in my example, artificial intelligence is a form of computer program - a computer program that has the ability to learn and change based on its inputs and formulate novel outputs through adaptive algorithms. In most cases they are trying to emulate human decision making and thought. 

Googles deep learning, for example, or IBMs deep blue - are artificial intelligence, and are also computer programs.

As a software engineer, the distinction you draw makes absolutely no sense, and building an entire argument on the premise that two things are somehow different, is up there with my favourite interviewee when asked to name some issues with “multi-threaded software development”, is “the cpu may get hot and burn people”.

Finally; the main issue that appear to be the main issue with your approach here; is that you seem to be begging the question throughout.

An argument - discussion - debate - works by establishing commonly agreed truths, then present logical arguments to justify conclusions.

Reviewing this, and other arguments you make on this topic, it appears that this is not what you’re trying to do.

It appears that you “believe” your position - that’s fine; but are presenting arguments and positions that aren’t commonly agreed as if they are. You occasionally throw out a bunch of Jesuspeak; and assert things such as  thought requiring entities to generate them, and all other manner of things.

These aren’t agreed, and in most cases these assertions (I call them that because you don’t seem to provide justification for them, nor do you seem to want to defend their validity), are the very thing that allow you to draw the conclusions  that you do.

For example - way back in the dim distance past of an argument you dropped; I pointed out that in order for your decisions to produce truly free decisions - your mind, your thinking needs to produce results different than the physical objects in your head would had they obeyed the laws of physics. You didn’t really offer much of a defence to this; you merely offer watery declarations that it happens (without going into too much detail on the how). While I completely agree, that if your mind was a non physical entity that could violate the laws of physics - free will is possible - to assume that is the case in the absence of all evidence, is invalid.

The issue is that any time this is brought up, you retreat behind that assertion with burden of proof demands, or even just straight up ignoring it. It’s as if you know the weakness of your argument and are trying to avoid it.

That’s the primary issue, if you’re unwilling to address the central assumptions of your arguments - the central underpinning truths that are the source of everyone’s disagreement - then debate isn’t possible; it ceases to be debate, and becomes proselytizing masquerading as debate. 

This is the issue here, your argument is based on a whole load of central assumptions you will not defend, and don’t appear to like being challenged; you appear to believe the mind is non physical in some way, that thinking, thought and decisions somehow require agency. The issue here seems to be (and continues to be that you generally use those same assertions to shout down arguments that show those assertions are false)  that this approach inherently begging the question, and either by accident or design is the reason you prevent the conversation going anywhere.
#147
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@949havoc
Obviously, if we our actions were always determined in advance, God would cease to be God. 
If you mean the Abrahamic God, this is in fact a curious contradiction in his design.

He is said to control everything and know everything, incapable of being overruled or blindsided, yet he is also said to be capable of granting 'will' that is free of his foreknowledge and control.

This entity is also said, by followers, to be not responsible for what we do due to this:

There are other forces at play, here; usually ourselves and our choices, right or wrong.
However, if this is true, it implies either he doesn't have unlimited power, control and presents (omnipotence and omnipresence) and furthermore that there must be limitations to his omniscience. If he were omniscient, he'd be incapable of not knowing what we'd do while designing us even if he was capable of turning down the attention paid to the predetermination later.
Topic's author
#148
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@RationalMadman
If you mean the Abrahamic God, this is in fact a curious contradiction in his design.
No, because nothing in his design was intended to be perfect as created. 
#149
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@949havoc
I didn't say it was. According to determinists, if the Abrahamic god is real, it is part and parcel (all the evil decisions we make) of the creation.
Topic's author
#150
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@secularmerlin
@RationalMadman
@Ramshutu
@3RU7AL
@Reece101
I'll reply to you all with this parting shot, for I have said all I intend on this subject, but one: Refer to Hamlet, Act III, scene 1's soliloquy "To be, or not to be..." read it completely, then consider one question. Rhetorical, if you will. Think about it. What is it, after all, that is said and done, that says Hamlet was denied any option but that which he pursued, knowing, perhaps even just subconsciously, that his own life would be forfeit in the process? ‘To be, or not to be,’ he said. Was it limited to that? Had he surrendered all other possibilities, just to justify humanity and its free will? 

Oh, but, no, you may think, he offered two options: life or death. And I respond: just so, but, then, what does he turn to? A walk in the park? A rendezvous with Ophelia? Her prayers, he concludes, contain all his sins. Or, is it another heart-to-heart with his father’s ghost? No, he sleeps, he dreams; meaning… other options than just two… and what, then, but free will’s justification of imagination over what would else be determined for him?

Shakespeare allows for your determinism as a discussion [considering that Hamlet and his two friends are philosophy students, after all], but concludes, himself, through Hamlet, that it is Hamlet, and not his stars, that, in the end, make the decisions that make the entire play a discussion of this very topic; and the conclusion is the blue moon's  variable all along, the variable that man is capable of determining his own destiny, and, at that, self-fulfilling, or tragically self-destructive. It is what the paragon of animals do: "That patient merit of the unworthy takes, when he himself might his quietus make with a bare bodkin?"