Is Jesus's "this generation will certainly not pass" valid grounds for scepticism?

[arthwollipot]

I think it should also be mentioned that there are other valid interpretations than the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics. There is also the Many-Worlds Interpretation which has no “observations”, and no collapse of the wave function.

Indeed. Good to bring that up.

 

[Manopolus]

You are thinking of pseudo-random numbers. But there are also true random number generators based on radioactive decay, or in the case of https://www.random.org/ based on atmospheric noise.

Well, any method where you completely relinquish control to a natural process and add a sensor would do. But the point is that you don't actually control that process. That's not created randomness. It's exploited randomness. It's like how you can't claim the wind as a human created process when applied to a windmill.

(We CAN create wind, but we don't create the wind being used by the windmill. I hope that's clear.)

 

[steenkh]

Well, any method where you completely relinquish control to a natural process and add a sensor would do. But the point is that you don't actually control that process. That's not created randomness. It's exploited randomness

I’m afraid this is getting too sophisticated for me to follow.

 

[pgwenthold]

But the guy who chose the entirely deterministic and rule-based system which the roomba uses to "choose" one path over the other does, I would presume. If humans have such strict rulesets, we certainly don't know about them. It's math all the way down in the case of AI. There's nothing arbitrary about it.

Right. So the ability to make decisions is not what matters. It is the need to make "arbitrary" decisions, and that was not part of the original claim.

How do you know we don't have an "entirely deterministic" system that we use to make decisions?

That is the entire issue. Not whether we make decisions (which was the claim in the post I responded to), but whether they are deterministic or not.

 

[Thermal]

How do you know we don't have an "entirely deterministic" system that we use to make decisions?

That is the entire issue.

Oh, then it's simple. I know we don't have such a system in the same way I know there is not a teapot orbiting Saturn.

We experience free will, just like we experience having hands at the end of our arms. You want to go all hippy guru and say "its all an illuuuuuuuuusion, man"? Go ahead. But until you have evidence (of which there is dead zero), it can be summarily dismissed.

 

[steenkh]

But until you have evidence (of which there is dead zero), it can be summarily dismissed.

Actually, I did point to some evidence, namely how people’s choices can be manipulated by all sorts of thing, without people noticing, in particular chemicals, but also danger, like in the psychological experiment where men felt more attracted to a woman they met on a wobbly bridge than a sturdy one. This is not conclusive evidence, but it is more than “dead zero”.

 

[Thermal]

Actually, I did point to some evidence, namely how people’s choices can be manipulated by all sorts of thing, without people noticing, in particular chemicals, but also danger, like in the psychological experiment where men felt more attracted to a woman they met on a wobbly bridge than a sturdy one. This is not conclusive evidence, but it is more than “dead zero”.

Yes, that is influencing or nudging. We are of course all very susceptible to such things in the freest of free will models, too.

 

[steenkh]

Yes, that is influencing or nudging. We are of course all very susceptible to such things in the freest of free will models, too.

“Freest of free will models”. Interesting concept. Influencing and nudging is apparently not going against even this freest of free will. Perhaps you could elucidate.

My point was, by the way, not that influencing and nudging by pheromones and such stuff would be a killer argument, but it certainly shows that what people experience as free will (your argument) cannot be taken granted as advertised.

 

[Thermal]

“Freest of free will models”. Interesting concept. Influencing and nudging is apparently not going against even this freest of free will. Perhaps you could elucidate.

My point was, by the way, not that influencing and nudging by pheromones and such stuff would be a killer argument, but it certainly shows that what people experience as free will (your argument) cannot be taken granted as advertised.

We all have different ways to make decisions. The unimportant/inconsequential ones are very often regulated to the subconscious, which acts on prior experiences, etc. Like, when I go to walk across a room, I don't have to think about which foot to start moving with, and consider my weight distribution and optimal pace. The subconscious very considerately handles that action for me, freeing up the prefrontal cortex to deal with composing witty posts for the ISF.

There was an experiment run after Libet's famous one (I keep meaning to dig it up and link it here) that found exactly that. If a decision being made was inconsequential, the subconscious did the heavy lifting, as Libet found. But if the decision was altered to have consequence to the subject, higher executive functions kicked in and the results were wildly different.

Basically, you can default to letting the subconscious make your decisions (like the guys on your wobbly bridge), or you can willfully take the wheel and think them through, arriving at a free will choice.

Eta, tl;dr: you always have the option to free will your choices. You can also default to autopilot making them for you. Autopilot is not deterministic; it's a time saver allowing the higher functions to multitask.

 

[steenkh]

We all have different ways to make decisions. The unimportant/inconsequential ones are very often regulated to the subconscious, which acts on prior experiences, etc. Like, when I go to walk across a room, I don't have to think about which foot to start moving with, and consider my weight distribution and optimal pace. The subconscious very considerately handles that action for me, freeing up the prefrontal cortex to deal with composing witty posts for the ISF.

There was an experiment run after Libet's famous one (I keep meaning to dig it up and link it here) that found exactly that. If a decision being made was inconsequential, the subconscious did the heavy lifting, as Libet found. But if the decision was altered to have consequence to the subject, higher executive functions kicked in and the results were wildly different.

Basically, you can default to letting the subconscious make your decisions (like the guys on your wobbly bridge), or you can willfully take the wheel and think them through, arriving at a free will choice.

Eta, tl;dr: you always have the option to free will your choices. You can also default to autopilot making them for you. Autopilot is not deterministic; it's a time saver allowing the higher functions to multitask.

Let me see: the subconscious can be influenced by outside factors, but for some unexplained reasons, our conscious process cannot be influenced. And we know it is so, because that is how we feel, right?

 

[Thermal]

Let me see: the subconscious can be influenced by outside factors, but for some unexplained reasons, our conscious process cannot be influenced. And we know it is so, because that is how we feel, right?

What? No. Where did you get that?

The conscious, as I keep saying, is very obviously influenced by outside factors. Primarily, even. If it is below freezing outside, imma consciously be influenced and consciously try real hard to get someplace warm. I can also override that highly externally influenced inclination and stay in the cold.

That's exactly what Libet bumbled onto, and didn't quite know what to do with. Every neuron in your brain is indicating that it is leading to a given decision, and often you go with it. But sometimes you veto it. The conscious was solidly influenced, but chose otherwise. That's what free will is all about.

 

[steenkh]

That's exactly what Libet bumbled onto, and didn't quite know what to do with. Every neuron in your brain is indicating that it is leading to a given decision, and often you go with it. But sometimes you veto it. The conscious was solidly influenced, but chose otherwise. That's what free will is all about.

As you said about determinism: there is zero evidence for this.

ETA: But it is a nice conjecture.

 

[Thermal]

As you said about determinism: there is zero evidence for this.

ETA: But it is a nice conjecture.

Libets experiments indicated this. The following experiments indicated it more strongly. There actually *is* evidence for what I claim. There is absolute dead zero for determinism. It relies wholly on an argument from incredulity. "Why, I just can't think of any way other than billiard ball theory to explain the process of choice... while I don't have the foggiest idea about how it actually works."

 

[Darat]

No it is based on the laws of physics as we currently understand the.

 

[Thermal]

No its not.

 

[Darat]

Yes it does.

 

[Thermal]

No it doesn't.

See? I can argue British too.

 

[Darat]

Oh yes they do.

 

[Thermal]

No one has this stagnant thinking in other fields of science.

An electron can be in many places simultaneously. "But the same matter can't be in two places?" Yeah, we'll just modify the rules.

Galaxies are spinning the wrong way from their predictions. "That must mean the math is wrong?" Yeah, we'll just theorize ◊◊◊◊ that doesn't exist to explain that away.

Physics quite happily breaks its own rules when it feels like it.

Eta: apologies for introducing a non-British reply

 

[Darat]

No idea what you mean.