Total posts: 385
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Doesn't this issue boil down to how a given act is interpreted? A case for psychological egoism could be made regardless of the appearance of motive. In other words, if someone acts out of a seeming altruistic concern for another, it could be argued that the root of the act occurs by benefiting the self (subject) by producing a positive psychological response. In the same vein, one could also be considered to be avoiding pain by not experiencing the guilt that might occur were one not to act. Both of those scenarios would be happening unconsciously and might appear to be a case of ethical altruism.
Irrespective of how one regards one's self vs. others, is an ethical consideration really just an unconscious form of pleasure seeking or pain avoidance?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
One can logically conclude with 100% certainty that the universe exists. So, in at least one example, logic can be proven to be 100% valid.I'm not saying that logic isn't valid. It's just that we can't prove it, so we can't be 100% certain, just 99.999...% certain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
So I don't agree with atheism=scepticism. For me scepticism=agnosticism.
There have been a few definitions of atheism submitted here and depending on the very specific wording of the term, i think both words can be considered to be a position of skepticism. By and large, I would agree with you though, as the generally accepted definition of agnosticism probably more closely hews to skepticism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
See post #13 on page 1. Great minds think alike.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
This was a discussion about a hypothetical premise. I don't need to see your cosmic trinity to discuss a hypothetical situation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
We're really talking specially about HUMAN consciousness (first or not first).
I was actually referring to a primordial consciousness.
Even a "dirt first" hypothesis doesn't have anything at all to say about what "caused" the big bang.
Agreed. A primordial consciousness does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Does a breath that carries a word exist if it never speaks?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
A "dirt first" hypothesis does not logically exclude ghosts, gods and goblins.
It certainly doesn't support those ideas either. A consciousness first hypothesis supports something similar to dualism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
From a personal perspective they could be extremely profound.Like what?
Epistemological limits aside, "knowing" (hypothetically proven as a fact) that consciousness came before matter could mean the possibility of the existence of God, reincarnation or some type of existence after the physical body dies, etc. It wouldn't definitively answer any of those questions but it would be evidence that could sway minds to a more spiritual life and a conception of existence after death.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The consequences are irrelevant. Wouldn't you want to know which came first for the sake of curiosity?I mean, what do you think are the logical consequences of a "consciousness first" hypothesis?What do you think are the logical consequences of a "matter first" hypothesis?
From the perspective of a functioning universe, the consequences would probably be negligible. From a personal perspective they could be extremely profound.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Next the debate should be whether or not robots that pass the turing test should be allowed to vote.
Passing a test is not the same as actually experiencing subjective feelings. Should a person who lies while taking a lie detector test and passes anyway be considered to be telling the truth?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
That's true but it may be somewhat applicable to trivial decisions too. I just wanted to show another opinion that expressed the general view that I support.i am far more interested in trivial choices where cold logic plays little part - i don't think Dennett's model is helpful in such cases.
the sorting machine has no choice so I dispute 'similar to a human choice.
I meant similar in appearance or outcome only. A machine can sort left and it can sort right. In the sense that it has two options it is similar. Of course it will only choose based on its specific programing, not by preference, emotion, intent, desire or rational thought.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I understand what you mean. I am just more inclined to believe that the phenomenon that I (and every human on earth) experience is closer to the truth than not. Smarter people than me have a similar view such as that expressed by Daniel Dennett who says...
"The model of decision making I am proposing, has the following feature: when we are faced with an important decision, a consideration-generator whose output is to some degree undetermined produces a series of considerations, some of which may of course be immediately rejected as irrelevant by the agent (consciously or unconsciously). Those considerations that are selected by the agent as having a more than negligible bearing on the decision then figure in a reasoning process, and if the agent is in the main reasonable, those considerations ultimately serve as predictors and explicators of the agent's final decision."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you believe that subjectively human influences are part of the causal chain?
Yes.
Do you believe that subjectively human influences are indistinguishable from random?
No.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) you are part of a causal chain (THEN) every outcome is determined by previous causes with some possibly random influences that may maintain some fundamental unpredictability.
I agree but would word this sentence thus...
(IFF) you are part of a causal chain (THEN) every outcome is determined by previous causes with some subjectively human influences that may maintain some fundamental unpredictability."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
To say you have "the ability to change the outcome of a causal chain" is to deny the origins of and existence of your instincts and desires and physical and mental capacities.
I don't see it that way. I accept the origins of those things as part of the process. I just don't believe that there is only one possible outcome to a series of events. Subjective human minds direct the series of events to a desired outcome. The origins of human thoughts and desires are only indirectly responsible for the eventual choice. To say that the origins of our desires are solely responsible for our choices minimizes the ability of a human mind to process that data and mix in other variables such as emotion and intent. And yes, in a way, it is "special" unless you know of any other life form that can compare to that of a human brain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
As I have already answered this question, I will again say no, it is not identical to but similar to a human choice.Based on this rudimentary definition, do you believe that sorting robots have freewill?
Created:
Posted in:
Honestly, this debate should not be about the term "free will" but about the verb "to choose". Are choices directed by subjective human minds with the ability to change the outcome of a causal chain or by external physical forces of which we have no control or possibly both? If you say that we can choose between 2 courses of action without free will then what does it mean to choose?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Choosing between 2 or more courses of action is the definition of free will.You can choose between 2 or more possible courses of action - WITHOUT - freewill.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do I really need to explain the functionality of being able to choose between 2 or more possible courses of action?What necessary function does freewill perform in your worldview?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Agreed. I don't have a litmus test for freewill. I am simply asserting that it exists.Ask yourself, would I accept this as a valid argument for any proposition besides freewill?Careful how you answer because I can assert that a lot of wildly contradictory mutually exclusive things exist.
That wasn't intended as an argument for anything. It is only a statement of my position on the subject.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Not being identical should not necessarily be the litmus test for freewill.No two human's decision making hardware (brain) or software (experience) are strictly identical.
Agreed. I don't have a litmus test for freewill. I am simply asserting that it exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That is not my definition, it is from Wikipedia. I would say that those computers have what is similar to the ability to choose (freewill). To the casual observer it may be indistinguishable. However, computers do not utilize the same variables that humans do when making choices so it is not identical.So would agree, according to your definitions, that sophisticated computerized neural networks with the ability to learn and optimize tasks, also have proper freewill (the ability to choose)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't. That is the definition of freewill - the ability to make a choice unimpeded.(IFF) you can't quantify freewill (AND) you don't care about moral culpability (THEN) why would you bother distinguishing "freewill" from simple "choice"?
It seems you likely have a different definition and Mopac may be correct that you define it in such a way as to make it impossible to exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You can't. I also can't quantify emotional intensity but it exists nonetheless.The ONLY question is, "HOW DO YOU QUANTIFY FREEWILL?"
I'm not particularly interested in discussing moral culpability as it relates to the ability to make a choice, only the fact that phenomenon itself exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Intelligence is only one aspect of moral culpability. You might add emotional stability, knowledge and ignorance, intent and other attributes that I can't think of off hand.(THEN) intelligence is proportional to moral culpability.
The ability to make a choice exists apart from moral culpability but moral culpability requires choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Emotion is just one component that distinguishes a human from a computer. Humans also have varying degrees of intelligence and capacity for rational thought giving some a greater ability to make a rational choice than others meaning freewill is a sliding scale.
A newborn infant probably has probably little or no freewill.
An adult with a normal functioning brain has much more.
An adult with a minor cognitive disability has less but not none.
Etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) freewill = choice (THEN) robotic sorting systems have what is indistinguishable from freewill.
That is true only if you consider the final result. It is false If you consider the other variables that human brains have at their disposal such as emotions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) freewill = choice (THEN) robotic sorting systems have what appears to be similar to freewill.
Fixed it.
Created:
-->
@DBlaze
All well said. My comment was meant to be amusing for a philosophy forum, not as an actual definition. For that I would probably say that wisdom is the ability to apply acquired knowledge to a given situation that improves the likelihood of a preferred outcome. Your definition looks to be a much more detailed way of saying something similar to that.
Created:
Wisdom is gaining enough knowledge to realize that you know nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I had a feeling that the word "choice" was really what your contention was with, not "rational".
So you reject the premises outright. Fair enough.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If Fallaneze's argument were worded another way, how would you respond? For example...
A) Mindless forces cannot make choices.
B) Humans make choices.
Therefore,
C) Humans are not solely controlled by mindless forces.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That puts freewill in the same category as god(s).
With one big difference. Only some people experience what they would consider to be God. Every person on earth experiences the phenomenon of making choices or "free will".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@Fallaneze
To say that one should be skeptical of atheism is tantamount to saying one should be skeptical of skepticism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@Fallaneze
This definition is from the same Stanford source you quoted...
"Departing even more radically from the norm in philosophy, a few philosophers and quite a few non-philosophers claim that “atheism” shouldn’t be defined as a proposition at all, even if theism is a proposition. Instead, “atheism” should be defined as a psychological state: the state of not believing in the existence of God (or gods)."
That aligns more with secularmerlin's definition.
Created:
Posted in:
There should be a new term comparable to Godwin's law that states that every internet thread will eventually devolve into a discussion of "free will".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Which is why it is illogical to argue free will based on hindsight. Options not taken do exist as possibilities in the future. To say that free will does not exist is to say that there is only one possible effect to any given cause. That line of thought negates the concepts of possibility and probability.Options not taken don't exist, nor will they ever exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
You guys figure out the question to the answer "fourty-two" yet?
Unless you are hitchhiking around the galaxy, why would you ask that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Right, but that only applies to decisions that have already been made. What about future decisions?
Free will opponents will try to argue in hindsight. It's like telling someone "I knew you were going to say that" to which you respond "no you didn't" and they respond "I knew you were going to say that too". Free will should be argued as it applies to future possible actions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That reply was disingenuous to say the least. I give you the wikipedia definition of a term and you respond "depending on how you define human agency". You say you don't disbelieve it then go on to contradict yourself by stating that circumstances dictate actions, not agency. You appear to be trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Fair enough. It is probably never going to be a productive discussion with someone who does not believe that human agency exists.
Agency (sociology) : "the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices."
In your worldview, we are just biological machines programed by our preferences, environment, etc. with no ability to control our future. That is a very pessimistic outlook on human reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
My claim is not that you have no will just that there is no reason to consider this will free.
But you do realize that the word "free" is not mentioned in the definition of free will. The definition is "the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded." Do you dispute that the phenomenon described in the previous sentence actually happens?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Without a better understanding of how humans make decisions I cannot make an informed evaluation.
And yet you have evaluated that humans do not actually make decisions, that decisions are made for us by external influences. I smell a contradiction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I didn't. I demonstrated that it does not violate cause and effect.In what way have you demonstrated that the phenomenon you refer to as choice is not governed by cause and effect?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Twoman I thought you were an advocate of no free will?
No. I am an advocate of the term as it is defined: "the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded."
Opponents seem to be saying that having reasons for making a decision means a lack of agency. I disagree with that for both logical and semantic reasons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Don't shift the burden of proof. You're better than that.
I am merely pointing out what every human being on the planet experiences. You are making the claim that the phenomenon is an illusion. There is no burden of proof with my claim unless you are going to deny that every human on earth experiences the phenomenon of making choices. Otherwise, you are the one making a claim that defies the experience of every human being. The burden of proof is with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Having mechanistic "qualities" is much different than being a machine. Are you able verify or demonstrate that what every single human being experiences is incorrect? Are you able to verify or demonstrate that the human mind is just an organic machine that is incapable of independent agency?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Unless the thing doing the causing is 'self', or 'you'.
That is one way to think of it.
I think that the only way you can look at choice as an illusion is if you believe that the human mind is a purely mechanistic device that has no ability to direct thoughts to an unpredictable outcome. I don't see it that way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If something caused you to do something you have been compelled you did not choose.
That is both a logical and semantic distinction that I disagree with.
Created: