Those darned Laws Of Physics

[Interesting Ian]

Ian;

---
quote:
Again this is utterly absurd. I have free will. And I mean what materialists call "libertarian free will".
---

Sorry if this has been already discussed, but what makes you think you have "libertarian free will", and how do you tell the difference with other definitions of free will?
(Please, point me to the thread if it is already discussed)

I can't particular remember discussing this at depth before.

I certainly deny that the physical world is closed. That is to say that our actions, or at least not all our actions are completely physically caused.

So I'd ask the same question as I did to Stimpy. If some of our actions are partially mentally caused would this be determined? Obviously I wouldn't deny that my actions are determined by myself, but if what I am myself is not physically determined, what other factors are determining me to be what I am?

 

[whitefork]

Breaking news: Today's (February 10) Dilbert

http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/

 

[Interesting Ian]

Mmmm, I have certainly heard non-materialists mention "soul" on numerous occasions.

People not made of atoms AT ALL? What then, in your opinion, are our bodies made of?

They are not made of anything. I do not believe the essential self is physical, therefore it wouldn't make any sense to ask what people are made of since we are not our bodies.

Moreover I'm unhappy about saying physical bodies are made of atoms if taken in an absolutely literal sense in anycase. An apple, to take an arbitrary example, is simply a family of differing sense experiences. The visual appearance of an apple, the tactile sensation of it, and the taste of it, do not all refer to some "apple" in abstraction from all these sense perceptions which supposedly causes our sense perceptions. This is to make the mistake of supposing there exists a material world.

But of course the empirical realm is constituted by our very sense perceptions. We have no reason to hypothesise anything over and above those perceptions. We have no reason to introduce unwarranted existents. This is to make the world more ontologically complex than it need be which is the mistake that both materialists and dualists make.

Strictly speaking the visual appearance, feel, and taste of an apple are all heterogeneous. Our minds create the apple in much the same way as our minds create the cube we see on looking at a few lines drawn on a 2 dimensional sheet of paper.

This also implies that as we hold the apple out at arms length and gradually bring it closer and closer to our eyes, so that its appearance gets larger and larger, we do not see literally see one and the same thing from one moment to the next. Therefore when details come into view which were not visible when the apple was further away, these details did not literally exist in the image of the apple when further away.

So I hope you now understand why I do not say that people are made of atoms. Namely because people are not physical and therefore are not to be identified with their bodies. But even if people were "physical" they wouldn't in an absolute literal sense be made up of atoms.

 

[whitefork]

A question that's been raised many times here: if we are made of atoms (only), then what is the difference between me alive and my corpse, or me and my body after it's been run through a food processor?

The organization of those atoms into proteins and other molecules, cells, and organs, is more than the atoms themselves. This is not an argument against materialism, but against the bald claim "you are made of atoms". It may be true, but it is incomplete.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Breaking news: Today's (February 10) Dilbert

http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/

The statement "If chemicals can change the way I think and what I enjoy, then free will must be an illusion" simply does not follow. It seems more of an argument that a person is literally a different person after taking the chemicals. But the fact that the second persons actions are different from the first persons actions couldn't have any implications for free will since they are now literally different people.

Not that I agree that they are literally different people. But it has no more implications for free will than the fact that some mornings I feel like porridge for breakfast and other mornings I feel like having kippers.

 

[Interesting Ian]

A question that's been raised many times here: if we are made of atoms (only), then what is the difference between me alive and my corpse, or me and my body after it's been run through a food processor?

The organization of those atoms into proteins and other molecules, cells, and organs, is more than the atoms themselves. This is not an argument against materialism, but against the bald claim "you are made of atoms". It may be true, but it is incomplete.

Yes, it should be "you are made of atoms organised in a particular way".

 

[whitefork]

Yes, it should be "you are made of atoms organised in a particular way".

Which opens up a whole set of questions about how the laws of physics apply to complex organizations of atoms - organizations that chemistry and biology do not fully explain yet.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

Good question. In principle, it is not. The problem is that simply stating it, as you have, does not constitute a formal definition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We don't need a formal definition nor is one possible in any case. We cannot give a formal definition of phenomenal consciousness yet it would hardly be possible to deny it exists.

If you cannot give a formal definition for it then you cannot meaningfully talk about it. Saying that it does or does not exist is completely devoid of any meaning.

As for phenomenal consciousness, I can provide a formal definition for the term. I have no doubt that you would simply say "that is not phenomenal consciousness, it is just the neural correlates", but if the neural correlates are the only thing that we can meaningfully talk about, then it is meaningless for you to say that there is more to it than that.

You have said that there are three mutually exclusive "behaviors", and attached names to them, but what are they?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You don't know what free will is?

Apparently you don't either, seeing as you have no formal definition for the term, and don't believe that one is possible. You are essentially saying that free-will is an incoherent concept.

I have a coherent formal definition for determinism, and a coherent formal definition for random. Under those definitions, anything must be one or the other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok you've made that claim. Now why don't you try and demonstrate it?

What claim? I haven't made any claim, only definitions. I define "determinism" to mean a system whose output is completely determined by its input and initial conditions, according to some logical algorithm. I define "random" to mean a system whose output is not completely determined by its input and initial conditions.

I have defined them to be opposites. Under those definitions, to say that a system must be one or the other is a trivial tautology.

If you have some other definition for these terms, then we can discuss them. But under these definitions, there is nothing to discuss. It is one or the other.

You can provide different definitions if you want, but when you do o, all you will be doing is taking behavior that I call either deterministic or random, and putting it in your "willed" category instead.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, I decide to scratch my nose. You say that it is determined. Fair enough. But suppose that I deny the physical world is closed, so that my scratching of my nose is not completely physically caused. Would you say that my action is therefore mentally caused and is still therefore determined?

It depends on how you define things. For me, saying that the physical world is not closed is meaningless, because the term "physical" refers to interactions. If something affects something physical, then it is also physical by definition of what "physical" means". Thus the physical world is closed by definition. If you define physical differently than I do, then you would need to explain how you define it before I could even attempt to address your question. I will say that your decision to scratch your nose must either be determined or random.

Dr. Stupid

 

[Peskanov]

Ian,

quote:
---
I certainly deny that the physical world is closed.
---

And you are quite right about this; every scientist would sell his right arm to find an unified theory of physics...
But this not leds to free will being outside the our known physics.

quote:
---
So I'd ask the same question as I did to Stimpy. If some of our actions are partially mentally caused would this be determined? Obviously I wouldn't deny that my actions are determined by myself, but if what I am myself is not physically determined, what other factors are determining me to be what I am?
---

Of course, a system partially determined is not a deterministic system. Only the determined parts are.
But, why do you supose there are un-deterministic parts? Our observation of this system only showed some sub-atomic randomness which is probably meaningless...

Anyway, I was not asking you about if our will is determined or not; I was asking about why you think our free will is "libertarian" ...
A less fuzzy question:
Why do you think free will have some quality not avalaible under our known physics and brain models?

If we define the will as the capability of making a decision, let's list some factors we already know are present:
- Input recognition; we reckon the situation matching our vision, ear, etc... with previous memory, that can inform us about some options.
- Previous experience; we remenber previous decissions, they add to the balance.
- Purpose. We can have some general purpose which make us select the best option for it.
- Mood; our mood seems to influence in our decisions also.
- Unkown factors; most times we don't know why did we chose this option instead of that other. However, the complexity of the brain itself it's already a cause of an unpredictable (currently) behaviour.

I can find a place for all these factors in neural models; so, which factor does you make think human will can't fit it? Why do you feel human will is not determined by our brain?

 

[Franko]

Hmm, I thought geometric figures were also made up of lines between points...These have at least one dimension, yes?...Someone who knows about maths can explain to me how many points a circle has.

There is an example of the Fallacy of Composition Whitefork’s first premise – All geometric figures are made of points is FALSE. Geometric figures are made of points connected by lines – they aren’t just made of dimensionless points.

This exact Whitehead argument has been shot down more times than I can count, yet I doubt it will stop him from using this same argument again in the future to justify his religious dogma.

 

[MRC_Hans]

?...Someone who knows about maths can explain to me how many points a circle has.

The formal definition for a circle is that it is the geometrical location for all points of equal distance to the center (thus, a circle consists of an indefinite number of points).

Hans

 

[Franko]

Brette:
Ok

I think I'm getting a glimmer of understanding here - thanks to all who have the patience to keep on explaining

In essence:

The terms are not well defined thus are open to too much interpretation.

The conclusion is not a forgone conclusion from the premises (although all three may be true - subject to the lack of definition)

Is this what I'm understanding so far?

Darling, when you get it figured out will you explain it to me?

I still can’t see the invisible flaw that Whitehead, Stimpy, Trixy, and Da’ Fool (A-Theists one and all) perceive. The Emperor Still looks butt naked to me …

Here is the deal, your mind is made of atoms – chemicals. Now the behavior of Atoms/Chemicals is totally, completely and utterly controlled by an objective set of rules – the four fundamental forces of physics. Unless you are claiming that YOUR MIND is the source of those rules (those LAWS) then YOU are not controlling your behavior – those rules are.

It is like you said with your baseball example, just because you don’t know what the rules of the game are doesn’t mean that the game doesn’t have any rules. Obviously the game (reality) has rules and obviously those rules are inviolate.

Now whatever made up the rules of the game is controlling the atoms that make up your brain, and therefore whatever made up those rules (whatever created TLOP) is controlling YOU. All that remains to determine is whether “the thing” that created the rules (the source of TLOP) is conscious, or non-conscious.

If it is non-conscious, then you are controlled by a non-conscious force, and therefore you are also non-conscious; however, if the source of TLOP is conscious, then a Superior entity is controlling your actions, and your claim that there is no god is absurd.

By the way the issue of randomness is absurd in this context. Aside from the fact that random action is no more “free will” than determined action is, your actions cannot be “random”. To claim that your actions are random is the same as claiming that the present is not based on the past, and if that is True, then how come your name is still Soubrette?

 

[Franko]

The formal definition for a circle is that it is the geometrical location for all points of equal distance to the center.

Right which once again exposes the Fallacy of Composition for whitemeat's sillygism, because according to him geometric figures are dimensionless so a refernce to "distance" is a contradiction in his universe.

This has all been pointed out to whitey more times than I can count. He is a dogmatic religious fanatic. The Truth doesn't concern him.

 

[Franko]

Ian:

Again this is utterly absurd. I have free will. And I mean what materialists call "libertarian free will".

Define "free will" Ian.

What is your evidence (or train of thought) that leads you to conclude you possess "free will"?

 

[MRC_Hans]

I still can’t see the invisible flaw that Whitehead, Stimpy, Trixy, and Da’ Fool (A-Theists one and all) perceive. The Emperor Still looks butt naked to me …

Thats because he was dressed in your syllogism.

Here is the deal, your mind is made of atoms – chemicals. Now the behavior of Atoms/Chemicals is totally, completely and utterly controlled by an objective set of rules – the four fundamental forces of physics.

I can agree, but if this is your standing point, then what makes us conscious? The chemicals?

Unless you are claiming that YOUR MIND is the source of those rules (those LAWS) then YOU are not controlling your behavior – those rules are.

This in only true if you can prove that there in no scope for variation within TLOP.

It is like you said with your baseball example, just because you don’t know what the rules of the game are doesn’t mean that the game doesn’t have any rules. Obviously the game (reality) has rules and obviously those rules are inviolate.

Do the rules of baseball dictate the outcome of each individual game? -- If not, what does?

Now whatever made up the rules of the game is controlling the atoms that make up your brain, and therefore whatever made up those rules (whatever created TLOP) is controlling YOU. All that remains to determine is whether “the thing” that created the rules (the source of TLOP) is conscious, or non-conscious.

If it is non-conscious, then you are controlled by a non-conscious force, and therefore you are also non-conscious;

How does that follow? Why cant a consciousness be controlled by a non-conscious force?

however, if the source of TLOP is conscious, then a Superior entity is controlling your actions, and your claim that there is no god is absurd.

Agreed

By the way the issue of randomness is absurd in this context. Aside from the fact that random action is no more “free will” than determined action is, your actions cannot be “random”. To claim that your actions are random is the same as claiming that the present is not based on the past, and if that is True, then how come your name is still Soubrette?

Your claim that the world is either totally deterministic or totally random is absurd. The world is largely probabilistic. (e.g. Sou is probably still called Sou tomorrow, but she just might not be, heheh)

Hans

 

[Franko]

MRC:
I can agree, but if this is your standing point, then what makes us conscious? The chemicals?

According to Yatzi (A-Theist) we aren't conscious MRC! According to MANY A-Theists it would seem that Consciousness is just an "illusion" ("free will" is real it's just your consciousness you are imagining [if that makes ANY sense]).

but you need to face the facts ... If the Source of TLOP is non-conscious (the Initial State) then so are YOU.

 

[Franko]

MRC:

Your claim that the world is either totally deterministic or totally random is absurd. The world is largely probabilistic. (e.g. Sou is probably still called Sou tomorrow, but she just might not be, heheh)

You A-Theists never think before you speak ...

If Soubrette's name did change at some point in the future, will that mean that it was never Soubrette in the Past? Does that mean that it is Not Sobrette right now???

WTF are you claiming MRC?

I think it is time for you to accept the fact that you are a brainwashed religious fanatic who has totally lost sight of the Truth in your blind pursuit of Dogma. Thank guys like Stimpy.

 

[MRC_Hans]

According to Yatzi (A-Theist) we aren't conscious MRC! According to MANY A-Theists it would seem that Consciousness is just an "illusion" ("free will" is real it's just your consciousness you are imagining [if that makes ANY sense]).

Frank, I dont give a damn what you think Yatzi or anybody else think. If I want t oknow what they think, I'll ask them. I'm asking YOU: If YOUR standpoint is this:

"Here is the deal, your mind is made of atoms – chemicals. Now the behavior of Atoms/Chemicals is totally, completely and utterly controlled by an objective set of rules – the four fundamental forces of physics. "

- Then, according to YOU, what makes our consciousness?


but you need to face the facts ... If the Source of TLOP is non-conscious (the Initial State) then so are YOU.

And I repeat the question: How does that follow?

Hans

 

[Franko]

- Then, according to YOU, what makes our consciousness?

According to me???

What me?

I'm just a figment of your imagination ... don't you remember?

 

[MRC_Hans]

You A-Theists never think before you speak ...

If Soubrette's name did change at some point in the future, will that mean that it was never Soubrette in the Past? Does that mean that it is Not Sobrette right now???

WTF are you claiming MRC?

I think it is time for you to accept the fact that you are a brainwashed religious fanatic who has totally lost sight of the Truth in your blind pursuit of Dogma. Thank guys like Stimpy.

I'm claiming that it might change. What part did you not understand? Of course it would not change in the past. WTF are you thinking about?

Hans