Fatalism and consequences

[Samus]

This post from Franko got me thinking again about Fatalism. Back before his absence, I attempted to engage him on this point (ah but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now). So, let's try again.

Originally posted by Franko
No, I am a Fatalist. There is no such thing as “free will”, and the fact that you cannot demonstrate “free will” or even define the term consistently should be obvious proof of this FACT, but then again I should never underestimate the power of wishful thinking. Fatalism as I understand it states that everything is pre-determined, that actions of today are a direct result of past actions, leading back to the point that everything started. Discussing how everything got started is not necessarily relevant to understanding, just note that at some point, something got the ball rolling. In fact, I'm not so interested in discussing the beginning in this thread.

Moving on, Frank has stated on several occasions that his actions have consequences, usually in the context of implying/stating that other people don't believe their actions have consequences.

My question is this: How can my actions have consequences when they are simply a direct result of past happenings? If it really doesn't matter what my choice is, because that choice has been determined entirely out of past events, and not out of my own decision-making processes, then why does it matter what I choose?

I submit that Fatalism begets a lack of consequences. If you truly believe you are merely reacting to everything that has happened in the past, that you have no ability to alter your future experiences because they are laid out long before you "decide" them, then your actions in fact have no consequence. To give the example I did way back when: If it is determined that I will die by gunshot, then I should be able to go swimming in the ocean without fear, even though I am not a good swimmer.

Am I misunderstanding Fatalism, is it really as implausible a theory as I think it is?

One little tangent. Let me just change one word in the text I quoted from Frank, then ask him to explain: "There is no such thing as “god”, and the fact that you cannot demonstrate “god” or even define the term consistently should be obvious proof of this FACT, but then again I should never underestimate the power of wishful thinking."

Thoughts?

[Skeptical Greg]

For some reason, proponents of fatalism never seem to want to address my method of determining it's relevance; which is:


Everyone who believes in fatalism should proceed to throw themselves in front of the next train they see.


Those of us remaining, can then debate the pros and cons of free will vs fatalism...

[Franko]

C.C.:
My question is this: How can my actions have consequences when they are simply a direct result of past happenings? If it really doesn't matter what my choice is, because that choice has been determined entirely out of past events, and not out of my own decision-making processes, then why does it matter what I choose?

Rewards (positive reinforcement) and Punishments (negative reinforcement) are the mechanism that drive destiny (evolution, the laws of physics). I understand exactly what the problem is that you are having with this concept; however, as long as you remain a materialist there will be no coherent solution to the dilemma.

I submit that Fatalism begets a lack of consequences. If you truly believe you are merely reacting to everything that has happened in the past, that you have no ability to alter your future experiences because they are laid out long before you "decide" them, then your actions in fact have no consequence. To give the example I did way back when: If it is determined that I will die by gunshot, then I should be able to go swimming in the ocean without fear, even though I am not a good swimmer.

Suppose that you have these 2 friends, and one of them ALWAYS wears a seat belt, and the other one NEVER wears a seat belt? Which friend do you suspect is more likely to die in a fatal car crash? If you believe that the friend who never wears the seat belt is more likely to die in a fatal car crash, then you have a basic understanding of fatalism.

Let’s say that within 5 years one of these individuals does die in a car crash? I submit that regardless of which friend it was, unless you are prepared to say that there was no reason in this universe for the crash (i.e. no logical reason, no cause. in other words, beyond the laws of physics, a “miraculous” or “supernatural” event.) then you are demonstrating a de facto belief in (intrinsic knowing of) Fatalism.

Ask yourself this question – Assuming you had “free will” what would you use it for (what use (purpose) does “free will” allegedly serve?)? If you can accomplish that purpose without “free will” than “free will” is an unnecessary ability for achieving that purpose and can be ignored as irrelevant.

One little tangent. Let me just change one word in the text I quoted from Frank, then ask him to explain: "There is no such thing as “god”, and the fact that you cannot demonstrate “god” or even define the term consistently should be obvious proof of this FACT, but then again I should never underestimate the power of wishful thinking."

God = a superior (conscious) entity (a Graviton) capable of generating a universe.
Universe = A shared (objective) reality.

TLOP (The Laws of Physics) is a God by this definition.

As I am so fond of repeating:

The behavior of “matter” is completely governed by the laws of Physics.
Your brain and physical body consist entirely of matter and nothing else. ;)
Ergo, The behavior of your brain (and therefore your body) – all your thoughts and actions – are ultimately the result of (i.e. completely controlled and governed by) the laws of physics.

By your own beliefs TLOP is an omnipotent, omniscient “deity” completely controlling your every action from cradle to grave.

[Acrimonious]

Let’s say that within 5 years one of these individuals does die in a car crash? I submit that regardless of which friend it was, unless you are prepared to say that there was no reason in this universe for the crash (i.e. no logical reason, no cause. in other words, beyond the laws of physics, a “miraculous” or “supernatural” event.) then you are demonstrating a de facto belief in (intrinsic knowing of) Fatalism.

Yet Friend 1 chose to always wear his seatbelt, while Friend 2 did not. Both Friends decided that car travel, in spite of all of its hazards, was necessary for them to get where they chose to go. The driver of the other car made similar choices.

Both drivers chose to perform several actions in their trips that day. For example: One might have chosen to run a red light. The other chose not to look cautiously for oncoming cars when faced with his own green light.

Before the day of the crash, both parties had chosen to spend vast amounts of money (that they chose to work long hours to obtain) to choose to go to any one of several car dealerships and choose to buy an automobile. Their choice of options (including safety features like crumple zones, airbags, anti-lock breaks) or the lack of said options contributed to the survivability of car crashes.

What you describe is not fatalism. It is not a lack of free will. Each party had several choices, and the ones they made influenced the chance that they would survive a car crash.

A Fatalist would say "He was fated to buy a buick with no airbags and bad brakes and be driving at that intersection at exactly the right time to be T-Boned and killed. Nothing he could have done would have prevented it. Nothing would increase or decrease the likelihood of his death in that situation. It was preordained."

You are not a fatalist.

[Franko]

Acrimonious:
Yet Friend 1 chose to always wear his seatbelt, while Friend 2 did not.

Purely the result of environment (i.e. TLOP)

Both Friends decided that car travel, in spite of all of its hazards, was necessary for them to get where they chose to go.

Yet ancient Greeks and Romans “chose” differently? One wonders why?

The driver of the other car made similar choices.

Where all “choices” are made by TLOP.

Both drivers chose to perform several actions in their trips that day.

In the same way the moon “chooses to perform several actions” in its trip around the Earth?

For example: One might have chosen to run a red light. The other chose not to look cautiously for oncoming cars when faced with his own green light.

All the result of Rewards and Punishments which are simply a manifestation of the immutable (omnipotent, omnipresent) Laws of Physics.

Before the day of the crash, both parties had chosen to spend vast amounts of mon(that they chose to work long hours to obtain) …

Where:

Money = Energy

… to choose to go to any one of several car dealerships and choose to buy an automobile.

Hmmm, which makes one wonder why the ancient Greeks and Romans didn’t “choose” to go to their car dealerships?

Ohhh, that’s right TLOP prevented them from going to the car dealerships.

Their choice of options (including safety features like crumple zones, airbags, anti-lock breaks) or the lack of said options contributed to the survivability of car crashes.

No, actually all of those things were the result of cause and effect, empirical observation of positive and negative reinforcements accumulated from the past.

What you describe is not fatalism. It is not a lack of free will.

Fatalism = The notion that ALL events (or actions) are the result of underlying logical processes.

Now perhaps you could define “free will” for me?

Each party had several choices, and the ones they made influenced the chance that they would survive a car crash.

Each party had [zero] choices, and [instead determined their specific path of action based on what was likely to increase reward (benefit) and/or reduce punishment (harm) by analyzing past experience.]

A Fatalist would say "He was fated to buy a buick with no airbags and bad brakes and be driving at that intersection at exactly the right time to be T-Boned and killed. Nothing he could have done would have prevented it. Nothing would increase or decrease the likelihood of his death in that situation. It was preordained."

That is exactly correct. To a Fatalist, one is only harmed or fails to achieve reward when one fails to properly (consistently or logically) perceive reality.

You are not a fatalist.

Yes, but only because I am actually a figment of your imagination. I don’t exist.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Franko

That is exactly correct. To a Fatalist, one is only harmed or fails to achieve reward when one fails to properly (consistently or logically) perceive reality.


Hey Frank :)

How would you feel if I changed your quote above to:

"That is exactly correct. To a Fatalist, one is only harmed or fails to achieve reward when TLOP fails to properly (consistently or logically) perceive reality."

Since all my choices are determined by TLOP, in fact since I am determined in every way by TLOP, it is actually TLOP that fails properly 'perceive reality', no?

Adam

(P.S. won't be back to this until late tonight, sorry)

[Franko]

Shadow:
Hey Frank

How would you feel if I changed your quote above to:

"That is exactly correct. To a Fatalist, one is only harmed or fails to achieve reward when TLOP fails to properly (consistently or logically) perceive reality."

To a Fatalist, one is only harmed or fails to achieve reward when one fails to properly (consistently or logically) perceive reality.

That would be exactly and precisely correct from a materialist point of view where TLOP is responsible for every aspect of your existence. If TLOP makes you completely than TLOP controls your Destiny utterly, and (at best) you are a helpless observer.

Since all my choices are determined by TLOP, in fact since I am determined in every way by TLOP, it is actually TLOP that fails properly 'perceive reality', no?

IF TLOP creates you utterly, then TLOP controls you utterly, I am compelled/forced to agree 100% my friend.

However, I would also state (for the sake of clarity) that even if TLOP is not completely responsible for your existence (and who are we kidding … right?) then it STILL would not necessarily imply the existence of “free will”, because unless you created your own existence, than whatever created (programmed) you in the first place would be ultimately responsible for your ultimate Destiny.

[Samus]

Originally posted by Franko
Rewards (positive reinforcement) and Punishments (negative reinforcement) are the mechanism that drive destiny (evolution, the laws of physics). I understand exactly what the problem is that you are having with this concept; however, as long as you remain a materialist there will be no coherent solution to the dilemma. Reward and punishment is irrelevant when everything is determined. By stating you're a fatalist, I'm taking that to mean you believe determinism is true, and that we have no freedom to act on our own, for lack of a better word, free will.

If we cannot determine our own actions, then reward and punishment don't matter. I cannot decide to work for rewards, or to avoid punishment, if all my actions are pre-programmed.

Originally posted by Franko
Suppose that you have these 2 friends, and one of them ALWAYS wears a seat belt, and the other one NEVER wears a seat belt? Which friend do you suspect is more likely to die in a fatal car crash? If you believe that the friend who never wears the seat belt is more likely to die in a fatal car crash, then you have a basic understanding of fatalism. I would say that, should either of them get in a car crash, the one not wearing the seat belt is more likely to have more serious injury (or death). That is only because seat belts reduce the risk of injury by keeping TLOP from thrusting one into a windshield.

Originally posted by Franko
Let’s say that within 5 years one of these individuals does die in a car crash? I submit that regardless of which friend it was, unless you are prepared to say that there was no reason in this universe for the crash (i.e. no logical reason, no cause. in other words, beyond the laws of physics, a “miraculous” or “supernatural” event.) then you are demonstrating a de facto belief in (intrinsic knowing of) Fatalism. Well, the "reason" is looked at from two points of view: 1. The reason was due to injuries sustained in the crash, caused by fighting with TLOP and losing. 2. The reason is because it was just his time, he was destined from the get-go to die that day in that way. #1 is not fatalism, #2 is.

Originally posted by Franko
Ask yourself this question – Assuming you had “free will” what would you use it for (what use (purpose) does “free will” allegedly serve?)? If you can accomplish that purpose without “free will” than “free will” is an unnecessary ability for achieving that purpose and can be ignored as irrelevant. I would use free will to survive. I would use my knowledge of past experiences, combined with my decision making processes, to make decisions that benefit me. Such decisions can include wearing a seat belt, not touching a hot stove, braking early and properly on snowy roads, etc.

Originally posted by Franko
God = a superior (conscious) entity (a Graviton) capable of generating a universe.
Universe = A shared (objective) reality.

TLOP (The Laws of Physics) is a God by this definition. So I'm the God of my dreams, by this definition? I created the dreams I dream, and to me, at the time they are happening, they are "real"?

Originally posted by Franko
The behavior of “matter” is completely governed by the laws of Physics.
Your brain and physical body consist entirely of matter and nothing else. ;)
Ergo, The behavior of your brain (and therefore your body) – all your thoughts and actions – are ultimately the result of (i.e. completely controlled and governed by) the laws of physics. Hey, I recognize this! "Atoms obey TLOP..." and so on. Chemical reactions in the brain, also known as my thoughts, are governed by TLOP?

For the record, I don't purport to be a Materialist. What I do say is that we don't seem to be capable of drawing a line between the physical brain and what we know as the mind. How does one separate the consciousness from the physical mechanisms it drives? Maybe the reason we have trouble distinguishing is because it's the same thing.

[MRC_Hans]

Jesh, another thread where Franko demonstrates his inability to resolve the contradictions of his own beliefs. They were fun for the first two or three times :rolleyes: .

Hans

[Franko]

C.C.:
Reward and punishment is irrelevant when everything is determined.

Two sides of the same coin, but if you have trouble comprehending what I am saying than it is equally valid to posit that what you perceive as a “reward” or “punishment” is determined by The Laws of Physics.

In other words, The laws of Physics make you like chocolate ice cream better than vanilla ice cream, therefore you will likely “choose” chocolate ice cream when presented with a “choice”.

By stating you're a fatalist, I'm taking that to mean you believe determinism is true, and that we have no freedom to act on our own, for lack of a better word, free will.

That is correct. Look, according to materialism there is no YOU. YOU are just a collection of atoms (or energy, if “you” prefer) doing what atoms do as per TLOP.

If we cannot determine our own actions, then reward and punishment don't matter.

Reward and Punishment is a manifestation of Determinism in the same way that the Moon orbiting the Earth is a manifestation of Gravity.

I cannot decide to work for rewards, or to avoid punishment, if all my actions are pre-programmed.

All of your actions are preprogrammed so that you cannot do ANYTHING except to work for rewards while trying to avoid punishment.

Ed said:
Suppose that you have these 2 friends, and one of them ALWAYS wears a seat belt, and the other one NEVER wears a seat belt? Which friend do you suspect is more likely to die in a fatal car crash? If you believe that the friend who never wears the seat belt is more likely to die in a fatal car crash, then you have a basic understanding of fatalism.

C.C.: replied:
I would say that, should either of them get in a car crash, the one not wearing the seat belt is more likely to have more serious injury (or death). That is only because seat belts reduce the risk of injury by keeping TLOP from thrusting one into a windshield.

Exactly … cause and effect, determinism … Fate.

Things happen for logical (comprehensible) reasons, not because of magic.

Franko:
Let’s say that within 5 years one of these individuals does die in a car crash? I submit that regardless of which friend it was, unless you are prepared to say that there was no reason in this universe for the crash (i.e. no logical reason, no cause. in other words, beyond the laws of physics, a “miraculous” or “supernatural” event.) then you are demonstrating a de facto belief in (intrinsic knowing of) Fatalism.

C.C.:
Well, the "reason" is looked at from two points of view: 1. The reason was due to injuries sustained in the crash, caused by fighting with TLOP and losing. 2. The reason is because it was just his time, he was destined from the get-go to die that day in that way. #1 is not fatalism, #2 is [fatalism].

Apparently you misunderstood me. Unless you are prepared to say that there was no reason in this universe for the crash (i.e. no logical reason, no cause. in other words, beyond the laws of physics, a “miraculous” or “supernatural” event.) then you are demonstrating a de facto belief in (intrinsic knowing of) Fatalism.

In other words, you are driving down the road, and suddenly and without any logical reason what-so-ever you find that your car has decided to crash and you are killed as a result.

Now typically (as I comprehend car accidents) there is ALWAYS a reason for the crash. In other words, mechanical problems with the car -- the brakes failed, or a tire blew out ; or driver error or negligence – talking on the cell phone, playing with the radio, being intoxicated, etc. etc.

Unless you are willing to claim that auto accidents (or any other phenomena) occurs without any reason what-so-ever, and solely by magical/supernatural/miraculous means then you are exhibiting a basic comprehension of the workings of Fatalism/determinism/cause-and-effect.

I would use free will to survive. I would use my knowledge of past experiences, combined with my decision making processes, to make decisions that benefit me. Such decisions can include wearing a seat belt, not touching a hot stove, braking early and properly on snowy roads, etc.

So in other words, your actions Today are determined by what happened in the past. That is called determinism, or Fate.

Franko:
God = a superior (conscious) entity (a Graviton) capable of generating a universe.
Universe = A shared (objective) reality.

C.C.:
So I'm the God of my dreams, by this definition? I created the dreams I dream, and to me, at the time they are happening, they are "real"?

Well … not technically, at least not according to these definitions. In order for you to be a true “God” you would have to be capable of generating a shared reality. When you dream you are the only real entity (graviton) to inhabit that universe (reality). I would say you were more of a Solipsist in your dreams, not a “God”.

Hey, I recognize this! "Atoms obey TLOP..." and so on. Chemical reactions in the brain, also known as my thoughts, are governed by TLOP?

For the record, I don't purport to be a Materialist.

There is no shame in honest Agnosticism as far as I am concerned.

What I do say is that we don't seem to be capable of drawing a line between the physical brain and what we know as the mind. How does one separate the consciousness from the physical mechanisms it drives? Maybe the reason we have trouble distinguishing is because it's the same thing.

Perhaps, but not in the way that Materialist (Atheists or Imtheists) would have you believe.

Look the scientific method (or common sense logic) tells you that unless you have a reason to make a hypothesis, then you have no reason to make a hypothesis (parsimony). If you have no evidence that “matter” exists independently of observation -- if it is impossible to test that it does – then you are only being illogical and unscientific to claim that “matter” does exist independently of observation.

The thing is, once you remove that initial faulty premise from your worldview you may come to perceive that some things you felt were very solid and real are actually illusions in reality, while other things you believed were simply figments of over-active imagination or wishful-thinking are in reality much more solid and concrete than you had previously been aware of.

[Samus]

Originally posted by Franko
Two sides of the same coin, but if you have trouble comprehending what I am saying than it is equally valid to posit that what you perceive as a “reward” or “punishment” is determined by The Laws of Physics.

In other words, The laws of Physics make you like chocolate ice cream better than vanilla ice cream, therefore you will likely “choose” chocolate ice cream when presented with a “choice”. Actually, I prefer vanilla ice cream, but I do like chocolate candy bars. :) I fail to see how the laws of physics control what flavor of ice cream I like, or how that flavor is determined exclusively by physics.

Originally posted by Franko
That is correct. Look, according to materialism there is no YOU. YOU are just a collection of atoms (or energy, if “you” prefer) doing what atoms do as per TLOP. Well, "you" according to materialism is just that; the collection of physical matter that makes up the living member of the species. You are merely matter and physical processes.

Originally posted by Franko
Reward and Punishment is a manifestation of Determinism in the same way that the Moon orbiting the Earth is a manifestation of Gravity. I think this is where our disconnect was. I understand your point, but I'm still not convinced of determinism.

CC: I would say that, should either of them get in a car crash, the one not wearing the seat belt is more likely to have more serious injury (or death). That is only because seat belts reduce the risk of injury by keeping TLOP from thrusting one into a windshield.

Franko: Exactly ... cause and effect, determinism ... Fate. Not exactly. Surely, the accident happening is the cause for death, but it was not pre-determined that he was to die. Fatalism says that we have no real control, so him wearing the seat belt was irrelevant -- because that was his fate anyway.

Originally posted by Franko
Apparently you misunderstood me. Unless you are prepared to say that there was no reason in this universe for the crash (i.e. no logical reason, no cause. in other words, beyond the laws of physics, a “miraculous” or “supernatural” event.) then you are demonstrating a de facto belief in (intrinsic knowing of) Fatalism. No, I am not saying that the car will magically become crashed, without any physical processes assisting in that crash. What I am saying is that my actions in controlling said car can prevent or cause an accident. So, it is not determined that my car will crash, it is a result of my actions (and various other factors, such as the tires on the car, the traction with the road, etc.) My actions are based on my thought processes, which is either chemical reactions in the brain or the consciousness (depending on your view of Materialism). Neither of those are dependent directly on the laws of physics.

CC: I would use free will to survive. I would use my knowledge of past experiences, combined with my decision making processes, to make decisions that benefit me. Such decisions can include wearing a seat belt, not touching a hot stove, braking early and properly on snowy roads, etc.

Franko: So in other words, your actions Today are determined by what happened in the past. That is called determinism, or Fate. My actions are not 100% determined by what happened in the past. Haven't you ever tried something new?

Originally posted by Franko
Well … not technically, at least not according to these definitions...I would say you were more of a Solipsist in your dreams, not a “God”. Roger that.

Originally posted by Franko
If you have no evidence that “matter” exists independently of observation -- if it is impossible to test that it does – then you are only being illogical and unscientific to claim that “matter” does exist independently of observation. Did not subatomic particles exist before we observed them? They are matter, they exist, but we didn't always know about them. What about parts of the universe we have yet to be able to study? Those parts do not exist?

Of course, the obvious rebuttal is that we haven't observed invisible gnomes under the bed, so how can we be sure those gnomes don't exist? Truth be told, I don't have much of a good answer, yet...

[Franko]

C.C:
I fail to see how the laws of physics control what flavor of ice cream I like, or how that flavor is determined exclusively by physics.

The problem is from the Materialist Paradigm there is nothing other than TLOP that can determine it.

If it isn’t determined exclusively by natural universal laws, then what are you asserting is the extra element? … your “Soul”?

Well, "you" according to materialism is just that; the collection of physical matter that makes up the living member of the species. You are merely matter and physical processes.

Right, and all of those “physical processes” are simply a natural result of the Laws that govern the “matter” (i.e. TLOP).

I think this is where our disconnect was. I understand your point, but I'm still not convinced of determinism.

Is determinism true for the Moon? Why would the Moons orbit be purely a product of the laws of physics, but not the behavior of you (your “orbit”)? Are you made out of something fundamentally different than what the Moon is made of (something other than “matter”)? Unless you are claiming to be made of some other kind of “matter” or substance which is not governed by the laws of physics then I don’t see how your “will” would be any freer than the Moon’s “will”?

Not exactly. Surely, the accident happening is the cause for death, but it was not pre-determined that he was to die. Fatalism says that we have no real control, so him wearing the seat belt was irrelevant -- because that was his fate anyway.

Sure if you knew in advance that you were destined to die in a car accident then it would be irrelevant whether or not you wore a seat belt.

Was James Dean wearing a seat belt? If I told you he was, would it mean he didn’t actually get killed in that car crash?

No, I am not saying that the car will magically become crashed, without any physical processes assisting in that crash. What I am saying is that my actions in controlling said car can prevent or cause an accident. So, it is not determined that my car will crash, it is a result of my actions (and various other factors, such as the tires on the car, the traction with the road, etc.) My actions are based on my thought processes, which is either chemical reactions in the brain or the consciousness (depending on your view of Materialism). Neither of those are dependent directly on the laws of physics.

I disagree. According to Materialism EVERYTHING (all action) is ultimately reducible to the laws of physics. If you are claiming that some action occurs beyond the scope of the laws of physics you will have to explain what you mean?

If your brain is made of “matter”, and the behavior ALL “matter” is governed by the laws of physics, then how can it be that something other than the laws of physics is controlling the “matter” making up your brain? What is the other “thing” you are referring to, and what is the evidence for it’s existence?

My actions are not 100% determined by what happened in the past. Haven't you ever tried something new?

Yeah, but only because what I had tried in the past didn’t produce the desired result.

Did not subatomic particles exist before we observed them?

Did they? Are you assuming that, or do you have verifiable evidence that it is so?

They [sub-atomic particles] are matter, they exist, but we didn't always know about them. What about parts of the universe we have yet to be able to study? Those parts do not exist?

They exist in the same way the universe of a computer game reality exist even though you haven’t seen or visited every corner of that computer game reality.

Now, do all computer game realities exist independent of computer programmers? What makes you assume that this computer-game-reality (this “universe”) exist without a programmer?

Of course, the obvious rebuttal is that we haven't observed invisible gnomes under the bed, so how can we be sure those gnomes don't exist? Truth be told, I don't have much of a good answer, yet...

Well, I can assure you that you won’t find the answers in Materialism. If you build your worldview on a shaky logical foundation then it is simply a matter of time until that worldview comes crashing down around you. You could say it is Destined to happen.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Diogenes
For some reason, proponents of fatalism never seem to want to address my method of determining it's relevance; which is:


Everyone who believes in fatalism should proceed to throw themselves in front of the next train they see.


Those of us remaining, can then debate the pros and cons of free will vs fatalism...

Maybe it is just simply fated that they can't respond. You act as if they have a choice.....

Fatalism fails as an excuse to avoid punishment:

A: "I was fated to commit that crime."
B: "Yep. Unfortunately we are fated to punish you anyway."


Fatalism to be anywhere near coherent has to be a backwards looking philosophy. It is one thing to look back and say things had to happen that way due to whatever. For fatalism to work, it must acknowledge at least that the appearance of free choice exists.

If I am told that I am pre-determined to take a particular action, and out of spite I choose to not take that action, it is impossible to say in hindsight that my choice was not pre-determined. It is within the realm of reasonableness to accept the possibility that out freedom to choose is but an illusion of the mind.

Or maybe not. I've gotta go so I'll shut up now...

[Dorian Gray]

Originally posted by Franko
God = a superior (conscious) entity (a Graviton) capable of generating a universe.
Universe = A shared (objective) reality.

TLOP (The Laws of Physics) is a God by this definition. Who says we have to accept your definitions? In fact, let me exercise my free will and reject them. The Big Bang is capable of generating a universe, yet is not conscious. TLOP could exist and not be a god. Not to mention that whole Quantum thing where different LOP apply.

My opinion in the matter is that in any given situation, if we do nothing, something is fated to happen. Call it the default result. However, by acting, by exercising free will, we can change the result. Since it is changeable, free will is of a higher order than determinism.

You can layer fate over my argument, but I could layer free will over yours.

Another opinion I have is that fatalists/determinists are merely attempting to escape responsibility for their actions.

[Skeptical Greg]

Suddenly.. You took a lot more time to say a lot of what is apparent to me, regarding at least an illusion of free will.
And a sufficiently constructed illusion is indistinguishable from reality.. ( i.e. The Matrix )

Thanks, I enjoyed your comments...

[roger]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
Reward and punishment is irrelevant when everything is determined. By stating you're a fatalist, I'm taking that to mean you believe determinism is true, and that we have no freedom to act on our own, for lack of a better word, free will.CC, I have no interest in getting involved in a Franko debate (Hi Franko!), but this does not follow. Consider the following:

build a simple neural network composed of a few inputs, outputs, and a memory. The technical details are unimportant, the point is that we have a relatively simple deterministic network that perceives it's 'environment', reacts to it, and learns from it.

IF it is weighted to prefer certain inputs, and dislike others, it'll quickly learn to avoid the undesirable inputs and seek out the desirable ones. If you as the experimenter start applying "punishments and rewards" by manipulating it's inputs, you will very quickly train that neural network to do what you want it to do (within it's limits of behavior, course).

This is not speculation, but very standard stuff in the field of neural networks.

So we have a derministic system in which punishment and reward matters.

The position of materialists like myself, is that human behavior is reducable to physics.

(please note that the above treats fatalism and determinism differently).

Daniel Dennett's small book "Elbow Room" discusses these kinds of things in great detail, and I highly recommend it. In short, it argues that there is nothing incompatible with very complicated systems producing complex behavior, such as responding to reward/punishment, making decisions, forming likes for food, deciding to do something new, to use some of your counterexamples. Yes you make decisions, but the process of those decisions are hosted on a physical substrate, and is thus deterministic (in the 20th century sense, not the 19th), though not predictable. Hence his title "Elbow Room" - from our view of the world we have free will, as we have no useful access to the operations occuring at the lower levels.

This philosophical position is called compatiblism.

[Franko]

Dorian Gray:
Who says we have to accept your definitions?

You don’t.

And if you want to define “5” to mean “4” you can go around claiming that 2 + 2 = 5.

In fact, let me exercise my free will and reject them.

Why should I believe you have “free will”? For starters no one can even define the term consistently.

The Big Bang is capable of generating a universe, yet is not conscious.

What does that mean?

TLOP could exist and not be a god.

Sure, except that:

The behavior of “Matter” is controlled by TLOP.
Your brain is made of nothing but “Matter”.
Ergo, your brain (and therefore all of your actions and thoughts) are controlled by TLOP.

Not to mention that whole Quantum thing where different LOP apply.

Are you claiming your mind has control over Quantum mechanics?

My opinion in the matter is that in any given situation, if we do nothing, something is fated to happen.

Say what?

When approaching a red traffic light (a situation), what is the “do nothing” option (or “choice”) that is fated to happen – stopping or running the red light?

Call it the default result.

Sounds more like mumbo-jumbo (or Atheist “wishful thinking”).

However, by acting, by exercising free will, we can change the result. Since it is changeable, free will is of a higher order than determinism.

Except the problem is that TLOP is the thing that is controlling ALL of the “matter” (chemicals, atoms – the ENERGY) and therefore ANYTHING you “choose” is in reality TLOP choosing.

You can layer fate over my argument, but I could layer free will over yours.

Yeah, except that “free will” explains absolutely nothing; therefore, “free will” is unnecessary and can be removed from the hypothesis (at least if you want to be logical instead of illogical).

Another opinion I have is that fatalists/determinists are merely attempting to escape responsibility for their actions.

Apparently you haven’t read many of the post in this thread.

[Acrimonious]

I disagree. According to Materialism EVERYTHING (all action) is ultimately reducible to the laws of physics. If you are claiming that some action occurs beyond the scope of the laws of physics you will have to explain what you mean?


Simple. Shroedinger's Cat.

Your "Omnipotent" TLOP cannot even discern whether a simple, everyday, household cat in a simple, everyday household box, is living or dead:

http://www.phobe.com/s_cat/s_cat.html

Or did you miss the day of Physics 101 where the professor went over the Uncertainty Principle? You probably spent that day trolling JREF, I'd wager.

If you have any other Physics issues that can be resolved with even a high-schooler's level of understanding and a quick Googling, let me know. I'd be happy to oblige.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Franko
That would be exactly and precisely correct from a materialist point of view where TLOP is responsible for every aspect of your existence. If TLOP makes you completely than TLOP controls your Destiny utterly, and (at best) you are a helpless observer.

IF TLOP creates you utterly, then TLOP controls you utterly, I am compelled/forced to agree 100% my friend.

It certainly seems simple, eh? I cannot comprehend a scenario where materialism could encompass any sort of libertarian free will.

However, I would also state (for the sake of clarity) that even if TLOP is not completely responsible for your existence (and who are we kidding … right?) then it STILL would not necessarily imply the existence of “free will”

I'm not kidding anyone :D Except maybe Ian, he seems to think I'm a materialist. I think it's just because I give the postion more credit then he does.

And I agree totally, TLOP not being responsible for your existence does not mean libertarian free will is garunteed.

because unless you created your own existence, than whatever created (programmed) you in the first place would be ultimately responsible for your ultimate Destiny.

Certainly it's possible that a supieror being has pre-determined all my states of being, even some which are not pre-determined by the laws of physics.

Or even just some of them.... the options are many :)

Frank, I'm pretty sure you believe that we do have some 'free will', you've said many times before that 'we get one shot'. This has, in the past, seemed to be connected to whether we believe in God or not. That may not be the exact way you would want it phrased, but it seemed in the past that you would allude to the fact that an atheist has somehow, in some way, chosen to be such.

Can you explain what 'the one shot' is? Or can you explain what you mean by that at least?

I find myself getting confused as to what is determined by TLOP in your view and what isn't when it comes to mental events (thinking and experiencing in general).

If you don't want to get into it in this thread, that's ok. But can you just say whether you'd be interested in discussing it in another thread?

Adam

[Dorian Gray]

And if you want to define “5” to mean “4” you can go around claiming that 2 + 2 = 5. Nice weasel debating tactics. You compare two unrelated things in a vain attempt to give yourself credibility.
Why should I believe you have “free will”? For starters no one can even define the term consistently. Why should I believe in God, for the same reason?

Not to mention, why would someone create and put into play creatures and situations that are all predetermined? What purpose would that serve? And I am looking for something more than 'who are you to question God?' or 'God works in mysterious ways'.

In fact, apparently God works in progressively more predictable ways.

The Big Bang is capable of generating a universe, yet is not conscious.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What does that mean? Which part don't you understand? Big bang, universe, no consciousness, that's about it.

The behavior of “Matter” is controlled by TLOP.
Your brain is made of nothing but “Matter”.
Ergo, your brain (and therefore all of your actions and thoughts) are controlled by TLOP. Where to start?

First, there is a saying "Mind over matter".
Second, there is a saying "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts."
Third, why would TLOP cause me to have dreams where I violate TLOP? (Examples: flying unsupported and instantly jumping from place to place)

Are you claiming your mind has control over Quantum mechanics? Prove it doesn't! It does in dreams.

But no. I was saying that since different laws apply to quantum levels of matter, there would be two TLOPs - two gods. If there are two gods, there cannot be determinism.

Say what?

When approaching a red traffic light (a situation), what is the “do nothing” option (or “choice”) that is fated to happen – stopping or running the red light? Running the red light. "Do nothing" can also mean "let what is happening continue to happen" or more simply, "keep doing what you're doing".

"Objects in motion tend to stay.....".

Sounds more like mumbo-jumbo (or Atheist “wishful thinking”). You would say that about anything that didn't support your hypothesis. Doesn't make it true.

Yeah, except that “free will” explains absolutely nothing; therefore, “free will” is unnecessary and can be removed from the hypothesis (at least if you want to be logical instead of illogical).
You would say that about anything that didn't support your hypothesis. STILL doesn't make it true. More weasel debating tactics, I see. This time, irrationally tacking an extremely exaggerated level of insanity to any viewpoint that opposes yours

Define 'fate'.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Franko



Sure, except that:

The behavior of “Matter” is controlled by TLOP.
Your brain is made of nothing but “Matter”.
Ergo, your brain (and therefore all of your actions and thoughts) are controlled by TLOP.




Lol....Frankie, you've pulled out your favourite fallacy of composition at last, I was wondering how long it would take.

Hows the cult business going? Is your religions membership still 1 plus a sockpuppet or have things picked up?

Remember what you told the dudes at Deism.org before they chucked you out for potty mouthing people....you are a small but growing group on the internet? wasn't that how you described it......So hows it going, has being the single holder of the truth of creation got you anywhere?

[uruk]

Fatalism = The notion that ALL events (or actions) are the result of underlying logical processes.

Misunderstandings happen when you start making up definitions.
or were you fated to throw terms and phrases around arbitrarily?[

That is correct. Look, according to materialism there is no YOU.YOU are just a collection of atoms (or energy, if “you” prefer) doing what atoms do as per TLOP.
Why would that not be you?

All of your actions are preprogrammed so that you cannot do ANYTHING except to work for rewards while trying to avoid punishment. How do you explain masochisim, suicide, self-destructive behaviour, etc. under this supposition?

Look the scientific method (or common sense logic) tells you that unless you have a reason to make a hypothesis, then you have no reason to make a hypothesis (parsimony). If you have no evidence that “matter” exists independently of observation -- if it is impossible to test that it does – then you are only being illogical and unscientific to claim that “matter” does exist independently of observation.

The thing is, once you remove that initial faulty premise from your worldview you may come to perceive that some things you felt were very solid and real are actually illusions in reality, while other things you believed were simply figments of over-active imagination or wishful-thinking are in reality much more solid and concrete than you had previously been aware of.

You contradict yourself here. by your first statement, your second statement is also an illogical and unscientific claim because it is also impossible to test your last statement.

Did they? Are you assuming that, or do you have verifiable evidence that it is so?
You have been givin evidence in past posts but you choose to ignore the evidence without ever giving any reasons why.

They exist in the same way the universe of a computer game reality exist even though you haven’t seen or visited every corner of that computer game reality.
Hey, you just gave yourself a reason to believe that matter does exists without our previous observation or perception.

Now, do all computer game realities exist independent of computer programmers? What makes you assume that this computer-game-reality (this “universe”) exist without a programmer?
What makes you assume that can't. This is just a retread of the watchmaker argument.
Also what makes you assume that your "ultimate existance" exists. By your argument of " impossible to test", you are making
an illogical and unscientific claim.

If you build your worldview on a shaky logical foundation then it is simply a matter of time until that worldview comes crashing down around you. You could say it is Destined to happen
you should heed your own words.

Dorian grey wrote:
Not to mention that whole Quantum thing where different LOP apply.

To which Franko replied:
Are you claiming your mind has control over Quantum mechanics?
Your intentional misinterpretation is clearly evident here.
He is saying that at the quantum level TLOP are different or have different results than at the macro level. If you claim to understand TLOP then you would have known that.

[MRC_Hans]

Sure, except that:

The behavior of “Matter” is controlled by TLOP.
Your brain is made of nothing but “Matter”.
Ergo, your brain (and therefore all of your actions and thoughts) are controlled by TLOP.

I see you are still drawing on materialism to argue your deism.

:dl:

You are one of the very few persons I have ever met with a directly self-contradictory central dogma.

Hans

[Samus]

Originally posted by Franko
The problem is from the Materialist Paradigm there is nothing other than TLOP that can determine it.

If it isn’t determined exclusively by natural universal laws, then what are you asserting is the extra element? … your “Soul”? I think we have another disconnect here, this time on what constitutes "the laws of physics". The moon orbiting the Earth is physics. Human beings living is biology, not physics. Human thoughts (if Materialism is true) is chemical reactions in the brain, which is biology and chemistry, not physics. If the so-called consciousness exists separate of the physical brain it resides in (if Materialism is false), then that is the mind, not physics. So, negative good buddy, not everything is "TLOP".

Originally posted by Franko
Is determinism true for the Moon? Why would the Moons orbit be purely a product of the laws of physics, but not the behavior of you (your “orbit”)? Are you made out of something fundamentally different than what the Moon is made of (something other than “matter”)? Both the moon and I are made of matter, that is correct. And when it comes to gravity, we both obey the same laws. However, the moon is not capable of making decisions, the moon is not living. The moon orbits the Earth because it is travelling at just the right speed, and the Earth provides just enough of a dent in spacetime. If a force could be applied to the moon to speed it up just enough, it wouldn't orbit us anymore. None of these things has to do with the biological makeup, and chemical reactions therein, of humans (or other living creatures) that are stuck on Earth.

Originally posted by Franko
Sure if you knew in advance that you were destined to die in a car accident then it would be irrelevant whether or not you wore a seat belt.

Was James Dean wearing a seat belt? If I told you he was, would it mean he didn’t actually get killed in that car crash? The James Dean example is irrelevant. Fatalism says that my actual choice of seat belt wear was/is irrelevant, if I'm pre-determined to die in the car crash.

Originally posted by Franko
I disagree. According to Materialism EVERYTHING (all action) is ultimately reducible to the laws of physics. If you are claiming that some action occurs beyond the scope of the laws of physics you will have to explain what you mean? See above comments about the scope of the laws of physics.

CC: Did not subatomic particles exist before we observed them?

Franko:Did they? Are you assuming that, or do you have verifiable evidence that it is so? Well, atoms didn't suddenly become when we were able to inspect subatomic particles, and electricity and magnetism was alive and well before we knew what elections were, so I'd have to say that's some pretty substantive evidence that subatomic particles existed before we could inspect and describe them. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Originally posted by Franko
Now, do all computer game realities exist independent of computer programmers? What makes you assume that this computer-game-reality (this “universe”) exist without a programmer? Well, why do you believe that such a universe requires a programmer?

And finally...

Originally posted by Franko
Fatalism = The notion that ALL events (or actions) are the result of underlying logical processes. Not quite. Fatalism = The doctrine that all events are predetermined by fate and are therefore unalterable. You're not a fatalist, at least not by any generally accepted definition of fatalism.

Originally posted by roger
build a simple neural network composed of a few inputs, outputs, and a memory. The technical details are unimportant, the point is that we have a relatively simple deterministic network that perceives it's 'environment', reacts to it, and learns from it.

IF it is weighted to prefer certain inputs, and dislike others, it'll quickly learn to avoid the undesirable inputs and seek out the desirable ones. If you as the experimenter start applying "punishments and rewards" by manipulating it's inputs, you will very quickly train that neural network to do what you want it to do (within it's limits of behavior, course). Thanks Roger, this provides a much better explanation of the deterministic reward/punishment system. I should have known better, I've dabbled in AI.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I see you are still drawing on materialism to argue your deism.

:dl: I'm tellin' ya. Franko is a materialist. He's just not a very consistant one.

[Franko]

Shadow:
It certainly seems simple, eh? I cannot comprehend a scenario where materialism could encompass any sort of libertarian free will.

I guess “simple” is a relative term?

Certainly it's possible that a supieror being has pre-determined all my states of being, even some which are not pre-determined by the laws of physics.

In which case that entity would have been responsible for creating the underlying structure of TLOP as well.

Or even just some of them.... the options are many

Many? I’m not sure I follow you? No one I have encountered ever perceived more than two, and really only one that was viable.

Frank, I'm pretty sure you believe that we do have some 'free will', you've said many times before that 'we get one shot'.

Well, it would depend entirely on one’s definition of the term “free will”. There are some people who define the term in such a way that – for all intent and purpose – it means Fatalism/Determinism.

Kurt Godel and Thomas Bayes would argue that you get “one shot”. I’ve debated the point, and in the end I think it all comes down to semantics. But in deference to my brothers, I could concede that we all get one shot.

This has, in the past, seemed to be connected to whether we believe in God or not. That may not be the exact way you would want it phrased, but it seemed in the past that you would allude to the fact that an atheist has somehow, in some way, chosen to be such.

Can you explain what 'the one shot' is? Or can you explain what you mean by that at least?

No, the choice is not God or no God, but I guess it could be worded that way. It’s probably more accurate to say you get to choose between “Good” and “Evil”, between “Existence” and “Non-Existence”, a choice between Zero (0) or One (1). Of course at the time you made the choice you had no idea what any of those terms meant, so I’m not sure if it is truly a choice, or something entirely random?

I find myself getting confused as to what is determined by TLOP in your view and what isn't when it comes to mental events (thinking and experiencing in general).

Imagine there is a Solipsist. That is all that exist. We could call “him” Gravity (or the Architect). One day he shatters himself into many lesser Individuals. Those individuals begin to interact and evolve. Eventually some of them become even more powerful (contain more information) than the original Solipsist that spawned them.

Now the more powerful an entity is the more he controls the Destiny of the lesser entities around him. However, All of the entities which exist are ultimately controlled by the original Solipsist who contained the original information from which ALL was created and ALL was formed. Ultimately it is the Solipsist from which all the others were formed who controls the destiny of all.

[Franko]

Dorian Gray:
there is a saying "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts."

When you can explain why this statement applies to your consciousness, but not to the universe as a whole than you’ll be a little closer to having a worldview that isn’t contradictory in an ultimately fatal sort of way.

[Franko]

Franko:
All of your actions are preprogrammed so that you cannot do ANYTHING except to work for rewards while trying to avoid punishment.

uruk:
How do you explain masochism, suicide, self-destructive behaviour, etc. under this supposition?

Like I said to C.C. the other day:

what you perceive as a “reward” or “punishment” is determined by The Laws of Physics.

In other words, The laws of Physics make you like chocolate ice cream better than vanilla ice cream, therefore you will likely “choose” chocolate ice cream when presented with a “choice”.

Yeah, once I knew this chick, and she loved to get spanked on her bare ass. Now most people would consider being spanked as a punishment, but for this Individual the Laws of Physics had conspired to make Her perceive spanking as a reward.

Atheists are a lot like that chick, they just like being spanked in an ultimate-sort-of-way. But the best part is, only a tiny percentage of Atheists (the one’s pulling the strings) realize this. The vast majority of the rank and file are utterly clueless. Sh*t … I bet a good 75% of the Atheists are genuinely convinced that Atheism really isn’t a Religion!

[Franko]

Franko:
The behavior of “Matter” is controlled by TLOP.
Your brain is made of nothing but “Matter”.
Ergo, your brain (and therefore all of your actions and thoughts) are controlled by TLOP.

MRC:
I see you are still drawing on materialism to argue your deism.

Ohhh no my little Atheist friend, I am simply assuming your foundational premises for the sake of argument, and then following them to their natural conclusion.

[Acrimonious]

Please continue to ignore the thorough debunking of the core tenet of your philosophy that states The Laws Of Physics can determine the outcomes of all matter interactions.

You have all the information TLOP can give you. If TLOP can't figure out the state of a simple house-cat in a simple box, your entire philosophy falls on its face.

I'm expecting either:
A) Crickets.
B) Angry, ranting diatribe.

Don't fail me now, Franko!

[Franko]

Acrimonious I am not sure I understand your barely coherent question?

Are you claiming that it is possible for an Individual to BOTH stop at a red light and run it at the same Time?

[Franko]

C.C.:
I think we have another disconnect here, this time on what constitutes "the laws of physics". The moon orbiting the Earth is physics. Human beings living is biology, not physics.

I would say that biology is ultimately reducible to physics, and I think most theoretical physicists would agree with me.

To claim otherwise is analogous to claiming that Biology is beyond the scope of the laws of physics which would seem to imply that Biology is a supernatural or mystical discipline. I’m not sure that many reputable biologist would concur.

Human thoughts (if Materialism is true) is chemical reactions in the brain, which is biology and chemistry, not physics. If the so-called consciousness exists separate of the physical brain it resides in (if Materialism is false), then that is the mind, not physics. So, negative good buddy, not everything is "TLOP".

Not everything is TLOP IF, and ONLY IF you are a fellow Amaterialist.

If you are a devotee to the Religion of Materialism then EVERYTHING is ultimately reducible to TLOP – chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, EVERYTHING!

Both the moon and I are made of matter, that is correct. And when it comes to gravity, we both obey the same laws. However, the moon is not capable of making decisions, the moon is not living.

According to the doctrine of Materialism how does the quality of being alive place one beyond the scope and grasp of the omnipotent, omnipresent Laws of Physics?

Fatalism says that my actual choice of seat belt wear was/is irrelevant, if I'm pre-determined to die in the car crash.

Quite right, you could not smoke cigarettes all your life, and yet still die of lung cancer anyway.

why do you believe that such a universe [this universe] requires a programmer?

Because ALL available evidence leads me to conclude that this universe functions in an entirely Algorithmic manner.

Or put another way, an unperceived pattern ceases to be a pattern.

Franko:
Fatalism = The notion that ALL events (or actions) are the result of underlying logical processes.

C.C.:
Not quite. Fatalism = The doctrine that all events are predetermined by fate and are therefore unalterable.

Your definition and mine are logically equivalent.

Here’s why: If ALL events are the result of an underlying logical process, then if you comprehend the process you can compute the result before it actually occurs. In other words, if I ask you what 2 + 2 equals you are destined to answer 4 (assuming you benefit for answering correctly and are punished for answering incorrectly (and assuming you know what 2 + 2 equals (a reasonable assumption in this case(I think)))).

You're not a fatalist, at least not by any generally accepted definition of fatalism.

No, I agree that your definition is equally valid. That’s exactly what I believe. As I have stated here on numerous occasions, ALL of my thoughts and actions (and yours as well) are preordained.

[Dorian Gray]

When you can explain why this statement applies to your consciousness, but not to the universe as a whole than you’ll be a little closer to having a worldview that isn’t contradictory in an ultimately fatal sort of way. I never said it doesn't. Weasel tactics again, implying that there are only two choices, yours or the unalterable chasm of insanity.

for this Individual the Laws of Physics had conspired to make Her perceive spanking as a reward. Proof? Oh yeah, I forgot. Religious nuts require no proof, just repetition and volume.

Acrimonious I am not sure I understand your barely coherent question?
Are you claiming that it is possible for an Individual to BOTH stop at a red light and run it at the same Time? Prove it doesn't. It is possible that both things happen, and reality splits at that point. And what's with the randomly capitalized words?

You seem to have glossed over the two different TLOPs statement I made.
I will assume that if you don't address a comment I make, you agree with it, and if you don't answer one of my questions, you don't know the answer. Having said that, two gods means no determinism.

Using your definition of God and your example of TLOP as a god, there are two gods. In a reality with two gods, or no gods, there cannot be determinism.

And I am not an atheist. It's just that God told me he doesn't exist. He told lots of people this, including:
http://www.jhuger.com/mat_enlight.mv

[MRC_Hans]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Franko:
The behavior of “Matter” is controlled by TLOP.
Your brain is made of nothing but “Matter”.
Ergo, your brain (and therefore all of your actions and thoughts) are controlled by TLOP.

MRC:
I see you are still drawing on materialism to argue your deism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ohhh no my little Atheist friend, I am simply assuming your foundational premises for the sake of argument, and then following them to their natural conclusion. Ahh, so the TLOP>Human>Car argument had been scrapped then? Then how do you argue that TLOP is conscious?

Hans

[Samus]

Originally posted by Franko
I would say that biology is ultimately reducible to physics, and I think most theoretical physicists would agree with me. Fair enough, but for the sake of discussion I was separating it into disciplines. What you call the laws of physics is a much broader scope than I am used to.

Originally posted by Franko
If you are a devotee to the Religion of Materialism then EVERYTHING is ultimately reducible to TLOP – chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, EVERYTHING! I get the impression that you call every theory you disagree with a religion...

CC: However, the moon is not capable of making decisions, the moon is not living.

Franko: According to the doctrine of Materialism how does the quality of being alive place one beyond the scope and grasp of the omnipotent, omnipresent Laws of Physics? It doesn't. The physical functions of the brain allow us to do control our own movements (within the bounds of Physics, of course). We have muscles, we can move ourselves around in our environment as we see fit. The moon does not have this luxury. Obviously, I cannot leap 35 feet onto a platform if I feel like it, but I can surely drive myself to work, or fly an airplane, or flail my arms in the air like a madman, if I feel like it. The moon has no mechanism to control its own movement within its environment, it's not "alive".

Originally posted by Franko
If ALL events are the result of an underlying logical process, then if you comprehend the process you can compute the result before it actually occurs. In other words, if I ask you what 2 + 2 equals you are destined to answer 4 (assuming you benefit for answering correctly and are punished for answering incorrectly (and assuming you know what 2 + 2 equals (a reasonable assumption in this case(I think)))). I think "destined" was the wrong word here. It is generally accepted that the answer is 4, so you would most logically expect 4 to be my answer. If you ask me a question more open-ended, one that does not have a generally accepted answer, you would not be able to compute the result in advance. Furthermore, each individual you ask would probably compute a different result, and some people's answers might change over time.

[Acrimonious]

Acrimonious I am not sure I understand your barely coherent question?

Are you claiming that it is possible for an Individual to BOTH stop at a red light and run it at the same Time?


I predicted:
A) Crickets.
B) Angry, ranting diatribe.

I should have included
C) Sidestep & Non-Sequitor.

Ok, Franko, I'll explain it to you as I would a small child:

In Quantum Physics exists the concept of Superposition. Superposition states that not only can Quantum particles be at different places at the same time (i.e. a Quantum particle's wave CAN both stop at a red light and run it at the same time), but Quantum particles exist in ALL POSSIBLE STATES SIMULTANEOUSLY, as long as they are left unobserved.

When OBSERVED, the event collapses into 1 state. This means that: It is not until AFTER a quantum even happens that ANYONE can determine exactly what happened.

Until observation happens, ALL possible outcomes are equally likely.

The link I passed you earlier is a simple explanation of the use of Superposition as thought up by Erwin Schroedinger, one of the fathers of Quantum Physics.

The hypothetical situation involves a Cat, a Box, a Geiger counter, a hammer, a Jar of Acid, and a small amount of radioactive material.

The cat is placed in the box will all of the other implements. The geiger counter is set to trigger the hammer to smash the jar of acid, which will subsequenty kill the cat, if and only if it detects an alpha particle emitted from the radioactive source.

Before the box is opened, the cat's fate is tied to the wave of the alpha particle emitted from the radioactive source. Since it is a Quantum operation, the particle can BOTH TRIGGER the cat's death, and NOT TRIGGER IT.

It is not until the user opens the box AFTER the event happens that ANYONE, you, me, TLOP, God, Yahweh, Vishnu, ANYONE, knows if the cat is alive or dead.

My question to you is this: How do you rationalize Superposition with the rest of your mythology? How can TLOP pre-determine the outcomes of every action, when TLOP CANNOT KNOW the result of Quantum interactions UNTIL AFTER THEY HAPPEN?

[Franko]

C.C:
I get the impression that you call every theory you disagree with a religion.

I consider any idea that deals with the nature and/or origin of existence a religious idea. Whether it is my idea or yours.

C.C:
The physical functions of the brain allow us to do control our own movements (within the bounds of Physics, of course).

Say what? Where is the “YOU” that is controlling anything? It seems that TLOP is what is controlling your brain.

We have muscles, we can move ourselves around in our environment as we see fit. The moon does not have this luxury. Obviously, I cannot leap 35 feet onto a platform if I feel like it, but I can surely drive myself to work, or fly an airplane, or flail my arms in the air like a madman, if I feel like it. The moon has no mechanism to control its own movement within its environment, it's not "alive".

Like I said, what does being “alive” have to do with it? You move in your environment, the Moon moves in its environment. It sounds like you are begging the question.

TLOP controls all of your actions, TLOP controls all of the Moon’s actions.

I think "destined" was the wrong word here.

Why’s that?

It is generally accepted that the answer is 4, so you would most logically expect 4 to be my answer. If you ask me a question more open-ended, one that does not have a generally accepted answer, you would not be able to compute the result in advance.

I disagree. You are simply trying to hide behind complexity. But the fact is that complex questions can be broken down into simple components (like 2 + 2).

Furthermore, each individual you ask would probably compute a different result, and some people's answers might change over time.

They change over time, because the information an individual has accumulated changes over time.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko

I consider any idea that deals with the nature and/or origin of existence a religious idea. Whether it is my idea or yours. It's true. He does. It is much easier to ignore the findings of science when you mitigate it to being "just another religion".

:rub:

[Franko]

Franko:
I consider any idea that deals with the nature and/or origin of existence a religious idea. Whether it is my idea or yours.

Upchurch:
It's true. He does. It is much easier to ignore the findings of science when you mitigate it to being "just another religion".

You do crack me up Upchurch.

What “findings of science” are you suggesting that I am ignoring?

Or are you claiming that your untestable, unverifiable religious dogma should be considered “scientific”?

I know you would like everyone to believe that. Of course that is the problem with Eris. The majority of the poor saps who worship her believe she is some sort of chaotic free-spirit. In reality she was just an utter conformist.

Of course utter conformity didn’t test to well in the focus groups, so the religion had to be repackaged to make it more marketable. ;)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko

What “findings of science” are you suggesting that I am ignoring? Well, Relativity (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=376196#post376196) for one. (Don't blame me, you asked)

[uruk]

Yeah, once I knew this chick, and she loved to get spanked on her bare ass. Now most people would consider being spanked as a punishment, but for this Individual the Laws of Physics had conspired to make Her perceive spanking as a reward.
O.K. I understand the spanking part. What about suicide
and self-destructive behavior? How does one recieve positive renforcement for killing one's self? How does one recieve positive renforcement for acting in a manner which brings self-loathing, depression, pain (the bad kind)
and ultimately death?

[Christ]

I still cannot believe that Franko is here.Its absolutely gobsmacking.

Regards

[Yahweh]

Welcome back, Christ! :)

We havent heard from you since July. How's the weather been?

Dont worry about Franko. Yahweh, UpChurch, Pahansiri, and host of others here have been taking the situation under control in many of the threads he has participated in (I've been neglecting this thread, everyone here seems to have picked Franko apart).

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Franko


I could concede that we all get one shot.




yeeeha, Frankie has YET ANOTHER position on free will? Back to the "one shot" version now?.... whats that now...5 or 6 positions? You change your position on free will more often than you change underwear.
Hey, a fatalist that believes in free will....why not? could be fun..... Whats next? Atheists who believe in god?:D

[MRC_Hans]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Franko:
The behavior of “Matter” is controlled by TLOP.
Your brain is made of nothing but “Matter”.
Ergo, your brain (and therefore all of your actions and thoughts) are controlled by TLOP.

MRC:
I see you are still drawing on materialism to argue your deism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ohhh no my little Atheist friend, I am simply assuming your foundational premises for the sake of argument, and then following them to their natural conclusion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ahh, so the TLOP>Human>Car argument had been scrapped then? Then how do you argue that TLOP is conscious?

Hans Heheh, we always get to this point and then Frano conviniently forgets to answer.

Problem is, you think you can change paradigms in the middle of a logic chain, but that won't do. So let's examine the argument under single paradigms.

First Franko's paradigm, which (correct me if I'm wrong) goes like this:

Consciousness makes matter; the rules of the universe are a conscious entitiy. Our consciousness is en entity that transscends our physical existence.

Thus:

1) The behavior of “Matter” is controlled by TLOP.

No problem so far.

Your brain is made of nothing but “Matter”.

BLEEEP! Premise incorrect according to paradigm.

Ergo, your brain (and therefore all of your actions and thoughts) are controlled by TLOP.

Back to paradigm, but conclusion is now invalid.

Unless you have had a bout of revisionism, the next step is this:

TLOP controls you controls car. Since you are more conscious than your car, TLOP must be more conscious than you.

Since the conclusion "TLOP controls you" was invalid, the second part becomes a non-sequiteur.

Now, Franko claims that he adopts the materialistic view to show where it leads, so let' examine the whole thing from a materialistic paradigm.

In materialism, the material world exists independently, following laws that are in principle observable and knowable, and consciousness is a product of material functions.


The behavior of “Matter” is controlled by TLOP.

Fine, no problem here.

Your brain is made of nothing but “Matter”.

Quite so.

Ergo, your brain (and therefore all of your actions and thoughts) are controlled by TLOP.

In principle, this is OK too, except for the word "controls". This term normally conveys a meaning of active interference, which, as we shall see, is unwarranted.

TLOP controls you controls car. Since you are more conscious than your car, TLOP must be more conscious than you.

Here we see two errors:

1) The term "controls" is evidently used in an active meaning here, and this does not fit the materialistic notion of how TLOP confines our posible course of actions.

2) Since materialism assumes that the materialistic world can exist independently of consciousness, the argument is a non-sequiteur anyway, as it does provably not take superiour consciousness to delimit or control.

Yeah, its so easy when you've been through it a dozen times
:rolleyes:

Hans

[Acrimonious]

Well wouldn't you know it? Suddenly the crickets are out in droves.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Acrimonious
Well wouldn't you know it? Suddenly the crickets are out in droves.
Be patient...Franko must cut before he can paste..

He'll be along shortly to say "So what you are trying to say is X"
where X = something you are not trying to say.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Originally posted by Franko

What “findings of science” are you suggesting that I am ignoring?
Well, Relativity (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=376196#post376196) for one. (Don't blame me, you asked) *cough* bump *cough*

[hammegk]

LOL. What a bunch. Not one rational thought among all of F's detractors. As I read this thread no-one has a clue to the meaning of what he says.

So many strawmen erected & burned, all defending materialism/atheism/naturalism.

Uppie, got a link to something concerning Physics 101, or maybe the cat-in-a-box, that will get everyone on the "Right Track"?
:p

[Acrimonious]

Sidestep & Non-Sequitor, yet again.

Your "bag of tricks" is fairly limited, I see.

If you *Had* read the thread, There's a link about Schroedinger's Cat on page 1. You know, the one I posted before I went to great lengths to give you a simple explanation a 12-year-old could understand?

The irony of you claiming superior knowledge of TLOP without even being acquainted with the Schroedinger's Cat scenario tickles my funny bone. If you *Did* have any knowledge of TLOP, things like Relativity, Superposition, and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle wouldn't NEED to be explained to you once, let alone repeatedly, from several different sources.

So many strawmen erected & burned, all defending materialism/atheism/naturalism.

I don't see any straw men. I see you blathering incoherently, followed by people refuting your blathering with basic, high-school levels of physics, followed by you back-pedalling, side-stepping, and outright ignoring of everything but your own voice.

Unfortunately, I can't possibly put you on ignore for fear that I'll miss one of the dozen (or more?) sock puppets you use in these multi-pronged masturbations you call "discussions."

It's actually quite sad. The only "people" I have ever seen agree with you are those same sock puppets of yourself. What a horrible fate it must be to need to construct imaginary yes-men that validate your mythology.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Acrimonious

If you *Had* read the thread, There's a link about Schroedinger's Cat on page 1. You know, the one I posted before I went to great lengths to give you a simple explanation a 12-year-old could understand?
Yeah, I read your posted of it; that's why I mentioned it. You are correct that your simple explanations are at 12 yr old level. At one time some folks here actually tried to discuss philosophy.


The irony of you claiming superior knowledge of TLOP without even being acquainted with the Schroedinger's Cat scenario tickles my funny bone. If you *Did* have any knowledge of TLOP, things like Relativity, Superposition, and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle wouldn't NEED to be explained to you once, let alone repeatedly, from several different sources.
Wow, you've made it through introductory physics. Too bad the implications completely escaped you; it's quite common with materialists/atheists/naturalists. You may outgrow it, but that is of -zero- interest to me. A new & interesting argument would be.


I don't see any straw men.
Yes, I noticed. If you did perhaps you wouldn't be so intent on destroying them.

[Acrimonious]

At one time some folks here actually tried to discuss philosophy.
Then do so. My question is simple: How do you rationalize fatalism in a physical reality that includes Superposition?

Also, Upchurch would like the same question answered in regard to Relativity.

WE are trying to discuss philosophy. YOU are sermonizing your philosophy, then dodging nimbly the instant someone asks a question that has an answer that tears your fantasy down.

You are correct that your simple explanations are at 12 yr old level.
Why, then, are you asking for it to be reiterated by Upchurch?

Wow, you've made it through introductory physics
I've made it far past the introductory, thank you.

Yes, I noticed. If you did perhaps you wouldn't be so intent on destroying them.
How is the act of asking you one, simple question, on the nature of your fatalist philosophy with regards to... no, IN SPITE of Superposition and Relativity a straw man?

Either TLOP CAN account for actions before they happen (because it controls them), OR IT CANNOT. Schroedinger, one of the GODFATHERS of physics, showed that, at the quantum scale, IT CANNOT.

So I ask you again: How do you patch up this gaping hole in your fatalist philosophy?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

{Usual BS} :rub:

You'll notice I was answering Franko's question and proving my point. No links required other than the relevent one I provided.

[Christ]

Yahweh,

Thankyou for the warm return.The weather is surprisingly hot in South Africa.I'm quite proud to be an atheist, and to be amongst such men(and women).Sorry for not participating more often.I post at Infidels.org:D

I'm still in shock that Franko/Hammek/Wraith/?????? is here.His posts seem more sane than before and his attitude seems more relaxed, yet still bizarre.He has somewhat of a reputation around here.Dammit, I've read all of Franko's posts.:rolleyes: Is TLOP still the subject of discussion surrounding his logic, or has it finally dissipated?

Regards

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Christ
Is TLOP still the subject of discussion surrounding his logic, or has it finally dissipated?You mean the actualTLOP or Franko's sci-fi TLOP....?

Nevermind.

Welcome back, Christ!

(waddya know. billiefan2000 was right. Christ did come back. Maybe that's why bf2k hasn't posted lately? :eek: )

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Acrimonious

Then do so. My question is simple: How do you rationalize fatalism in a physical reality that includes Superposition?

Also, Upchurch would like the same question answered in regard to Relativity.

I've made it far past the introductory, thank you.
Good. Then you explain how the mathematics of general relativity and quantum mechanics both accurately describe "scientific reality".


Why, then, are you asking for it to be reiterated by Upchurch?
It's a running joke ... as is Uppie, Physics, and Philosophy. Are you heading the same way?


Either TLOP CAN account for actions before they happen (because it controls them), OR IT CANNOT. Schroedinger, one of the GODFATHERS of physics, showed that, at the quantum scale, IT CANNOT.

So I ask you again: How do you patch up this gaping hole in your fatalist philosophy?
Fatalism -- that is No Free Will -- is the same problem for non-materialists as it is for materialists/atheists/naturalists. What is an "uncaused" event? The fact that the current math says humans will never answer the question successfully doesn't mean the question disappears. FYI, although I cannot conceive of a viable mechanism, *I* actually think I have "free will". Neither do I seem (to me) to be operating under randomness.

Originally posted by Christ

Franko/Hammek/Wraith
Nice nom de guerre. Performed any miracles lately? Perhaps at infidels.org?

Er, I don't recall any Hammek id. I will again categorically state that 'hammegk' has no links whatsoever to either Franko or Wraith. Believe what you will, of course.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Another opinion I have is that fatalists/determinists are merely attempting to escape responsibility for their actions.

How? If anything, it's the Materialist that's doing this, whether they perceive it or not (everything is fundamentally random right?).

The actions of a goldfish is quite different to that of shark's?
What about the action's of the different breeds of dogs?

It seems to me that the actions of a living thing is completely related to their nature and their evironment.

The more you know about your nature, then the more you know about yourself (who you are). The fatalist believes that their actions at any point in Time, could not have happened any other way, given the information that he/she holds at that point in Time. In Time, you obtain more information, hence you find out more about yourself.

The more you find out about yourself, the more you realise how your actions affect other people. Through the positive and negative experiences that you encounter (due to your actions and the actions of others/environment) can you process the information (your experiences) and apply it to future events for an outcome that would be most beneficial to YOU.

What you find to be beneficial is your nature. This is Your Fate.

On the surface, Fate and the consequences of one's action, appear to be contradictory. You could not be more wrong. Only through Fate can things have any real meaning.

It's the free-willy believers that are kidding themselves.

[wraith]

Franko:
The behavior of “Matter” is controlled by TLOP.
Your brain is made of nothing but “Matter”.
Ergo, your brain (and therefore all of your actions and thoughts) are controlled by TLOP.

Fool: Lol....Frankie, you've pulled out your favourite fallacy of composition at last, I was wondering how long it would take.


haha
You and your henchmen never did pin point the flaw. Just your trademark "hand weaving" lol!

Fool, what you're saying is that things made of matter/energy don't always obey TLOP, whether it be a pebble or the human brain?

[Acrimonious]

Good. Then you explain how the mathematics of general relativity and quantum mechanics both accurately describe "scientific reality".

It's suddenly my responsibility to reiterate the findings of thousands of the world's brightest minds, to defend what is considered to be "scientific reality" by the vast majority of experts in the field of Physics?

I don't think so. You are the one making a claim against the norm. I don't need to champion it. The insinuation that the personal delusions of Franko/Wraith/hammegk are correct, and the mountain of pure scientific study by such minds as Einstein, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Hawking, Kepler, Newton, (etc etc) are incorrect, shows to me that you have nothing less than a megalomaniacal, narcissistic bent.

Fatalism -- that is No Free Will -- is the same problem for non-materialists as it is for materialists/atheists/naturalists. What is an "uncaused" event? The fact that the current math says humans will never answer the question successfully doesn't mean the question disappears. FYI, although I cannot conceive of a viable mechanism, *I* actually think I have "free will". Neither do I seem (to me) to be operating under randomness.

Ahhh, now I see the Straw Men! Check the entire thread: I never asked about "uncaused" events. I specifically asked about events caused by Quantum interactions, which, by nature of Superposition, have outcomes that are impossible to predict beforehand, and how these unpredictable events can be rationalized within a fatalistic belief system.

You've been avoiding answering this for days. Could it be you simply cannot rationalize it?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Acrimonious


It's suddenly my responsibility to reiterate the findings of thousands of the world's brightest minds, to defend what is considered to be "scientific reality" by the vast majority of experts in the field of Physics?

I don't think so.
Yeah, I agree. From your comments I thought you were going to explain which Unified Field Theorem was the correct one. You know; the one that finally brings GR into a quantum structure.

Was it SUSY, or M-Theory, or something entirely new & different. When will it be published? It didn't make today's headline.


Ahhh, now I see the Straw Men! Check the entire thread: I never asked about "uncaused" events. I specifically asked about events caused by Quantum interactions, which, by nature of Superposition, have outcomes that are impossible to predict beforehand, and how these unpredictable events can be rationalized within a fatalistic belief system.

You've been avoiding answering this for days. Could it be you simply cannot rationalize it?
Huh? You are the person asserting "unpredicable by human science" equals indeterminate. I believe the ball remains in your court on that one. ;)

Do you recall that I mentioned that I think free-will exists, even though for an idealist the mechanism that could allow for such a phenomena is also undefined.

[Acrimonious]

Huh? You are the person asserting "unpredicable by human science" equals indeterminate. I believe the ball remains in your court on that one

Your Franko alter-ego asserts this with his TLOP dogma. I presented this argument as a direct counter to its fatalistic, TLOP-as-Goddess philosophy.

The ball is back in your court, sock-puppet.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Acrimonious


Your Franko alter-ego asserts this with his TLOP dogma. I presented this argument as a direct counter to its fatalistic, TLOP-as-Goddess philosophy.
Sorry. I don't agree with Franko on the free-will question, nor am I him.


The ball is back in your court, sock-puppet.
Nope. And when you understand enough physics to answer my other question that you've ignored, let all of us know. Doofus.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

nor am I him. I used to think that was true, but your M.O. and themes have grown amazingly similar since Franko's return.

Could mean lots of different things. Maybe all posters who continually get backed into a corner act that way. I don't know. But it does open the possibility of a Franko sock-puppet, especially since Franko is known to use them.

[Acrimonious]

Nope. And when you understand enough physics to answer my other question that you've ignored, let all of us know. Doofus.

If being unable to formulate the mathematics of a Grand Unified Theory of Physics qualifies me as a Doofus, I'm in good company with about 6 billion other Doofuses.

Where's your grand unified theory?

Doofus.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Acrimonious

If being unable to formulate the mathematics of a Grand Unified Theory of Physics qualifies me as a Doofus, I'm in good company with about 6 billion other Doofuses.

Nah, what qualifies you for "doofus" is the exchange:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Acrimonious

Then do so. My question is simple: How do you rationalize fatalism in a physical reality that includes Superposition?

Also, Upchurch would like the same question answered in regard to Relativity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


quote: Acrimonious
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've made it far past the introductory, thank you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

hammegk
Good. Then you explain how the mathematics of general relativity and quantum mechanics both accurately describe "scientific reality".

....with you implying a link of GR & QM. And the added attraction of you telling me I needed to defend a point that I had already mentioned I didn't agree with.

Whatta ya think? ;)


BTW, you going to offer any response to: hammegk....You are the person asserting "unpredicable by human science" equals indeterminate. I believe the ball remains in your court on that one.
???

As to Uppie & Special Relativity; do you mean to still contend that SR has any implication for non-determinism? Quantum it isn't either. :p

[Acrimonious]

I repeat:

It's suddenly my responsibility to reiterate the findings of thousands of the world's brightest minds, to defend what is considered to be "scientific reality" by the vast majority of experts in the field of Physics?

I don't think so. You are the one making a claim against the norm. I don't need to champion it. The insinuation that the personal delusions of Franko/Wraith/hammegk are correct, and the mountain of pure scientific study by such minds as Einstein, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Hawking, Kepler, Newton, (etc etc) are incorrect, shows to me that you have nothing less than a megalomaniacal, narcissistic bent.

I need to "prove" Relativity and Quantum physics are reality like I need to prove the sky is blue. If you don't accept the widely-accepted scientific observations of the world's greatest minds in this field, it's up to you to explain why not. I freely appeal to their authority on the matter. You appealing to your own pet fantasy is quite definitely a false authority, in comparison.

It is not my obligation to reiterate their findings to you.

But in the spirit of the question as it was asked: YES, an alpha particle emitted by a radioactive source, as described in the Schroedinger's cat scenario, does exhibit the qualities ascribed to quantum particles. It exists in all possible states until observed (superposition). The more you know about its position, the less you know of its momentum (uncertainty).

And the added attraction of you telling me I needed to defend a point that I had already mentioned I didn't agree with.

Convenient. No, the hammegk handle didn't. The Franko handle did. I posed the question to FRANKO, of whom you bear sock puppet qualities.

hammegk....You are the person asserting "unpredicable by human science" equals indeterminate. I believe the ball remains in your court on that one.

Again: Re-read the thread. I never made any such statement. Franko made the statement. He stated everything is reducable to TLOP. I showed how a scenario in accordance with TLOP he worships, where fate is impossible, and asked him (you) to rationalize this.

If it is Franko's (your) opinion that your TLOP Goddess possesses "Free Willy" powers to ignore her own Laws of Physics and see into the Quantum Future, so be it. I'll have an answer, and you'll be a hypocrite.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Acrimonious
I need to "prove" Relativity and Quantum physics are reality like I need to prove the sky is blue. If you don't accept the widely-accepted scientific observations of the world's greatest minds in this field, it's up to you to explain why not. I freely appeal to their authority on the matter. You appealing to your own pet fantasy is quite definitely a false authority, in comparison.

It is not my obligation to reiterate their findings to you.

But in the spirit of the question as it was asked: YES, an alpha particle emitted by a radioactive source, as described in the Schroedinger's cat scenario, does exhibit the qualities ascribed to quantum particles. It exists in all possible states until observed (superposition). The more you know about its position, the less you know of its momentum (uncertainty).
Yeah, these are the standard thoughts; so what?


Convenient. No, the hammegk handle didn't. The Franko handle did. I posed the question to FRANKO, of whom you bear sock puppet qualities.
I went back over the posts, again; after you asked me about fatalism I stated to you in the next post that it wasn't my belief.


Again: Re-read the thread. I never made any such statement. Franko made the statement. He stated everything is reducable to TLOP. I showed how a scenario in accordance with TLOP he worships, where fate is impossible, and asked him (you) to rationalize this.

Yes indeed, and on to
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hammegk....You are the person asserting "unpredicable by human science" equals indeterminate. I believe the ball remains in your court on that one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Get it yet?


If it is Franko's (your) opinion that your TLOP Goddess possesses "Free Willy" powers to ignore her own Laws of Physics and see into the Quantum Future, so be it. I'll have an answer, and you'll be a hypocrite.
Your thoughts are as good as mine as to what Franko believes. I've stated that *I* think I have free will, but cannot reconcile that thought with quantum unpredictability(nor with idealism, for that matter).

[The Fool]

Originally posted by wraith


haha
You and your henchmen never did pin point the flaw. Just your trademark "hand weaving" lol!

Fool, what you're saying is that things made of matter/energy don't always obey TLOP, whether it be a pebble or the human brain?
No Frank, I'm saying that it is a fallacy of composition.

What you are saying is that because atoms cannot decide what to have for dinner then I also cannot decide what to have for dinner. Because atoms cannot Juggle, I cannot juggle. The pathetic sum total of your argument refuting free will is that atoms have no free will so I can't either...priceless.

ooops, sorry...I forgot you are back to the "once only" version of free will...I guess this means you believe the laws of physics can be broken at least once eh?

anyway...seeing as I don't live in fear of a female god I have to leave now...Its time to go out and do evil things...

I don't suppose you feel like telling us how your god revealed its gender to you? I seem to remember you don't like that question much...

:roll:

[wraith]

Originally posted by The Fool

No Frank, I'm saying that it is a fallacy of composition.

What you are saying is that because atoms cannot decide what to have for dinner then I also cannot decide what to have for dinner. Because atoms cannot Juggle, I cannot juggle. The pathetic sum total of your argument refuting free will is that atoms have no free will so I can't either...priceless.

This just shows your level of understanding of what the fallacy of composition is and how it relates to the TLOP syllogism.

What I said in my previous post stands.
I don't blame you for trying though haha

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by The Fool

No Frank, I'm saying that it is a fallacy of composition.

What you are saying is that because atoms cannot decide what to have for dinner then I also cannot decide what to have for dinner. Because atoms cannot Juggle, I cannot juggle. The pathetic sum total of your argument refuting free will is that atoms have no free will so I can't either...priceless. I haven't given Frankie a link lately, which I know he loves, so how about this one:

Fallacy of Composition (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html)Examples of Composition

...

3. Atoms are colorless. Cats are made of atoms, so cats are colorless. F's free will argument is textbook fallacy of composition. Of course, this isn't news, but he keeps repeating his error, so I suppose he must keep being corrected.

edited to add
Originally posted by wraith

This just shows your level of understanding of what the fallacy of composition is and how it relates to the TLOP syllogism.Yeah, it really does. His understanding is quite complete.

Unless you can provide an argument that refutes that the syllogism is a fallacy of composition?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by The Fool


I don't suppose you feel like telling us how your god revealed its gender to you? I seem to remember you don't like that question much...

:roll:
<sound of crickets chirping>
Dude, If you are attempting to increase the size of your cult you should at least be able to explain why the new god happens to be female....It might land you a follower or two from the Xena fans....

[wraith]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Yeah, it really does. His understanding is quite complete.

That speaks for itself...

Unless you can provide an argument that refutes that the syllogism is a fallacy of composition?

When there is a fallacy, you can explain what the error is. So what's the error? You can't just cruise along and say, "It's the fallacy of composition," and say no more.

[wraith]

Originally posted by The Fool

<sound of crickets chirping>
Dude, If you are attempting to increase the size of your cult you should at least be able to explain why the new god happens to be female....It might land you a follower or two from the Xena fans....

haha
Yeah, her thighs are good enough to be a nut cracker.
:roll:

[The Fool]

Originally posted by wraith


That speaks for itself...



When there is a fallacy, you can explain what the error is. So what's the error? You can't just cruise along and say, "It's the fallacy of composition," and say no more.
oh well...one more time eh?

It is a fallacy of composition. You cannot conclude that something has a property simply because its components have that property.

You claim the statement that its about atoms being bound by TLOP but in actuality you use it to support your usual argument that because atoms have no free will then I cannot have free will.... This is simple fog and mirrors.

Maybe you could detail the precise laws of physics that you claim are violated when I choose what to eat for dinner? conservation of momentum maybe? Thermodynamics? which ones?

anyway..I don't expect you are going to be around much longer, when you stop posting as Frank in order to avoid the most simple of questions you stop posting as wraith shortly after...

one last time on the question you are so afraid of...How was your gods gender revealed to you?

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Franko

As I am so fond of repeating:

The behavior of “matter” is completely defined by the laws of Physics.

Fixed it for you. :D

[wraith]

Originally posted by The Fool
oh well...one more time eh?

It is a fallacy of composition. You cannot conclude that something has a property simply because its components have that property.

You claim the statement that its about atoms being bound by TLOP but in actuality you use it to support your usual argument that because atoms have no free will then I cannot have free will.... This is simple fog and mirrors.

Just add another premis in the original syllogism:

Things made up of matter/energy obey TLOP

Then you have a chain argument that flows. So if you have a problem with the conclusion, which premis is false?

Anyway, you're inadvertently saying that you obey TLOP by saying that TLOP is random and through this, you have free-will (God knows where the logic in this is.)

It would run along the same lines for you to claim that TLOP is deterministic and still be able to act outside of TLOP.

Maybe you could detail the precise laws of physics that you claim are violated when I choose what to eat for dinner? conservation of momentum maybe? Thermodynamics? which ones?

Show that consciousness is random in function and you might have a case.

one last time on the question you are so afraid of...How was your gods gender revealed to you?

I don't know the gender and I never said that I did.
:rub:

[The Fool]

Originally posted by wraith



Then you have a chain argument that flows.
So if you have a problem with the conclusion, which premis is false?



I don't know the gender and I never said that I did.
:rub:

No Frank you do not have a chain argument that flows...you have a fallacy of composition.

You don't know your gods gender? When you post as wraith you suddenly forget the reason? Maybe you could just post as Franko and you may suddenly remember how it was revealed to you... Why does this question scare you so much? Is it because the answer is just so silly it makes you cringe when you have to type it out?

[wraith]

Originally posted by The Fool
No Frank you do not have a chain argument that flows...you have a fallacy of composition.

I noticed that you didn't quote me entirely.

So really, you don't know if any of the premises are false?

You don't know your gods gender? When you post as wraith you suddenly forget the reason? Maybe you could just post as Franko and you may suddenly remember how it was revealed to you... Why does this question scare you so much? Is it because the answer is just so silly it makes you cringe when you have to type it out?

Did you convince yourself that you will cease to exist in the same way that you convinced yourself into thinking that Franko and I are the same person?

....interesting ;)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by wraith

When there is a fallacy, you can explain what the error is. So what's the error? You can't just cruise along and say, "It's the fallacy of composition," and say no more. :rub:

That's why I included the link. The second type of fallacy of Composition is committed when it is concluded that what is true of the parts of a whole must be true of the whole without there being adequate justification for the claim. More formally, the line of "reasoning" would be as follows:

1. The parts of the whole X have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
2. Therefore the whole X must have characteristics A, B, C.

That this sort of reasoning is fallacious because it cannot be inferred that simply because the parts of a complex whole have (or lack) certain properties that the whole that they are parts of has those properties. This is especially clear in math: The numbers 1 and 3 are both odd. 1 and 3 are parts of 4. Therefore, the number 4 is odd. As stated, you argument goes that atoms don't have free will and people are made of atoms, therefore, people don't have free will. You might as well say, atoms don't have hair, people are made of atoms, therefore people don't have hair. Or, as I also quoted in my last post:3. Atoms are colorless. Cats are made of atoms, so cats are colorless.
Now, there is a caveot to this fallacy, which you might have learned had you read the link.It must be noted that reasoning from the properties of the parts to the properties of the whole is not always fallacious. If there is justification for the inference from parts to whole, then the reasoning is not fallacious. For example, if every part of the human body is made of matter, then it would not be an error in reasoning to conclude that the whole human body is made of matter. Similiarly, if every part of a structure is made of brick, there is no fallacy comitted when one concludes that the whole structure is made of brick. Which is why I askedUnless you can provide an argument that refutes that the syllogism is a fallacy of composition?Instead of doing so, you merely asked me to prove that it was a fallacy rather than backing your claim.

...interesting.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Upchurch That's why I included the link. As stated, you argument goes that atoms don't have free will and people are made of atoms, therefore, people don't have free will.

You might as well say, atoms don't have hair, people are made of atoms, therefore people don't have hair.

As I said to Fool, if you added the premis:

Things made up of matter/energy obey TLOP

and if you don't agree with the conclusion, then are you saying that one or more of the premises are false? If so, which one?

Are you saying that things made up of matter/energy don't obey TLOP.

Im sorry, but there is no fallacy here ;)

[MRC_Hans]

It doesn't really matter if you can see tha fallacy or not, or indeed if it is there or not.

The syllogism is in conflict with your own paradigm, if viewed from that, since the premise that "you" are made (entirely) of matter is not within your paradigm.

From the "materialistic" (or whatever you call it) paradigm, the conclusion is right, but the materialistic notion of TLOP does not imply determinism.

I stated this in more detail above, but "Franko" choose to ignore it. I find it only fair that "Wraith" should also have the opportunity to ignore it ;).

Hans

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by wraith
Are you saying that things made up of matter/energy don't obey TLOP.

Im sorry, but there is no fallacy here ;) If that were all that you were saying, you would be correct. But it isn't. As mentioned before you are saying that because atoms don't have free will nothing made of matter has free will. Therein lies the fallacy, since the one does not necessarily mean the other, unless you can show otherwise.

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
It doesn't really matter if you can see tha fallacy or not, or indeed if it is there or not.

There is no fallacy.

The syllogism is in conflict with your own paradigm, if viewed from that, since the premise that "you" are made (entirely) of matter is not within your paradigm.

How?

From the "materialistic" (or whatever you call it) paradigm, the conclusion is right, but the materialistic notion of TLOP does not imply determinism.

ahhh?

[wraith]

Originally posted by Upchurch
If that were all that you were saying, you would be correct. But it isn't. As mentioned before you are saying that because atoms don't have free will nothing made of matter has free will. Therein lies the fallacy, since the one does not necessarily mean the other, unless you can show otherwise.

Atoms obey TLOP
Things made up of atoms obey TLOP
Im made up of atoms
Therefore I obey TLOP

With this in mind, how do you even get your free-will? You said it yourself that it's correct.

The above conclusion and free-will are mutually exclusive.

How does having consciousness give the right of way over TLOP?
It's pretty much an argument for solipsism.

Even if TLOP isn't deterministic, you're still obeying random TLOP are you not?


By the way, I am touched that you included me into your hall of quotes hahaha

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by wraith

There is no fallacy.Oh, well. I'm convinced...

(clue for the clueless: that was sarcasm. Now would be an excellent time for you to point out how it logically follows that because individual atoms don't have free will, humans can't have free will.)
ahhh? articulate as ever.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by wraith

Atoms obey TLOP
Things made up of atoms obey TLOP
Im made up of atoms
Therefore I obey TLOP

With this in mind, how do you even get your free-will? You said it yourself that it's correct.You are assuming that the laws of physics excludes the possibility of free will. I don't know that it does or doesn't. Can you validate this assumption?
The above conclusion and free-will are mutually exclusive.

{snip}

Even if TLOP isn't deterministic, you're still obeying random TLOP are you not?How are the laws of physics, which at its roots are probabilistic, mutally exclusive from free will and how do you know this?

[wraith]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Oh, well. I'm convinced...

(clue for the clueless: that was sarcasm. Now would be an excellent time for you to point out how it logically follows that because individual atoms don't have free will, humans can't have free will.)

What do you think that I've been saying in the past couple of posts?!

bah...whatever helps you sleep at night eh?

articulate as ever.

Well elaborate woman!

You are assuming that the laws of physics excludes the possibility of free will. I don't know that it does or doesn't. Can you validate this assumption?

Assuming? That’s a negative. If the conclusion stands that I obey TLOP, just how can free-will exist?
Does anything that is non-conscious get to “choose” whatever it ends up doing at a certain point in Time?

The only thing different between a non-conscious and a conscious entity is that the conscious entity perceives their actions.

Again, how does being conscious give you the right of way over TLOP? In other words, how does it give you free-will?

The closest thing that you can get to having free-will is if solipsism was True. Even then, I don’t see that as having free-will.

wraith: Even if TLOP isn't deterministic, you're still obeying random TLOP are you not?

Upchurch: How are the laws of physics, which at its roots are probabilistic, mutally exclusive from free will and how do you know this?

For the reasons given above.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by wraith


What do you think that I've been saying in the past couple of posts?!you've been saying There is no fallacy.
Im sorry, but there is no fallacy here
Then you have a chain argument that flows. So if you have a problem with the conclusion, which premis is false?
When there is a fallacy, you can explain what the error is. So what's the error? You can't just cruise along and say, "It's the fallacy of composition," and say no more.Doesn't really explain why it doesn't fit the fallacy of composition, does it?
Assuming? That’s a negative. If the conclusion stands that I obey TLOP, just how can free-will exist? So, because you don't know the answer, you assume it doesn't exist?

...interesting

[Ossai]

Franko
because unless you created your own existence, than whatever created (programmed) you in the first place would be ultimately responsible for your ultimate Destiny. Then I can go out and rape and murder all I want and I'm completely blameless.

All of your actions are preprogrammed so that you cannot do ANYTHING except to work for rewards while trying to avoid punishment. False statement, easily proven false, go ask a teenage suicide.

So in other words, your actions Today are determined by what happened in the past. That is called determinism, or Fate. Exactly how specific are you being when you say actions?
1 All actions?
2 Most actions? Which brand of toothpaste to buy level.
3 Important actions? Which brand of car to buy. (more of a long term effect)
4 Life altering actions? Get drunk then drive home, or go home first then get drunk.
5 No actions?

Ohhh no my little Atheist friend, I am simply assuming your foundational premises for the sake of argument, and then following them to their natural conclusion. Bad form. Propose an alternative.

On free will: it doesn't matter. If free will does not exist then everything is predetermined and unchangeable so whether or not we believe makes no difference and we continue on as normal. If free will does exist then we continue on as normal. The only benefit of believing a higher power, god, TLOP, Unicron, etc exists is to escape responsibility at our (human) level.

Ossai

[wraith]

Originally posted by Upchurch
you've been saying There is no fallacy.
Im sorry, but there is no fallacy here
Then you have a chain argument that flows. So if you have a problem with the conclusion, which premis is false?
When there is a fallacy, you can explain what the error is. So what's the error? You can't just cruise along and say, "It's the fallacy of composition," and say no more.Doesn't really explain why it doesn't fit the fallacy of composition, does it?

Did you read anything that I have said or are you just trying to stiff me? :roll:

So, because you don't know the answer, you assume it doesn't exist?

...interesting

No. I'm saying that there is no evidence for free-will and that it can't be described.

Can you be controlled by TLOP and still have free-will? No. Not even if TLOP was random or if you were the source of TLOP and the rest of us were just figments of your imagination.

Maybe you see more of a benefit in those types of universes?

[Upchurch]

Okay, you're just not getting this. Let's try a different tact.

Your argument is that there is a hierarchy of consciousness and complexity. That which is more conscious controls that which is less conscious. It is a top down system. Your traditional example is "TLOP controls YOU controls CAR".

However, your free will argument (i.e. Atoms obey TLOP, etc.) is a bottom up system. Atoms don't have free will, so neither do you.

First of all, this is an internal inconsistency. By the first argument, humans are more conscious and complex than cars and can control control them. In the second argument, humans are no more conscious than atoms, having no more ability than atoms. However, cars are made up of structures of atoms and are, therefore, more complex than atoms. Which means that humans, which can control cars, are more complex than atoms.

In essense, logical deists are saying that humans are as complex as atoms and at the same time more complex than atoms.

Second of all, let us consider the consciousness hierarchy spectrum. At one end we have the Logical Goddess (LG) who is " the 'top graviton', meaning she is omnipotent." At the other end, we have, presumably, atoms. Somewhere in the middle, we have humans.

The LG is omnipotent, meaning that she can control anything. Atoms are, for lack of a better word, non-potent, meaning they can't control anything. Humans, then, being somewhere in between, must have some level of potency, meaning they have some level of control and ability that atoms don't have due to their higher level of consciousness and complexity.

Control, without the will to utilize it, is no control at all. Therefore, in order for humans to have more control than atoms, humans, through whatever mechanism, must have more will than atoms.

So, to conclude, either the consciousness heirarchy is false and your LG is the only thing that is conscious, or the syllogism is false, humans have some amount of consciousness and control, and, humans have some amount of will.

Do you understand the fallacy now?

[Underemployed]

I'm not sure if I'm ready to come out as a Franko-ite yet (Frankite? Frankonian?). I have certainly abandoned any concept of free will.

Ossai said:
Then I can go out and rape and murder all I want and I'm completely blameless.

Yes, in a sweeping, big-picture from-the-perspective-of-the-universe way. But it's bad for human society for individuals to act this way. Since TLOP has determined that your society proscribes these activities, you will be punished if found out, regardless of your position on free will.

Does a lion incur more 'blame' than an Antelope while foraging for food? How about blaming one company for taking market share from its rivals? Or a black hole for bending light?

The universe is full of things, large and small, doing what they do according to TLOP. You ain't no different.

The arguments about superposition and quantum theory are quite interesting. I'm no expert and I shan't pontificate on the matter. I will say that the poster on this forum whose views I most respect, Dr. Stupid, has commented on these aspects of physics and was at pains to point out that the interpretations which Dorian et al are espousing are, at best, simplistic (see ancient threads on Copenhagen interpretations).

[Ossai]

Underemployed

Then I can go out and rape and murder all I want and I'm completely blameless.

Yes, in a sweeping, big-picture from-the-perspective-of-the-universe way. But it's bad for human society for individuals to act this way. Since TLOP has determined that your society proscribes these activities, you will be punished if found out, regardless of your position on free will. But since I’m controlled by TLOP I don’t have a choice, just the illusion of a choice, which is what society would be enforcing with the illusion of punishment. Since only LG controls everything all thing both good and bad are laid at her feet. All Franko has done is replaced a fundie god with his LG.

Ossai

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

42

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by wraith


There is no fallacy.



How?



ahhh? A typical deep Wraith reply :rolleyes: .
Where does the quy get it from?

But it's my own fault. I broke my own rule: Never try to debate with "Wraith".
:hit:

Hans

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch

So, to conclude, either the consciousness heirarchy is false and your LG is the only thing that is conscious, or the syllogism is false, humans have some amount of consciousness and control, and, humans have some amount of will.


Hmm, you mean you agree "materialism (that is the choice only body exists) makes no sense."? About time.


As someone asked previously, "Do you understand the fallacy now?". :D

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

{usual BS} :rub:
hammegk, we're talking about the flaws in Franko/wraith's reasoning. If you have something you want to talk about materialism, start a thread.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch
hammegk, we're talking about the flaws in Franko/wraith's reasoning. If you have something you want to talk about materialism, start a thread.

Actually, "we" are discussing "Fatalism & consequences"; you are babbling about things that you apparently don't understand the significance of. You're very good at it. Got a link? :(

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk


Actually, "we" are discussing "Fatalism & consequences"; Oh, I see. You were trying to move the thread back to the topic of fatalism by talking about an unrelated third topic, materialism. A very clever reverse-psychology ploy. Thank you for that.

:rub:

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch
...A very clever reverse-psychology ploy. Thank you for that.



You are welcome, but are you *sure* you don't have a (meaningless) link? :D

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

are you *sure* you don't have a (meaningless) link? :D Well, okay.

Here's one (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870166140#post1870166140), another (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870166059#post1870166059), and the most meaningless one of all (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870165160#post1870165160).

If you want totally worthless, I recomend this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=163416).

edited to add: are we done covering for the sock puppet now?

[Samus]

Originally posted by hammegk
Actually, "we" are discussing "Fatalism & consequences" At least, we were discussing that... ;)

Actually, Upchurch's post was relevant. If we don't have free will, if TLOP completely control us, then fatalism is true. If, on the other hand, one can discount Frank's argument based on its inherent inconsistency, then one might be able to pose (again) the question of whether a fatalistic system is logical and plausible...

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
At least, we were discussing that... ;)Sorry about that.
Actually, Upchurch's post was relevant. If we don't have free will, if TLOP completely control us, then fatalism is true. If, on the other hand, one can discount Frank's argument based on its inherent inconsistency, then one might be able to pose (again) the question of whether a fatalistic system is logical and plausible... Thanks. I just wanted to explicitly add that simply showing Franko's argument's inherent inconsistency does not mean that fatalism is necessarily inconsistant, only that Franko's version/explination of it is. (which I think is what you're saying, but I wanted to be sure)

edited to add: Wraith? Do you see the inconsistancy/fallacy of the argument now?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch
.... I just wanted to explicitly add that simply showing Franko's argument's inherent inconsistency does not mean that fatalism is necessarily inconsistant, only that Franko's version/explination of it is. (which I think is what you're saying, but I wanted to be sure)



Ya know, Uppie, you are almost in the game. Who gives a rat's ass about Franko's inconsistencies or lack thereof? The fatalistic aspect of materialism should be a valid part of the discussion though. ;)

[Samus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I just wanted to explicitly add that simply showing Franko's argument's inherent inconsistency does not mean that fatalism is necessarily inconsistant, only that Franko's version/explination of it is. (which I think is what you're saying, but I wanted to be sure) Yes, that is what I was aiming for. The thread started specifically with the question of whether fatalism implies a lack of consequences for one's actions. Franko's version was used as a starting point.

[Samus]

Originally posted by hammegk
Who gives a rat's ass about Franko's inconsistencies or lack thereof? Well, considering Franko was an original player in this thread (and the catalyst for it), I'd say I give a rat's ass about it.

Originally posted by hammegk
The fatalistic aspect of materialism should be a valid part of the discussion though. hmmm, what do you mean by this? I confess that I haven't read many of your posts, so if you've already explained how materialism is fatalistic, please post a link.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Okay, you're just not getting this. Let's try a different tact.

No Church, I am getting it ;)

Your argument is that there is a hierarchy of consciousness and complexity. That which is more conscious controls that which is less conscious. It is a top down system. Your traditional example is "TLOP controls YOU controls CAR".

However, your free will argument (i.e. Atoms obey TLOP, etc.) is a bottom up system. Atoms don't have free will, so neither do you.

First of all, this is an internal inconsistency. By the first argument, humans are more conscious and complex than cars and can control control them. In the second argument, humans are no more conscious than atoms, having no more ability than atoms. However, cars are made up of structures of atoms and are, therefore, more complex than atoms. Which means that humans, which can control cars, are more complex than atoms.

In essense, logical deists are saying that humans are as complex as atoms and at the same time more complex than atoms.

Church, this is complete wishy washy talk. Oh, and when did I ever say that humans are no more conscious than atoms? The syllogism doesn't even imply that conclusion.

What is "cars are more complex than atoms" meant to mean?

Second of all, let us consider the consciousness hierarchy spectrum. At one end we have the Logical Goddess (LG) who is " the 'top graviton', meaning she is omnipotent." At the other end, we have, presumably, atoms. Somewhere in the middle, we have humans.

The LG is omnipotent, meaning that she can control anything. Atoms are, for lack of a better word, non-potent, meaning they can't control anything. Humans, then, being somewhere in between, must have some level of potency, meaning they have some level of control and ability that atoms don't have due to their higher level of consciousness and complexity.

It seems to me that you're talking about a Soul? If you're talking about some sort of "force" that manifests due to the complexity of the arangement of atoms ie. consciousness, then why does consciousness equate to having free-will? From what I can see, your actions are based on how you interpret the past.

You're not saying that you're more complex than TLOP are you? You're sounding like a believer in Solipsism?

Control, without the will to utilize it, is no control at all. Therefore, in order for humans to have more control than atoms, humans, through whatever mechanism, must have more will than atoms.

Again,how does having consciousness equate to having free-will?
To perceive doesn't imply to have free-will.

And again, you say "to have more will than atoms". In other words, you're saying "to have more will than TLOP"?
Solipsism yet again?

So, to conclude, either the consciousness heirarchy is false and your LG is the only thing that is conscious, or the syllogism is false, humans have some amount of consciousness and control, and, humans have some amount of will.

Im not saying that I don't have "will". I have the will to go and type this post. However "free-will" as you use the term, means that you do things without a cause. I don't see that as being logical.
In Fate/Determinism, I do see logic in ones actions.

Do you understand the fallacy now? [/B]

No ;)

[wraith]

Originally posted by Underemployed
I'm not sure if I'm ready to come out as a Franko-ite yet (Frankite? Frankonian?). I have certainly abandoned any concept of free will.

Ossai said:


Yes, in a sweeping, big-picture from-the-perspective-of-the-universe way. But it's bad for human society for individuals to act this way. Since TLOP has determined that your society proscribes these activities, you will be punished if found out, regardless of your position on free will.

Does a lion incur more 'blame' than an Antelope while foraging for food? How about blaming one company for taking market share from its rivals? Or a black hole for bending light?

The universe is full of things, large and small, doing what they do according to TLOP. You ain't no different.

The arguments about superposition and quantum theory are quite interesting. I'm no expert and I shan't pontificate on the matter. I will say that the poster on this forum whose views I most respect, Dr. Stupid, has commented on these aspects of physics and was at pains to point out that the interpretations which Dorian et al are espousing are, at best, simplistic (see ancient threads on Copenhagen interpretations).

Yes, that's exactly right. You act exactly in accordance to your nature (WHO YOU ARE).

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
A typical deep Wraith reply :rolleyes: .
Where does the quy get it from?

But it's my own fault. I broke my own rule: Never try to debate with "Wraith".
:hit:

Hans

Move along Hans. There are enough clowns here :rolleyes:

[MRC_Hans]

"Send in the clowns--- don't bother, they're here."

Nah, Wraithie, the fun is too good.

Hans

[Samus]

Originally posted by wraith
Church, this is complete wishy washy talk. Oh, and when did I ever say that humans are no more conscious than atoms? The syllogism doesn't even imply that conclusion. You have said (at least, Franko has said, although I'm well enough convinced you're the same person) that people obey the same rules atoms do. People have no more ability to "control their destiny" if you will than the atoms do. So, you have indeed said that humans are no more conscious than atoms. At the same time, you've said that humans can control atoms (or cars, as it were).

[wraith]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
You have said (at least, Franko has said, although I'm well enough convinced you're the same person) that people obey the same rules atoms do. People have no more ability to "control their destiny" if you will than the atoms do.

How so? There is no escaping Fate. It's through Fate that grants control.

So, you have indeed said that humans are no more conscious than atoms.

Where?

At the same time, you've said that humans can control atoms (or cars, as it were).

I can control a car?
Yeah, thanks for that :rolleyes:

[MRC_Hans]

When did internal contradictions ever stop Franko/Wraith? His whole cosmology is crawling with them, and his general communication is too. The Wraith handle holds the all-time record of stating a total self-contradiction in a single four-word sentence:

"I make fated choices"

And Wraith is very definitely Franko's sockpuppet. In the unlikely event that he is actually a different physical person, that does not make him less a sockpuppet, just an infinitely more pathetic one.

Clowns - yeh.

Hans

[Samus]

Originally posted by wraith
How so? There is no escaping Fate. It's through Fate that grants control. Come again? Fate takes control out of my hands, can you perhaps expound on what you mean here?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

Ya know, Uppie, you are almost in the game.
Whereas you're not even in the parking lot. :rub: Please do try to keep up.
Who gives a rat's *** about Franko's inconsistencies or lack thereof? The fatalistic aspect of materialism should be a valid part of the discussion though. Are you so obsessed with your anti-materialism facination that you can see nothing else? As Commander Cool pointed out, this thread started out as a discussion of Franko's philosophy, specifially the fatalism vs. accountability issue. I'm pointing out how Franko's derivation of fatalism (the first part of the issue at hand) is extremely weak and inconsistant.

As I said before, if you want to discuss your anti-materialism agenda, please start a new thread rather than this constant attempt to hijack and derail this one.

:rub:

(and please watch the language)

[Samus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
As Commander Cool pointed out... I have such a silly username. It just looks funny in a sentence like that.

[/off topic]

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
When did internal contradictions ever stop Franko/Wraith? His whole cosmology is crawling with them, and his general communication is too. The Wraith handle holds the all-time record of stating a total self-contradiction in a single four-word sentence:

"I make fated choices"

Contradiction? No, I don't think so ;)

Like the choices you make when you randomly run red lights?
How often do you wear a dress to work?
I take it that you ask out men?

lol "Free-will"...bah :rolleyes:


And Wraith is very definitely Franko's sockpuppet. In the unlikely event that he is actually a different physical person, that does not make him less a sockpuppet, just an infinitely more pathetic one.

Clowns - yeh.

Hans

That's the second time that you've answered me during your little "never talk to wraith routine". Keep pumping them out Hanny ;)

[wraith]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
Come again? Fate takes control out of my hands, can you perhaps expound on what you mean here?

How so?

It appears to me that your own nature dictates what you do. TLOP simply executes the actions.

You experience something. You either like it or dislike. Your future actions are based on these interpretations.

Wouldn't you say that it's Fate that you stop at the next red light that you come to?

[wraith]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Whereas you're not even in the parking lot. :rub: Please do try to keep up.
Are you so obsessed with your anti-materialism facination that you can see nothing else? As Commander Cool pointed out, this thread started out as a discussion of Franko's philosophy, specifially the fatalism vs. accountability issue. I'm pointing out how Franko's derivation of fatalism (the first part of the issue at hand) is extremely weak and inconsistant.

As I said before, if you want to discuss your anti-materialism agenda, please start a new thread rather than this constant attempt to hijack and derail this one.

:rub:

(and please watch the language)

...hand weaving continues...

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Are you so obsessed with your anti-materialism facination that you can see nothing else?
Nope. The obsession I see here is you worrying about Franko's sylligism rather than about what might be truth.


(and please watch the language)
Er, Funk Off. ;)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by wraith
Church, this is complete wishy washy talk. Oh, and when did I ever say that humans are no more conscious than atoms? The syllogism doesn't even imply that conclusion.It doesn't? How then does it imply that humans don't have free will? What is the significance of "atoms" in the syllogism? Atoms are less complex than humans and therefore have less consciousness than humans, why compare them to humans?
What is "cars are more complex than atoms" meant to mean?it means exactly what it says. cars are more complex than atoms because cars are an ordered system of atoms.

Off topic, by your reasoning, cars actually have a level of consciousness because they have a level of complexity. hm.
It seems to me that you're talking about a Soul?That was not my intent, but I'm not sure what you mean by "Soul"
From what I can see, your actions are based on how you interpret the past.Interesting. But how do you know that is true and not just an assumption on your part?
You're not saying that you're more complex than TLOP are you? I explicitly said, "Somewhere in the middle [of the spectrum between the laws of physics and atoms], we have humans." I do wish you'd read what I said.
Im not saying that I don't have "will". I have the will to go and type this post. However "free-will" as you use the term, means that you do things without a cause. I don't see that as being logical.[/b]I guess then, I'd have to ask what your definition of "will" is. For example (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=will).

[Samus]

Originally posted by wraith
Wouldn't you say that it's Fate that you stop at the next red light that you come to? I'd say it is my most logical (and safe) option. And it's the law. When a green light turns yellow, whether I choose to stop, or think "nah, I'll make it" isn't necessarily pre-determined. Many factors occuring at the time will influence my decision more than past events.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by wraith


Contradiction? No, I don't think so ;)

Like the choices you make when you randomly run red lights?
How often do you wear a dress to work?
I take it that you ask out men?

lol "Free-will"...bah :rolleyes:

That's the second time that you've answered me during your little "never talk to wraith routine". Keep pumping them out Hanny ;) Ahh, yes the straw men. You could feed a cavallery batallion with those strawmen .. if they weren't so stale. Can't you think of ANYTHING new? No, no, I did not say "don't TALK to Wraith" I said "don't DEBATE with Wraith" ..... You do know the difference, ehhh?


Hans

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I did not say "don't TALK to Wraith" I said "don't DEBATE with Wraith" ..... You do know the difference, ehhh? Trouble is, wraith doesn't debate. Debate requires discussing the points of an argument. All wraith does is say, "nuh-uh" and repeat something that has already been said.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Trouble is, wraith doesn't debate. Debate requires discussing the points of an argument. All wraith does is say, "nuh-uh" and repeat something that has already been said. Ahh! U got it!

I could write a program that reacted more intelligently than Wraith. I actually did once. Think I might match Franko too, heheheh.

Hans

[Acrimonious]

This is why I still do not understood why Franko/Wraith and all accounts with his IP address aren't yet banned.

The posted descriptions of these forums involve discussion.

Repeatedly spouting off disjointed portions of your own jumbled-together & made-up theology, dodging questions, deflecting valid criticism of logical fallacies, and never once considering an alternate viewpoint is definitely not a characteristic of Discussion.

As far as I'm concerned, he doesn't need this forum to worship his (il)Logical Goddess, and it definitely shouldn't be used as his propaganda pulpit.

So how about that Quantum Superposition, Wraith?

[Underemployed]

I have just been reading up quantum weirdness in the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org). Superposition, The Epr Paradox and Bell Inequality - Fascinating stuff!

But pointless in this debate, surely? We may be ultimately unable to predict electron paths with arbitrary certainty, yet - somehow - they manage to traverse those paths anyway. Something is limiting their course. I don't happen to believe it is an all-powerful being, but it's as good a term as any to describe something which clearly governs all observable existence.

[MRC_Hans]

No need to ban. If we'd just ignore. But we cannot, can we, hehehe?

Hans

[wraith]

wraith: Church, this is complete wishy washy talk. Oh, and when did I ever say that humans are no more conscious than atoms? The syllogism doesn't even imply that conclusion.

Church It doesn't? How then does it imply that humans don't have free will?

Just how are you meant to have free-will when you're controlled by TLOP? You can't have both. That's just wishful thinking on your part. Does the orbit of them moon obey TLOP and have free-will?
Does your "orbit" obey TLOP and have free-will? The only difference between you and the moon is that you can perceive what you're doing. That doesn't mean that the rules that your "orbit" takes are any different than that of the moon's when following TLOP.

Besides, you hope to hell that TLOP is random, which somehow, is meant to give you free-will. You and other free-will believers still have to show just why this is so. You're still obeying random TLOP. How randomly do you wear a dress to work? Or should I say:

TLOP is random
I obey TLOP
Therefore, my actions are random and I have free-will.

Or is this the fallacy of composition? LOL

What is the significance of "atoms" in the syllogism? Atoms are less complex than humans and therefore have less consciousness than humans, why compare them to humans?

You know, you're the one that keeps yelling out on your tippy toes that I commit the fallacy of composition. Just what in the world do you call what you're doing?

Since you're made of atoms, I think that it's pretty important to have it in the syllogism. :rolleyes:

it means exactly what it says. cars are more complex than atoms because cars are an ordered system of atoms.

So the atoms that make up the car are more complex than the atoms that make up the car?

Off topic, by your reasoning, cars actually have a level of consciousness because they have a level of complexity. hm.

There is complexity among those things that don't perceive you know. Is your house more conscious than your car?

wraith: It seems to me that you're talking about a Soul?

Church: That was not my intent, but I'm not sure what you mean by "Soul"

Soul is You/Consciousness

wraith: From what I can see, your actions are based on how you interpret the past.

Church: Interesting. But how do you know that is true and not just an assumption on your part?

Just take a look at your history. If you had cerial for breakfast are you going to poor some petrol on it?

wraith: You're not saying that you're more complex than TLOP are you?

Church: I explicitly said, "Somewhere in the middle [of the spectrum between the laws of physics and atoms], we have humans." I do wish you'd read what I said.

So what about the atoms that make up you? Those atoms do take orders fromo TLOP do they not?

I guess then, I'd have to ask what your definition of "will" is. For example (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=will).

Yeah, that definition looks pretty sexy.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
I'd say it is my most logical (and safe) option. And it's the law.

Like an algorithm that wants to yield the best outcome possible?

When a green light turns yellow, whether I choose to stop, or think "nah, I'll make it" isn't necessarily pre-determined. Many factors occuring at the time will influence my decision more than past events. [/B]

How is this situation any different than stopping at a red light? Even if this situation had more factors?

You might be late for work and gun the yellow light if you were within a reasonabl distance.

What if there was a cop car right next to you and you saw that he started to slow down. Would you be inclined to speed up to miss the yellow?

What I'm saying is that there are logical reasons behind whatever course of action that you take.

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Ahh, yes the straw men. You could feed a cavallery batallion with those strawmen .. if they weren't so stale. Can't you think of ANYTHING new? No, no, I did not say "don't TALK to Wraith" I said "don't DEBATE with Wraith" ..... You do know the difference, ehhh?


Hans

...diverting attention so that you get the impression that Hans knows what he is talking about... :rolleyes:

[wraith]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Trouble is, wraith doesn't debate. Debate requires discussing the points of an argument. All wraith does is say, "nuh-uh" and repeat something that has already been said.

I take it that if pre-schoolers came up to you and asked how many sides that a square has, I take it that you'll give different answers?

haha knowing you, you probably would :roll:

[wraith]

Originally posted by Acrimonious
This is why I still do not understood why Franko/Wraith and all accounts with his IP address aren't yet banned.

The posted descriptions of these forums involve discussion.

Repeatedly spouting off disjointed portions of your own jumbled-together & made-up theology, dodging questions, deflecting valid criticism of logical fallacies, and never once considering an alternate viewpoint is definitely not a characteristic of Discussion.

As far as I'm concerned, he doesn't need this forum to worship his (il)Logical Goddess, and it definitely shouldn't be used as his propaganda pulpit.

Can't take the heat? Obviously not. Cry somewhere else.

So how about that Quantum Superposition, Wraith?

What about it? Im not a Bohr.

[Samus]

Originally posted by wraith
What I'm saying is that there are logical reasons behind whatever course of action that you take. Most of the time, this is true. Exceptions to the rule include chemical imbalances in the brain, brain damage, etc. Those types of things can cause illogical decisions in seemingly logical circumstances.

What I disagree with is you calling this fatalism. Logical or not, events happen in a fatalistic system because they were destined to. Our ability to understand said fate is irrelevant to the existence of it.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
Most of the time, this is true. Exceptions to the rule include chemical imbalances in the brain, brain damage, etc. Those types of things can cause illogical decisions in seemingly logical circumstances.

True, but it's not an exception. You're still doing things that yield you a benefit. Even if you're insane and you pick up a hammer and smash yourself on the head with it.

What I disagree with is you calling this fatalism. Logical or not, events happen in a fatalistic system because they were destined to.

How is stopping at a red light not due to Fate?

Our ability to understand said fate is irrelevant to the existence of it.

Sorry, I don't follow.

[Max560]

Originally posted by wraith


How is stopping at a red light not due to Fate?



How is stopping at a red light due to fate?

[wraith]

Originally posted by Max560


How is stopping at a red light due to fate?

That's the most perceived benefit at that point in Time.
You do want the best possible chance of survival don't you?

Nice avatar by the way :rolleyes:

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by wraith
That's the most perceived benefit at that point in Time.
You do want the best possible chance of survival don't you? What does your desire for survival or benefit matter? If there is nothing but fate and there is no free will like you claim, then wants and desires are irrelevant as you have no power to act upon them.

:rub:

[Max560]

Originally posted by wraith


That's the most perceived benefit at that point in Time.
You do want the best possible chance of survival don't you?

Nice avatar by the way :rolleyes:

So when someone runs a red light, braking is not the most perceived benefit? Why is Fate contingent on perceived benefit?

[wraith]

Originally posted by Upchurch
What does your desire for survival or benefit matter? If there is nothing but fate and there is no free will like you claim, then wants and desires are irrelevant as you have no power to act upon them.

:rub:

Irrelevent? Your desires manifest as actions in Time. They show who you are. Even God/s is bound to Fate. From where I stand, that's how consciousness works.

You know that if you start running red lights, your chances of survival will decrease. If you desire to increase you chances of survival, then it's only natural for you to stop at red lights. That's Fate. There is no "free-will".

[wraith]

Originally posted by Max560
So when someone runs a red light, braking is not the most perceived benefit?

When you see someone run a red light?

Why is Fate contingent on perceived benefit?

If you want to live and you see a situation where you may die, will you "choose" to engage that situation?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by wraith

Irrelevent? Your desires manifest as actions in Time. They show who you are. Even God/s is bound to Fate. From where I stand, that's how consciousness works.
What desires? If Fate controls all, I don't have any desires of my own, just those that I'm fated to have as dictated and predestined by the laws of physics. That's what fatalism is, right? I thought we're just automotons without any free will.
You know that if you start running red lights, your chances of survival will decrease. If you desire to increase you chances of survival, then it's only natural for you to stop at red lights. That's Fate. There is no "free-will". No. See, not having free will means that we don't have the choice to run or stop at red lights. It doesn't matter what we desire or what we think is best for us. Without free will, we're just puppets on strings. Desire and self preservation have no impact on the outcome of events without the ability to make personal choices.

[Max560]

Originally posted by wraith


When you see someone run a red light?


If you want to live and you see a situation where you may die, will you "choose" to engage that situation?

???

And what exactly do you feel this proves?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by wraith


Your desires manifest as actions in Time.
Please explain.

They show who you are.
Again, further explanation is required.

Even God/s is bound to Fate.
This is going to require a hell of a lot of explaining.

[Acrimonious]

Can't take the heat? Obviously not.

If you describe "heat" as constant, unintelligible blathering, without ever taking into account another's viewpoint (let alone the realities of the world around you), then, no, I cannot take "the heat."

Similarly, I have a hard time rationalizing taking "the heat" from my 3 year old niece, who, like you, is unable to understand that she is not the center of the universe, and "debates" in much the same manner.

She also has a hard time sharing, and lashes out: Cry somewhere else when her parents point out she's being selfish and don't let her have her way.

Thank you, Frankwraith, for demonstrating in totally clear terms that you have no intention of ever involving yourself in discussion. It makes it so much easier to discount your rantings as irrational evangelism.

[wraith]

wraith: Irrelevent? Your desires manifest as actions in Time. They show who you are. Even God/s is bound to Fate. From where I stand, that's how consciousness works.

Church: What desires? If Fate controls all, I don't have any desires of my own, just those that I'm fated to have as dictated and predestined by the laws of physics. That's what fatalism is, right? I thought we're just automotons without any free will.

If God created us and if the desires that we feel and the subsequent actions that arise from those desires, were "prgrammed" by God, then I would have some serious words with God if something happened that pissed me right off (if and only if there wasn't a greater good).

If God didn't create you, then I see TLOP as a way of running my "program" - me.


No. See, not having free will means that we don't have the choice to run or stop at red lights. It doesn't matter what we desire or what we think is best for us. Without free will, we're just puppets on strings. Desire and self preservation have no impact on the outcome of events without the ability to make personal choices.

You act on desires/emotions right? Your desire to stop at red light will manifest through your actions. If you apply your breaks when approaching a red light then you're acting on your desire to stop at a red light because you perceive a benefit in doing so.

If you want to live, then you wont run the red light. There is no free-will. You simply wont run a red light if you perceive no benefit in doing so, which is what free-will seems to imply.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Max560


???

And what exactly do you feel this proves?

It shows that free-will is meaningless.

[wraith]

wraith: Your desires manifest as actions in Time.

Cats: Please explain.

You don't want to run a red light, so you apply your breaks.

wraith: They show who you are.

Cats: Again, further explanation is required.

Kill someone for no reason, then I would say that you're a bit of a looney.

wraith: Even God/s is bound to Fate.

Cats: This is going to require a hell of a lot of explaining.

If God wanted to stop at a red light and He/She didn't perceive a benefit in running it, then is He/She going to run the red light?

[wraith]

Originally posted by Acrimonious
If you describe "heat" as constant, unintelligible blathering, without ever taking into account another's viewpoint (let alone the realities of the world around you), then, no, I cannot take "the heat."

Similarly, I have a hard time rationalizing taking "the heat" from my 3 year old niece, who, like you, is unable to understand that she is not the center of the universe, and "debates" in much the same manner.

Centre of the Universe huh? haha
...gee wiz...do continue...

She also has a hard time sharing, and lashes out: when her parents point out she's being selfish and don't let her have her way.

Thank you, Frankwraith, for demonstrating in totally clear terms that you have no intention of ever involving yourself in discussion. It makes it so much easier to discount your rantings as irrational evangelism.

Well don't just sit there. Say something.

[Dancing David]

Bump.

There is another spin to fatalism as well.

Fatalism can have shaded meaning as well, and not be totaly determined.

There is a quote allegedly from the greeks
"Character is fate"

and I think that this means , given the nature of a human, they are more likely to make certain choices than others. And this is part of fatalism.

I believe in partial free will, in that people can make choices in a given moment but they may have inner determinants(character) which make them more likely to make certain choices rather than others. So in a probable-istic sense they are going to follow a certain course if they just follow thier inner determinants and don't exercise thier freedom of choice.

So there are the inner determinants and they are very imporatnt but they are not totaly deterministic because of the ability to choose. Take substance abuse, while a person may have a number of inner determinants (biological predisposition, internal conflict leading to hiding, cognitive habits and behavioral habits), they can chose to try to alter thier course. Some do so succesfuly and some decide not to. But they can chose in the moment to go against the flow of those inner determinants and try to avoid substance abuse.

The second pasrt of fatalism is that there are also the external dterminants which influence a person's behavior as well.

So I would argue that fatalism is also a grayscale and that you can have a general probabilty of a course but that the course(fate) can be altered.

Fatalism is also the expression of the fact that every thing dies.

[Dancing David]

Quote by Frankenwriath

If you want to live, then you wont run the red light. There is no free-will. You simply wont run a red light if you perceive no benefit in doing so, which is what free-will seems to imply.


end quote

And this points out a tiny fallacy in the logic of the car and humans in the first place.

A human being will frequently run the red light when they feel that there wil not be a consequence. People do it all the time, and in fact they are more likely to do so at certain times than others.

This is very different from an electron, it can not chose to run a red light in violation of TLOP>TWTA.

Free will implies not a totality of freedom but that there is an amount of wiggle room, and while the smaller cause may be deterministic, they sure seem to be pobable-istic, and so it would be very easy for some aggregate bodies to make a variety of choices.

One large body, an asteroid may not be able to choose it's orbit.
A smaller body may chose to apply the brakes and stop, or it may cose to not apply the brakes.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Bump.

There is another spin to fatalism as well.

Fatalism can have shaded meaning as well, and not be totaly determined.

There is a quote allegedly from the greeks
"Character is fate"

and I think that this means , given the nature of a human, they are more likely to make certain choices than others. And this is part of fatalism.

I believe in partial free will, in that people can make choices in a given moment but they may have inner determinants(character) which make them more likely to make certain choices rather than others. So in a probable-istic sense they are going to follow a certain course if they just follow thier inner determinants and don't exercise thier freedom of choice.

Yo!

I take it that you believe in Fate to some degree, at the same time, have some sort of free-will. I see where you're coming from, but for me, I am a total fatalist.

True what you said above, in relation to the nature of a person has great factor in what course of action they take.

For example, if I went up to a person who was a "book work" and I punched him in the face, he is more likely to shy out and back away.

Whereas, if I smacked a street punk, he would more likely put up a fight.

So there are the inner determinants and they are very imporatnt but they are not totaly deterministic because of the ability to choose. Take substance abuse, while a person may have a number of inner determinants (biological predisposition, internal conflict leading to hiding, cognitive habits and behavioral habits), they can chose to try to alter thier course. Some do so succesfuly and some decide not to. But they can chose in the moment to go against the flow of those inner determinants and try to avoid substance abuse.

This is where, I think, that our beliefs start to divergea bit.

Even though a drunk has all those inner determinants, as you described above, that person's decision to avoid drinking can still be traced back to those inner determinants. That's why some can escape substance abuse and others can not.

The second pasrt of fatalism is that there are also the external dterminants which influence a person's behavior as well.

True. But that obtained information (external determinants) would still have to pass the internal determinants (you) to yield an outcome.

So I would argue that fatalism is also a grayscale and that you can have a general probabilty of a course but that the course(fate) can be altered.

I would say probable due to the limited amount of information that I may have to any given person. But ultimately, whatever outcome occurs, it can be logically explained by the prior emotions/desires that the person had at the time.

Fatalism is also the expression of the fact that every thing dies.

Unless you're immortal ;)

[wraith]

wraith: If you want to live, then you wont run the red light. There is no free-will. You simply wont run a red light if you perceive no benefit in doing so, which is what free-will seems to imply.

Dancing Dave: And this points out a tiny fallacy in the logic of the car and humans in the first place.

A human being will frequently run the red light when they feel that there wil not be a consequence. People do it all the time, and in fact they are more likely to do so at certain times than others.

Yes, but if a person runs a red light, it's because he/she didn't see it or a benefit was perceived.

This is very different from an electron, it can not chose to run a red light in violation of TLOP>TWTA.

Free will implies not a totality of freedom but that there is an amount of wiggle room, and while the smaller cause may be deterministic, they sure seem to be pobable-istic, and so it would be very easy for some aggregate bodies to make a variety of choices.

Wouldn't one's actions still be based on their inner determinants?

One large body, an asteroid may not be able to choose it's orbit.

A smaller body may chose to apply the brakes and stop, or it may cose to not apply the brakes.

Depending on the situation at the time....

[Dancing David]

My response would be that those inner determinants are probable-istic and so each situation will get a similar but perhaps differing response.

The human brain is complex and has a great deal of chance built into it, so that is where fate and choice meet. A human can alter it's inner determinants to some extent.

[MRC_Hans]

Non-determinism can be proved. Which is the downfall of fatalism.

Hans

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by wraith


If God created us and if the desires that we feel and the subsequent actions that arise from those desires, were "prgrammed" by God, then I would have some serious words with God if something happened that pissed me right off (if and only if there wasn't a greater good).Well, that is what fatalism and lack of free-will means: being nothting but a puppet on strings.
If you want to live, then you wont run the red light.If fatalism, absolute determinism, and/or "no free-will" were true, it in no way matters what your personal opinion is. God (or whatever you want to call it) has already decided whether or not you are going to run that red light. Further, your opinion of whether you "want" to live is merely a pre-programmed reaction. There is no choice. There is no decision. Your personal prefences, assuming they exist, can make absolutely no impact on what occurs.

I would have thought you would have understood that since you've been arguing for this for so long.

[Max560]

Originally posted by wraith


It shows that free-will is meaningless.

No it doesn't.

[Max560]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Well, that is what fatalism and lack of free-will means: being nothting but a puppet on strings.
If fatalism, absolute determinism, and/or "no free-will" were true, it in no way matters what your personal opinion is. God (or whatever you want to call it) has already decided whether or not you are going to run that red light. Further, your opinion of whether you "want" to live is merely a pre-programmed reaction. There is no choice. There is no decision. Your personal prefences, assuming they exist, can make absolutely no impact on what occurs.

I would have thought you would have understood that since you've been arguing for this for so long.

From an evolutionary standpoint, if fatalism is correct, why would the trait of believing in free will be selected for? It seems to me that consciousness would not even be required if we are puppets on strings.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Dancing David
My response would be that those inner determinants are probable-istic and so each situation will get a similar but perhaps differing response.

The human brain is complex and has a great deal of chance built into it, so that is where fate and choice meet. A human can alter it's inner determinants to some extent.

Back to the example of the book worm and the street hardcore, if I punched the street kid in the face, he may or may not fight back within those conditions? If he didn't fight back, wouldn't that be a change of his nature?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Max560


From an evolutionary standpoint, if fatalism is correct, why would the trait of believing in free will be selected for? It seems to me that consciousness would not even be required if we are puppets on strings. Dang it, Max. With that avitar, I thought you were Franko. I thought he had just made a breakthrough in actual logic. I was genuinely excited and interested about a Franko post.

Shoulda known better.

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Non-determinism can be proved. Which is the downfall of fatalism.

Hans

Yeah...
Knowledge of QM is so complete....
So when do you randomly run red lights Hans?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by wraith

Yeah...
Knowledge of QM is so complete....
So when do you randomly run red lights hans? Ah, yes. Argument from ignorance. A classic.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Well, that is what fatalism and lack of free-will means: being nothting but a puppet on strings.

...in other words, you don't comprehend it?

I'm just wondering, how many times have you run a red light at a busy intersection?

If fatalism, absolute determinism, and/or "no free-will" were true, it in no way matters what your personal opinion is. God (or whatever you want to call it) has already decided whether or not you are going to run that red light.

It's still your algorithm that's running ie. You're the one that's perceiving the red light.

Further, your opinion of whether you "want" to live is merely a pre-programmed reaction. There is no choice. There is no decision. Your personal prefences, assuming they exist, can make absolutely no impact on what occurs.

If you want to live and you perceive that running a red light is not beneficial, then you won't run it. If God specifically made you and "installed" the "stop at red lights" program within your consciousness, then you're just doing what God made you do.

What if God didn't make you? You're following your own Fate.

I would have thought you would have understood that since you've been arguing for this for so long.

ahhh something like that :rolleyes:

So, just what is your evidence for free-will Uppy?

[wraith]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Ah, yes. Argument from ignorance. A classic.

Well, why don't you answer the question.
When do you randomly run red lights?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by wraith

Well, why don't you answer the question.
When do you randomly run red lights? I've randomly run a stop sign before. Does that count?

It is your misunderstanding of the concepts of both fatalism and free-will that have led you to this believing that this is a valid question/test for fatalism v. free-will.

Why don't you answer this question: In a fatalistic/deterministic world, how can anyone act on their perceptions, wants, and desires since there is no mechanism to do so?

[wraith]

Originally posted by Max560
From an evolutionary standpoint, if fatalism is correct, why would the trait of believing in free will be selected for?

If "no-God" is correct, why would the trait of believing in God/s be selected for?

It seems to me that consciousness would not even be required if we are puppets on strings.

Really? It appears to me that you're actions are following a pattern - algorithmic if you will.

If you want to live, then you stop at a red lights. Your actions are a manifestation of your beliefs/desires/emotions are they not?

How do you obtain free-will besides wishful thinking? You certainly can't describe it, other than saying, "I choose to," which you think automatically implies "free-will" and that I should accept it.

haha

Next time that you come to a red light at a busy intersection, just say, "I choose to run the red light."

...got the balls? ;)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by wraith

If "no-God" is correct, why would the trait of believing in God/s be selected for?To answer questions about the universe that our ancestors didn't have the means to answer.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I've randomly run a stop sign before. Does that count?

Oh you have? Here we go... :rolleyes:

I bet you randomly have breakfast too? haha

The road wasn't full of cars in the middle of rush hour was it?

It is your misunderstanding of the concepts of both fatalism and free-will that have led you to this believing that this is a valid question/test for fatalism v. free-will.

Are you saying that it isn't? It's you that holds the belief that since TLOP is ultimately random it allows you to have "free-will".

Dare I say "fallacy of composition"?

Why don't you answer this question: In a fatalistic/deterministic world, how can anyone act on their perceptions, wants, and desires since there is no mechanism to do so?

I like to listen to music, so I listen to music. ;)

[wraith]

Originally posted by Upchurch
To answer questions about the universe that our ancestors didn't have the means to answer.

Yet you have the knowledge that spells out the non-existence of God? GEEZ, half this world must be deluded huh? I thought that matter was your Almighty?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by wraith

Are you saying that it isn't? It's you that holds the belief that since TLOP is ultimately random it allows you to have "free-will".Strawman (again). I never said the laws of physics were "ultimately random" and that it is that that allows one to have free-will. I said that it is the random aspects of the laws of physics that disproves determinism. Do please learn the difference.
Dare I say "fallacy of composition"?You shouldn't. What I said isn't. What you said was your invention and nonsensical.
I like to listen to music, so I listen to music. ;) What music do you choose to listen to?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by wraith


Back to the example of the book worm and the street hardcore, if I punched the street kid in the face, he may or may not fight back within those conditions? If he didn't fight back, wouldn't that be a change of his nature?

Uh, what?

Probability says that there are likely hoods associated with the street hood. There is a roll of the dice for each of the inner determinants and they contribute to the final die roll.

nature is not destined it is probable, so there can be branches/diversity and similarity/habit.

[wraith]

Strawman (again). I never said the laws of physics were "ultimately random" and that it is that that allows one to have free-will. I said that it is the random aspects of the laws of physics that disproves determinism. Do please learn the difference.

Oh please. So TLOP is random and deterministic at the same time?

You shouldn't. What I said isn't. What you said was your invention and nonsensical.

Again, you have no basis to say that you have "free-will" other than wishful thinking?

What music do you choose to listen to?

I like a range of music.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Uh, what?

Probability says that there are likely hoods associated with the street hood. There is a roll of the dice for each of the inner determinants and they contribute to the final die roll.

nature is not destined it is probable, so there can be branches/diversity and similarity/habit.

Just say that you want to live and you approached a red light at a busy intersection. How can you say that you may run the red light, based on your current perception (ie. running the red light is non-benefical)?

[Max560]

Originally posted by wraith


If "no-God" is correct, why would the trait of believing in God/s be selected for?



Really? It appears to me that you're actions are following a pattern - algorithmic if you will.

If you want to live, then you stop at a red lights. Your actions are a manifestation of your beliefs/desires/emotions are they not?

How do you obtain free-will besides wishful thinking? You certainly can't describe it, other than saying, "I choose to," which you think automatically implies "free-will" and that I should accept it.

haha

Next time that you come to a red light at a busy intersection, just say, "I choose to run the red light."

...got the balls? ;)

Does this stuff actually sound smart in your head before you post it? If so, you should know that it really loses something once it gets onto this forum.

Arguing with a wingnut can be described in the same way that philosopher Ronald de Sousa once described philosophical theology, "intellectual tennis without a net". Typically the wingnut wants to play with the net of rational thought down for his serves and volleys, but wants the net up for all of your returns. He wants to essentially be able to make any baseless calim he wants, but fully expects you to play by the rules, and justify all of your points.

Wraith/Franko, we are playing intellectual tennis with the net up for our volleys, and down for yours. The only difference is that we are ready to play, and you are in your court feverishly doing rhythmic gymnastics. When we are less than impressed with your display, you somehow interpret this as you winning the game.

How about playing the game for real, with the net up for both sides.

...got the balls?

quick grammar edit

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by wraith


Just say that you want to live and you approached a red light at a busy intersection. How can you say that you may run the red light, based on your current perception (ie. running the red light is non-benefical)?

That is a silly question in responsew to the line of reasoning, I responded to. Oh well.

What is the probablity that i am suicidal, impaired or not paying attention.

say did you know that people run red lights and have accidents all the time.

can an electron do that?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by wraith

Oh please. So TLOP is random and deterministic at the same time?

Again, you have no basis to say that you have "free-will" other than wishful thinking?
More strawman. I never said the laws of physics were deterministic. I never said anything about wishful thinking. You don't even really need me for this coversation, do you? You're only talking to your imaginary version of me.
I like a range of music.Yes, but what do you choose to listen to?

[wraith]

Originally posted by Max560
Does this stuff actually sound smart in your head before you post it? If so, you should know that it really loses something once it gets onto this forum.

Arguing with a wingnut can be described in the same way that philosopher Ronald de Sousa once described philosophical theology, "intellectual tennis without a net". Typically the wingnut wants to play with the net of rational thought down for his serves and volleys, but wants the net up for all of your returns. He wants to essentially be able to make any baseless calim he wants, but fully expects you to play by the rules, and justify all of your points.

Wraith/Franko, we are playing intellectual tennis with the net up for our volleys, and down for yours. The only difference is that we are ready to play, and you are in your court feverishly doing rhythmic gymnastics. When we are less than impressed with your display, you somehow interpret this as you winning the game.

How about playing the game for real, with the net up for both sides.

...got the balls?

quick grammar edit

Fine. If you don't want to answer the question, then don't answer it.

Just because you rant on (smoke screening in progress) in the hope that you know what you're talking about, then be my guest. :rolleyes:

[wraith]

Originally posted by Dancing David
That is a silly question in responsew to the line of reasoning, I responded to. Oh well.

Thanks ;)

What is the probablity that i am suicidal, impaired or not paying attention.

With the information that I'm given, I would say, "...fairly low."

say did you know that people run red lights and have accidents all the time.

Yep, but it's generally because that they didn't see the red light or it was their intention to do so.

can an electron do that?

The traffic light would have to be pretty small. :rolleyes:

[wraith]

Originally posted by Upchurch
More strawman. I never said the laws of physics were deterministic. I never said anything about wishful thinking. You don't even really need me for this coversation, do you? You're only talking to your imaginary version of me.

Oh come on!

Church, you said this:

Strawman (again). I never said the laws of physics were "ultimately random" and that it is that that allows one to have free-will. I said that it is the random aspects of the laws of physics that disproves determinism. Do please learn the difference.

You're saying that one aspect of TLOP is random.
So what's the nature of the other aspect of TLOP?

Yes, but what do you choose to listen to?

If I was to play some music now, I would "choose" something by Stuck Mojo haha. Heard of them?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by wraith


Yeah...
Knowledge of QM is so complete....
So when do you randomly run red lights Hans?

Complete enough to demonstrate acausal events.

I never run red lights randomly because I chose not to.

Hans

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Complete enough to demonstrate acausal events.

Well that's reassuring. All this research on QM may aswell cease eh?

I never run red lights randomly because I chose not to.

That's because your emotions are telling you "don't die, so don't run red lights". As long as this "program" is running throughout your mind, you will never run red lights (while in that state of mind and in that type of situation).

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by wraith

Well that's reassuring. All this research on QM may aswell cease eh?

Why?



That's because your emotions are telling you "don't die, so don't run red lights". As long as this "program" is running throughout your mind, you will never run red lights (while in that state of mind and in that type of situation).

Well, I never said it was a hard decision. :rolleyes:

Hans

[wraith]

Why?

With the information known about QM and to say that it's ultimately random/acausal is the biggest con job in the world!
Im still with Einstein on this one.

Well, I never said it was a hard decision.

Yeah, but you did say that you had "free-will" :roll:

[Dancing David]

Wraith:

Causal is different from determined. When I asked about the red light for the electron I was asking if an electron can chose to violate TLOP?

And then there is the biology of the brain :

The brain is not deterministic in the way that a computer is, if you give a computer a set of instructions, you can determine the outcome. You can trace the progess of the algorithims with a very high degeree of certainty. Unless you include the random allocation of memory it is basicaly a determined system with a known outcome. You can say that the fate of the computer is determined.

Not so with the human brain, if a single neuron fires is not as cut and dried as a bit switching on/off. Neurons have a large number of cross conections, some attenuate and some potentiate the recieving neuron. It is all very probability based. If a neuron potentiates a recieving neuron, each time that neuron activates following potentiation , is is more probable that it will be potentaited by that neuron in the future. But if the neuron fires with out the potentiating signal then that probability decreases. The same for attenuation, if a neuron has a repressive role on the recieving neuron, and it sends it's signal and the recieving neuron doesn't fire then there is a higher probability of atteuation in the furture. And again that can change as well.

So think about a single neuron, it recieves some signals saying it should fire and some other signals saying it shouldn't fire. How does it fire, through probability,if it just fied it has a very low probability of firing, if it fired recently it is more likely to fire, if the probability of firing from the potentiating signals is higher than the probability of not firing from the repressive signals, then it is more likely to fire. It is not determined that it will fire it is just more likely.

Now this goes into the way neural networks work, they potentiate and attenuate each other, and up through the structures of the brain. So you can have brain events that have a very high likely hood of occuring and other brain events that have a very low likely hood of occuring. But they are probable in nature.

They are probable not determined, then you factor in the fact that cognition itself can alter the probabilities and viola, something akin to free will.

You can't violate the laws of nature but you can have a probability of something happening.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by wraith

With the information known about QM and to say that it's ultimately random/acausal is the biggest con job in the world!

And who said that? Do you deny that acausal functions can be proved?

Im still with Einstein on this one.

I'm sure he is pleased.

Yeah, but you did say that you had "free-will" :roll:

Yep.

Hans

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Dancing David
And then there is the biology of the brain :
Very interesting post. Biology has never been my forte, nor very interesting to me, but this has me curious. Do you have a background in biology? Can you recommend a site that explains what you're talking about in more detail?

[Loki]

wraith,

So really, what you're saying is ...

Premise 1 : "Randomly" running a red light is a "non-determined" act
Premise 2 : No one ever "randomly" runs a red light.
Conclusion: Therefore, "non-determined" acts don't exist.

Any idea what's wrong here? Even if I grant you the second premise, can you guess what the objection to all this might be? I'm not sure exactly how you or I hope to actually establish the truth or otherwise of premise 2 without simply assuming it, but it's not really worth worrying about, since the conclusion fails either way.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dancing David
......
They are probable not determined, then you factor in the fact that cognition itself can alter the probabilities and viola, something akin to free will.


All factual and so far as I know indisputable. But, the question not answered:

Is the neuronal dance you described "akin to free will" or does something I'd characterize as "will" exist apart from the neurons/etc?

Or, from a different slant, can "human consciousness" be an attribute of any Turing machine?

And even more basically, is the "emergent property" we recognize as Terran life just a function of non-living physically objective matter?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Very interesting post. Biology has never been my forte, nor very interesting to me, but this has me curious. Do you have a background in biology? Can you recommend a site that explains what you're talking about in more detail?


No I was a psychology major twice, once when Gerald Ford was President and then finished while Reagan was president. I can't really recomend any good sites but I am sure that they are out there.

Part of the problem is determining if it is the neuron making the choice or the network.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk

All factual and so far as I know indisputable. But, the question not answered:

Is the neuronal dance you described "akin to free will" or does something I'd characterize as "will" exist apart from the neurons/etc?
Sorry Hamme I don't know, I will think if there is a way to test for it.
Or, from a different slant, can "human consciousness" be an attribute of any Turing machine?
[B] I think a machine could emulate consiousness.[B]

And even more basically, is the "emergent property" we recognize as Terran life just a function of non-living physically objective matter?

I would guess so, in that life came from non-life, depends on where you draw the line, but are all things living. I don't know, the animist in me says yes.

[Max560]

Originally posted by wraith


Fine. If you don't want to answer the question, then don't answer it.

Just because you rant on (smoke screening in progress) in the hope that you know what you're talking about, then be my guest. :rolleyes:

Ok, since I don't feel self destructive, I shall choose not to run the red light.

You probably feel that this shows I have no free will, and your arguement probably goes something like this:

Max calims to have free will.

Max states that he won't run the red light, which really means he can't run the red light.

Therefore running the red light is not an option.

Therefore Max has no free will.

I on the other hand, maintain that this is merely evidence that I am not self destructive.

Given this, how many more times do you plan on trotting out the run the red light/jump off a building/harm yourself scenario?

Why don't you ever consider scenarios where either choice is benign? For example, when I drive to work, I can pull out of my parking spot and turn either left or right, and leave the parking lot through one of two exits. which of these two choices is not available to me?

You imply that since my decisions are based on a process (brain activity), that I am a slave to that process and therefore have no free will. In other words, my choices are the product of a deterministic algorithm.

If this is true, then one of my choices in the parking lot example is simply not available. Which one is not available? Tell me that I can't turn left, and I will show you that I can. Tell me I can't turn right, and I will show you that I can. You can try to be clever and lie about which choice is not available, and then claim that you knew which way I was going to turn all along. In this case I can flip a coin before choosing, and demonstrate that over many trials, your ability to show my fate is no better than chance.

If you want to prove there is no free will, you will have to do better than tell me the Material Cause of my actions, and show me that I can't choose, not that I won't choose.

[Dancing David]

Sorry Max560, bout we won't get debate on this topic, because it is faith that drives the Frankenwriath.

If I point to a tree with abroken linm and ash how is it determined that it will fall, the answer is that the limb will fall. It is ccausal in that gravity will cause the limb to fall. But it is not determined that that the limb will fall at a certain time. So it is causal but not determined.

You will notice that if you ask the Wraith if an electron can chose it's parking space then he won't answer.

He basocaly knows that the argument he uses is flawed, it is unknown why he flaunts it and then never counters any of the questions that are asked.

Wraith:

Can an electron chose to run a red light? Can it chose to occupy a shell in an atom that is already filled and violate the pauli Exclusion pPrinciple. Humans in cars do it all the time, it is called collision.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dancing David

....it is not determined that that the limb will fall at a certain time. So it is causal but not determined.

Damn English words.

de·ter·mined
1.Marked by or showing determination; resolute: was engaged in a protracted struggle with a determined enemy.
2.Decided or resolved.

I realize you meant " mathematically precise "; yet, where does Time factor into the deterministics (in your sense) part? Once we have determined that a will follow b, how do we define the correct time interval to bracket the prediction?


Can an electron chose to run a red light? Can it chose to occupy a shell in an atom that is already filled and violate the pauli Exclusion pPrinciple. Humans in cars do it all the time, it is called collision.
Heisenberg implies yes don't you think? Why are your actions more "determined" than those of the electron? Does your wavefunction have infinite (many being 'likely') solutions?

[wraith]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Wraith:

Causal is different from determined. When I asked about the red light for the electron I was asking if an electron can chose to violate TLOP?

And then there is the biology of the brain :

The brain is not deterministic in the way that a computer is, if you give a computer a set of instructions, you can determine the outcome. You can trace the progess of the algorithims with a very high degeree of certainty. Unless you include the random allocation of memory it is basicaly a determined system with a known outcome. You can say that the fate of the computer is determined.

Not so with the human brain, if a single neuron fires is not as cut and dried as a bit switching on/off. Neurons have a large number of cross conections, some attenuate and some potentiate the recieving neuron. It is all very probability based. If a neuron potentiates a recieving neuron, each time that neuron activates following potentiation , is is more probable that it will be potentaited by that neuron in the future. But if the neuron fires with out the potentiating signal then that probability decreases. The same for attenuation, if a neuron has a repressive role on the recieving neuron, and it sends it's signal and the recieving neuron doesn't fire then there is a higher probability of atteuation in the furture. And again that can change as well.

So think about a single neuron, it recieves some signals saying it should fire and some other signals saying it shouldn't fire. How does it fire, through probability,if it just fied it has a very low probability of firing, if it fired recently it is more likely to fire, if the probability of firing from the potentiating signals is higher than the probability of not firing from the repressive signals, then it is more likely to fire. It is not determined that it will fire it is just more likely.

Now this goes into the way neural networks work, they potentiate and attenuate each other, and up through the structures of the brain. So you can have brain events that have a very high likely hood of occuring and other brain events that have a very low likely hood of occuring. But they are probable in nature.

They are probable not determined, then you factor in the fact that cognition itself can alter the probabilities and viola, something akin to free will.

You can't violate the laws of nature but you can have a probability of something happening.

Good detailed post that. However...

As claimed, the brain process of firing neurons is probabilistic. Whether or not TLOP is deterministic or probabilistic (ultimately) is a different matter. But it does fit in to what we are discussing. That is - how does probability equate to having free-will?

Your beliefs manifest as actions. ie the "properties" that your mind/conscious has show as actions. If you want to live, then you will ALWAYS stop at a red light at a busy intersection (because this is the most perceived benefit).

What you perceive as a "benefit" depends on your properties of consciousness eg. shyness, outgoing, short temper, dig hot women etc haha...

The way I see it, your desires/emotions determine your actions....eg. If you don't like eating fish but you like to eat chicken and you went out to dinner to a restaurant that only served fish and chicken, then you will always select chicken (considering only those variables).

The only way that probability can be linked to having free-will is if those desires/emotions that you "carry in your head", vary time to time.

One day you may like fish, then due to probability, you may dislike fish the next day. However, you're actions are still reflecting those beliefs.

The only thing that allows you to get any sort of "free-will" is if you had the ability to change your own desires yourself. Even then, if you had this ability and you decided to change your desires from day to day, you still need the desire to change your desires.

ie. no free-will

[wraith]

wraith: With the information known about QM and to say that it's ultimately random/acausal is the biggest con job in the world!

Hans: And who said that?

I did.

Do you deny that acausal functions can be proved?

I deny TLOP being acausal/random/ultimately probabilistic.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Loki
wraith,

So really, what you're saying is ...

Premise 1 : "Randomly" running a red light is a "non-determined" act
Premise 2 : No one ever "randomly" runs a red light.
Conclusion: Therefore, "non-determined" acts don't exist.

Any idea what's wrong here? Even if I grant you the second premise, can you guess what the objection to all this might be? I'm not sure exactly how you or I hope to actually establish the truth or otherwise of premise 2 without simply assuming it, but it's not really worth worrying about, since the conclusion fails either way.

Assume it? Bah...

How can you randomly run a red light when you have a perceived benefit running through your head?

[wraith]

Originally posted by Max560
Ok, since I don't feel self destructive, I shall choose not to run the red light.

You probably feel that this shows I have no free will, and your arguement probably goes something like this:

Max calims to have free will.

Max states that he won't run the red light, which really means he can't run the red light.

Therefore running the red light is not an option.

Therefore Max has no free will.

I on the other hand, maintain that this is merely evidence that I am not self destructive.

Given this, how many more times do you plan on trotting out the run the red light/jump off a building/harm yourself scenario?

Why don't you ever consider scenarios where either choice is benign? For example, when I drive to work, I can pull out of my parking spot and turn either left or right, and leave the parking lot through one of two exits. which of these two choices is not available to me?

You imply that since my decisions are based on a process (brain activity), that I am a slave to that process and therefore have no free will. In other words, my choices are the product of a deterministic algorithm.

If this is true, then one of my choices in the parking lot example is simply not available. Which one is not available? Tell me that I can't turn left, and I will show you that I can. Tell me I can't turn right, and I will show you that I can. You can try to be clever and lie about which choice is not available, and then claim that you knew which way I was going to turn all along. In this case I can flip a coin before choosing, and demonstrate that over many trials, your ability to show my fate is no better than chance.

How so? Even if you perceived two or more beneficial outcomes that were perceived to be "beneficially equal" that doesn't mean that your algorithm doesn't go through a series of steps that yields the outcome. You are still acting on that desire.

Is "choosing" a real number between 1 and 3 more different than choosing a number between 1 and 4 or 1 and 10000?

Are you saying that the number that you ended up "choosing" is independent of your past?

Yet in the end, you're still left with the problem of how probability allows you to have free-will.

If you want to prove there is no free will, you will have to do better than tell me the Material Cause of my actions, and show me that I can't choose, not that I won't choose.

If you CAN'T choose something, that means that there is always going to be a set outcome. (TLOP being deterministic)

If you WON'T choose something, this seems to me that whatever outcome occured at a certain time was based on probability. If you went back in Time and the exact same conditions were met, a different outcome is possible. You would have to show how probability allows you to have free-will.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Sorry Max560, bout we won't get debate on this topic, because it is faith that drives the Frankenwriath.

Oh no, it's not me that bases personal beliefs on faith ;)

If I point to a tree with abroken linm and ash how is it determined that it will fall, the answer is that the limb will fall. It is ccausal in that gravity will cause the limb to fall. But it is not determined that that the limb will fall at a certain time. So it is causal but not determined.

Well disregarding the fundamental nature of TLOP, you're still left having to explain how probability allows your free-will god to reign.

You will notice that if you ask the Wraith if an electron can chose it's parking space then he won't answer.

He basocaly knows that the argument he uses is flawed, it is unknown why he flaunts it and then never counters any of the questions that are asked.

Sorry, I thought you used this to back up your main argument.

Can an electron chose to run a red light? Can it chose to occupy a shell in an atom that is already filled and violate the pauli Exclusion pPrinciple. Humans in cars do it all the time, it is called collision.

i) Why are you asking me if an electron can run a red light?

ii) Yes, people do run red lights, but that's not to say that there was no logical reason behind it.

[Q-Source]

Damn, wraith is Franko. :eek:

[Loki]

wraith,

How can you randomly run a red light when you have a perceived benefit running through your head?
I've already agreed to concede the second premise (for now) - let's say that we *can't* randomly run a red light when you have a perceived benefit running throuhg your head. So, my question remains...

Premise 1 : "Randomly" running a red light is a "non-determined" act
Premise 2 : You *cannot* "randomly" run a red light.
Conclusion: Therefore, "non-determined" acts don't exist.

Any idea what's wrong here?

[Max560]

Originally posted by wraith


How so? Even if you perceived two or more beneficial outcomes that were perceived to be "beneficially equal" that doesn't mean that your algorithm doesn't go through a series of steps that yields the outcome. You are still acting on that desire.

Is "choosing" a real number between 1 and 3 more different than choosing a number between 1 and 4 or 1 and 10000?

Are you saying that the number that you ended up "choosing" is independent of your past?

Yet in the end, you're still left with the problem of how probability allows you to have free-will.



If you CAN'T choose something, that means that there is always going to be a set outcome. (TLOP being deterministic)

If you WON'T choose something, this seems to me that whatever outcome occured at a certain time was based on probability. If you went back in Time and the exact same conditions were met, a different outcome is possible. You would have to show how probability allows you to have free-will.

So I take it that you can't show that of the two choices that I have, one is impossible for me to make. Oh well, so much for fate.

My choosing is a product of how my brain functions. That includes my subjective past, and all sense data that my brain takes in. That should put an end to your mooing that I am not taking the past into account while choosing.

I say that I have executive control over the decision making process. I don't control it on the micro level (i.e., controling an individual neuron), in the same way that a driver doesn't control an individual spark plug while pressing on the accellerator. I am the one in charge, not the bits that make up the machine and the process.

You want to contend that something called Fate dictates my actions; that my choices are not made, that they are decreed. Well, the proof lies in the product. Tell me which of my two driving options are not available because the big bad Fate machine won't let me. Then watch me defy fate.

You will have to do better than simply appending the phrase "that was your fate" to any of my choices. Don't say it is so, show it is so.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Max560


.....I am the one in charge, not the bits that make up the machine and the process.


Who or what is that "I"? An emergent property? How is that different from goddidit?

A materialist/atheist hates to examine this problem -- and the implications of it on "fate" -- or even admit the question could exist.

Disclaimer: idealism has the same problem with this question of fate vs will.

[Loki]

hammegk,

Who or what is that "I"? An emergent property? How is that different from goddidit?
How is it different? Because if the "emergent I" theory is correct (note : not yet verified!) then your and my "I" are bound to the physical universe. "goddidit" implicitly states this is impossible.
"goddidit" also carries an excess of additional metaphysical baggage.

A materialist/atheist hates to examine this problem -- and the implications of it on "fate" -- or even admit the question could exist.
Compatibilism addresses this issue quite nicely. Why would you disagree?

Disclaimer: idealism has the same problem with this question of fate vs will.
We're probably not going to get far, but why do you see dualism as being "immune" to this issue if idealism is not?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Loki

How is it different? Because if the "emergent I" theory is correct (note : not yet verified!) then your and my "I" are bound to the physical universe. "goddidit" implicitly states this is impossible.
"goddidit" also carries an excess of additional metaphysical baggage.

...

We're probably not going to get far, but why do you see dualism as being "immune" to this issue if idealism is not?
Huh? I'm an monistic idealist. Dualism imnsho is completely illogical. Idealism can at least conceive the idea that goddidit is all there is (no 2 substance problem) if you get my drift.



Compatibilism addresses this issue quite nicely. Why would you disagree?
It's certainly the best, logical, answer materialists will ever have.

[Loki]

hammegk,

Dualism imnsho is completely illogical.
Shsssh...don't tell Titus, he'll be dreadfully upset.

Idealism can at least conceive the idea that goddidit is all there is (no 2 substance problem) if you get my drift.
Yes, you're drifting quite clearly. Of course, Idealism implicity means that "reality" prefers to hide itself behind the veil of the physical universe for some reason. If you find comfort in the idea that the entirety of the experiences of your *I* are an elaborate deception for purposes unknown, then I guess that's your choice.

It's certainly the best, logical, answer materialists will ever have.
I'd agree with that! Compatiblism also, of course, has some application to Idealism if you think about it!

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Loki

Shsssh...don't tell Titus, he'll be dreadfully upset.
Yeah, I know. I kept hoping he, or Win, or someone could point me towards a workable dualism, other than the over-complicated non-interactive mirrored-as-mind-and-body, exactly-alike-yet-never-the-twain-shall-meet, variety.

In that case all we need to decide is which side of the mirror is which. :D


Yes, you're drifting quite clearly. Of course, Idealism implicity means that "reality" prefers to hide itself behind the veil of the physical universe for some reason. If you find comfort in the idea that the entirety of the experiences of your *I* are an elaborate deception for purposes unknown, then I guess that's your choice.
No deception. What is, is. Is the monism spirit, or body, is another way to ask the question.


I'd agree with that! Compatiblism also, of course, has some application to Idealism if you think about it!
Agreed. Thanks for reminding me.

[Loki]

hammegk,

No deception. What is, is. Is the monism spirit, or body, is another way to ask the question.
I'd express it as :

1. matter monism - What it seems it is, it is
2. spirit monism - What it seems it is, it isn't

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Loki
hammegk,


I'd express it as :

1. matter monism - What it seems it is, it is
2. spirit monism - What it seems it is, it isn't

Interesting. I don't agree with 2. though.

What is, is. Only question is what is the basic monism. In my worldview I find fewer conundrums in "immaterial=mind" rather than "material=body"

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk


Damn English words.

And the spelling is so unpredictable



I realize you meant " mathematically precise "; yet, where does Time factor into the deterministics (in your sense) part? Once we have determined that a will follow b, how do we define the correct time interval to bracket the prediction?
I think it is a hedge on fate to just say the branch will fall, to say the the branch will fall at such and such a time, that would be predestination/determination. But since the branch falling is a random event, in most caes, then it is a probablistic and chaotic situation. causal but not determined. Rewind the reality tape and the branch may fall at a different time.

Heisenberg implies yes don't you think? Why are your actions more "determined" than those of the electron? Does your wavefunction have infinite (many being 'likely') solutions?

Well, not really an electron can not violate the pauli exclusion principle because of it's nature. Even with HIP.

I am saying that an electron is more easily determined than an aggregate like a human being. My waveform has much more limited wave function because I am composed of bososns and lepton in conjunction, an electron is a lepton, so it has greater freedom of motion.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by wraith


Good detailed post that. However...

As claimed, the brain process of firing neurons is probabilistic. Whether or not TLOP is deterministic or probabilistic (ultimately) is a different matter. But it does fit in to what we are discussing. That is - how does probability equate to having free-will?

Your beliefs manifest as actions. ie the "properties" that your mind/conscious has show as actions. If you want to live, then you will ALWAYS stop at a red light at a busy intersection (because this is the most perceived benefit).

What you perceive as a "benefit" depends on your properties of consciousness eg. shyness, outgoing, short temper, dig hot women etc haha...

The way I see it, your desires/emotions determine your actions....eg. If you don't like eating fish but you like to eat chicken and you went out to dinner to a restaurant that only served fish and chicken, then you will always select chicken (considering only those variables).

The only way that probability can be linked to having free-will is if those desires/emotions that you "carry in your head", vary time to time.

One day you may like fish, then due to probability, you may dislike fish the next day. However, you're actions are still reflecting those beliefs.

The only thing that allows you to get any sort of "free-will" is if you had the ability to change your own desires yourself. Even then, if you had this ability and you decided to change your desires from day to day, you still need the desire to change your desires.

ie. no free-will

I don't think that you made free will go away, it is the ability to chose to motivate our muscles. I take a simple approach, if there was no free will then all addicts would remain addicts, it takes a lot of choices in the moment to beat an addiction, and I don't feel it is predestined.

Causal but not determined.

And to an extent we can change our desires, though cognitive mediation and selective desensitization.

I feel that this will always come down to belief, unless we can comeup with a test for free will.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by wraith


Oh no, it's not me that bases personal beliefs on faith ;)

I base my beliefs on whim and nothing, ceratinly not faith. :P



Well disregarding the fundamental nature of TLOP, you're still left having to explain how probability allows your free-will god to reign.
Pish and tosh, gods, gods, we don't need no stinking gods... I am just saying that the human brain is complex enough and influences itself enough that you can have free will. But this is because I have lived without free will, so I know what it is like to not have it. I have had severe OCD at times, which leads me to believe that i do have free will at times.


Sorry, I thought you used this to back up your main argument.



i) Why are you asking me if an electron can run a red light?

ii) Yes, people do run red lights, but that's not to say that there was no logical reason behind it.

I am asking you if an electron can run a red light or violate the pauli exclusion principole. because electrons are deterministic more than humans.

I have even seen people run red lights when it was dangerous, and seemed to be deliberate.

Having a logical reason is causal, but not determined. rerun the tape and the person might chose to not run the red light.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Damn, wraith is Franko. :eek:

Hi Source ;)

[wraith]

Originally posted by Loki
wraith,


I've already agreed to concede the second premise (for now) - let's say that we *can't* randomly run a red light when you have a perceived benefit running throuhg your head. So, my question remains...

Premise 1 : "Randomly" running a red light is a "non-determined" act
Premise 2 : You *cannot* "randomly" run a red light.
Conclusion: Therefore, "non-determined" acts don't exist.

Any idea what's wrong here?

Well, what do you see as the problem?

[Loki]

wraith,

Well, what do you see as the problem?
Rather than putting up a (dubious) question, how about an answer first? I'll make it easy for youi - a multiple choice :

Premise 1 : "Randomly" running a red light is a "non-determined" act
Premise 2 : You *cannot* "randomly" run a red light.
Conclusion: Therefore, "non-determined" acts don't exist.

Any idea what's wrong here?

(A) Yes
(B) No

WHich is it? A, or B ?

[wraith]

Originally posted by Max560
So I take it that you can't show that of the two choices that I have, one is impossible for me to make. Oh well, so much for fate.

Im saying that your algorithm yields only ONE outcome between avaible options at that point in Time, regardless of how similar they are.

Say that you "chose" a number between 1 and 100 an you selected 10. Im saying that it was impossible for you to "choose" any other number (or answer for that matter) other than "10".

EVEN if you suggest that determinism is False, and that it was probable that you could have "chosen" a different number (ie if you went back in Time and the exact same conditions were met (no new information is involved) even the information that you carry) then you have to explain how probability gives free-will.

My choosing is a product of how my brain functions. That includes my subjective past, and all sense data that my brain takes in. That should put an end to your mooing that I am not taking the past into account while choosing.

So? Your brain states will still yield an outcome, whether TLOP is deterministic or probablistic.

I say that I have executive control over the decision making process. I don't control it on the micro level (i.e., controling an individual neuron), in the same way that a driver doesn't control an individual spark plug while pressing on the accellerator. I am the one in charge, not the bits that make up the machine and the process.

You have control over your "choices"? That's saying that you have control over your emotions. What's something that you don't like doing? Why don't you "choose" to like them?

Oh, if the spark plug failed, will the bus keep on Accelerating? According to you, all that the bus driver has to do is to use some home-grown "free-will" and keep on accelerating.

You want to contend that something called Fate dictates my actions; that my choices are not made, that they are decreed. Well, the proof lies in the product. Tell me which of my two driving options are not available because the big bad Fate machine won't let me. Then watch me defy fate.

What driving options? If I had to specifically say what your actions will be in 5 minutes time then I'm sorry to dissapoint. I don't have the information. I am not you.

However, if I said to you that you will have cerial for breakfast, but instead you had fruit just to spite me, then your "choice" to "choose" fruit was due to Fate. Your algorithm is still running.

You will have to do better than simply appending the phrase "that was your fate" to any of my choices. Don't say it is so, show it is so.

I'm saying that your actions manifest from your beliefs/desires/emotions. It's quite clear to me that your actions follow a pattern (this is not to say that they can't change). Whatever happened in a point in Time could not have happened any other way at that point in Time.

...want to throw probability in there? Well do it. It's not going to give you your free-will. It just makes things meaningless.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I don't think that you made free will go away, it is the ability to chose to motivate our muscles. I take a simple approach, if there was no free will then all addicts would remain addicts, it takes a lot of choices in the moment to beat an addiction, and I don't feel it is predestined.

Why is free-will the means to get out of a bad situation? You certainly couldn't give a pat on the back to a drug addict for escaping his/her addiction because it was mere probability.

If it was their Fate to escape the addiction then their it was due to their nature. They will either win or lose with reason.

Causal but not determined.

Something can cause them to escape the addiction but it won't necessarily happen because it's not determined?

And to an extent we can change our desires, though cognitive mediation and selective desensitization.

Sure, but only change through reason is benefical. Change through probability is meaningless.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Loki
wraith,
Rather than putting up a (dubious) question, how about an answer first? I'll make it easy for youi - a multiple choice :

Premise 1 : "Randomly" running a red light is a "non-determined" act
Premise 2 : You *cannot* "randomly" run a red light.
Conclusion: Therefore, "non-determined" acts don't exist.

Any idea what's wrong here?

(A) Yes
(B) No

WHich is it? A, or B ?

They both look fine.
What are you really asking me?

[Loki]

wraith,

What are you really asking me?
Hmmm...binary choice too difficult for you?

One last try :

Premise 1 : "Randomly" running a red light is a "non-determined" act
Premise 2 : You *cannot* "randomly" run a red light.
Conclusion: Therefore, "non-determined" acts don't exist.

Any idea what's wrong here?

(A) Yes
(B) No

WHich is it? A, or B ?

[wraith]

What are you talking about?

I said that they both looked fine.

[Loki]

wraith,

I said that they both looked fine.
So in reply to the question :

"Which is it? Yes, or No ?"

Your answer is "both look fine"????

Okay...thanks for playing. Don't call us, we'll call you.

[wraith]

Are you on something? :rolleyes:

What do you want me to say?

[Loki]

wraith,

Are you on something?
No.

What do you want me to say?
Never mind, you've said enough.

[Max560]

Im saying that your algorithm yields only ONE outcome between avaible options at that point in Time, regardless of how similar they are.

Yes. I will choose one of the two options. Which of the two choices am I not permitted to make according to your "Fate"?


Say that you "chose" a number between 1 and 100 an you selected 10. Im saying that it was impossible for you to "choose" any other number (or answer for that matter) other than "10".

No, let's not say I chose 10. Let's say I will choose a number between 1 and 100. Now, tell me which 99 numbers I am not able to "choose". In your above quote, since you are not clear with your tenses, you are merely stating once a number is picked (past tense), a number is picked (which now eliminates the 99 numbers which were not picked). If you actually mean that of the numbers 1 to 100, 99 of them are not available for me to choose (future event), which ones are they?


EVEN if you suggest that determinism is False, and that it was probable that you could have "chosen" a different number (ie if you went back in Time and the exact same conditions were met (no new information is involved) even the information that you carry) then you have to explain how probability gives free-will.

No, you need to explain which 99 of the 100 choices will not be available according to determinism.


So? Your brain states will still yield an outcome, whether TLOP is deterministic or probablistic.

I'm not sure if this supports your claim. Am I to read the above statement as "it is unclear whether outcomes yeilded by brain states supports free will or determinism"? If so, does that mean we can dismiss all lines of discourse regarding how decisions are made? If yes, then let's focus on you proving which future choices are impossible due to determinism. If you meant something else by the above statement, please clarify.


You have control over your "choices"? That's saying that you have control over your emotions. What's something that you don't like doing? Why don't you "choose" to like them?

No, those would be two separate claims. I made the first claim, you brought up the second. Once again, we drift back to the why don't you choose to run a red light/jump off a building/do something you don't like doing/something harmful scenario. Lets stick to my parking lot example, or your pick a number scenario.


Oh, if the spark plug failed, will the bus keep on Accelerating? According to you, all that the bus driver has to do is to use some home-grown "free-will" and keep on accelerating.

I do not believe that you believe this to be a positon that I hold. That being said, I am not sure that one sparkplug failing would be enough to stop an engine from running, but I am not a mechanic, so I could be wrong. If you are trying to describe a failure which makes the engine stop, I would say that the driver will not be able to accelerate, but I think you know that.


What driving options? If I had to specifically say what your actions will be in 5 minutes time then I'm sorry to dissapoint. I don't have the information. I am not you.

Turning left or right when I pull out of my parking spot. I am not dissapointed. Of course you don't have enough information. Is it possible, given enough information to show which of either turning left or turning right is not an available choice prior to me leaving the parking lot? If I am told which choice is impossible to make prior to leaving, I can demonstrate this to be false.


However, if I said to you that you will have cerial for breakfast, but instead you had fruit just to spite me, then your "choice" to "choose" fruit was due to Fate. Your algorithm is still running.

Hmmm... in response, I shall quote myself:

You will have to do better than simply appending the phrase "that was your fate" to any of my choices. Don't say it is so, show it is so.


I'm saying that your actions manifest from your beliefs/desires/emotions. It's quite clear to me that your actions follow a pattern (this is not to say that they can't change).

Right. And I'm saying that the sum of all of those parts (me) is greater than any one part or combination of parts. In fact, the more parts you add, the more I am capable of doing. The converse is also true (strokes, frontal lobe dementias, etc.).


Whatever happened in a point in Time could not have happened any other way at that point in Time.

Right again. The past happened the way it happened. Once again, lets focus on what will happen, not what did happen.


...want to throw probability in there? Well do it. It's not going to give you your free-will.

No, I'll just wait for you to show that when there are N choices, N-1=the choices which can't be made, as opposed to won't be made.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Max560
Yes. I will choose one of the two options. Which of the two choices am I not permitted to make according to your "Fate"?

Actually, it depends on your Fate :rolleyes:
Nevertheless...if you came to a fork in the road and you had to "choose" to go left or right, your past will force you to either go left or right, regardless if you perceive the two paths as equally benefical. That doesn't mean that your mind doesn't go through a series of steps to yield an outcome.

With that in mind, how am meant I to show you what you will end up "choosing" if I have only a limited amount of information?

wraith: Say that you "chose" a number between 1 and 100 an you selected 10. Im saying that it was impossible for you to "choose" any other number (or answer for that matter) other than "10".

Max: No, let's not say I chose 10. Let's say I will choose a number between 1 and 100. Now, tell me which 99 numbers I am not able to "choose". In your above quote, since you are not clear with your tenses, you are merely stating once a number is picked (past tense), a number is picked (which now eliminates the 99 numbers which were not picked). If you actually mean that of the numbers 1 to 100, 99 of them are not available for me to choose (future event), which ones are they?

Again, I don't have the information. If I had the complete information, then I would be able to tell you. Just give me your algorithm.

wraith: EVEN if you suggest that determinism is False, and that it was probable that you could have "chosen" a different number (ie if you went back in Time and the exact same conditions were met (no new information is involved) even the information that you carry) then you have to explain how probability gives free-will.

Max: No, you need to explain which 99 of the 100 choices will not be available according to determinism.

Read my above reply.

Also, what you just said is a mere smoke screen to avoid answering the question.

How does probability allow you to have free-will?

wraith: So? Your brain states will still yield an outcome, whether TLOP is deterministic or probablistic.

Max: I'm not sure if this supports your claim. Am I to read the above statement as "it is unclear whether outcomes yeilded by brain states supports free will or determinism"? If so, does that mean we can dismiss all lines of discourse regarding how decisions are made? If yes, then let's focus on you proving which future choices are impossible due to determinism. If you meant something else by the above statement, please clarify.

In other words, I am asking how probability allows you to have free-will.

wraith: You have control over your "choices"? That's saying that you have control over your emotions. What's something that you don't like doing? Why don't you "choose" to like them?

Max: No, those would be two separate claims. I made the first claim, you brought up the second. Once again, we drift back to the why don't you choose to run a red light/jump off a building/do something you don't like doing/something harmful scenario. Lets stick to my parking lot example, or your pick a number scenario.

Again, I see this as a diversion to not answer the question. I will use those examples where they are needed.

I do not believe that you believe this to be a positon that I hold. That being said, I am not sure that one sparkplug failing would be enough to stop an engine from running, but I am not a mechanic, so I could be wrong. If you are trying to describe a failure which makes the engine stop, I would say that the driver will not be able to accelerate, but I think you know that.

We were relating that analogy to brain states?

Turning left or right when I pull out of my parking spot. I am not dissapointed. Of course you don't have enough information. Is it possible, given enough information to show which of either turning left or turning right is not an available choice prior to me leaving the parking lot? If I am told which choice is impossible to make prior to leaving, I can demonstrate this to be false.

Yes, that's why I would write the answer on a piece of paper and wait till you made your "choice" then I would show you the answer. Otherwise, new information would enter the "system". If I told you the answer, then out of pure spite, you may turn in the opposite direction. Then this would have to be factored in. You can always do the opposite of my prediction. So I have to factor that into the calculations and so on and so on....

wraith: However, if I said to you that you will have cerial for breakfast, but instead you had fruit just to spite me, then your "choice" to "choose" fruit was due to Fate. Your algorithm is still running.

Max: You will have to do better than simply appending the phrase "that was your fate" to any of my choices. Don't say it is so, show it is so.

I'm saying that the process that your mind goes through to not run red lights, is the same process that yields the outcome of picking numbers.

If you had the ability to set up situations where all variables had the EXACT values everytime you set it up, then you could get a strong sense of deterministic and random events. To do this, you would have to keep going back through Time.

Again, discussing the nature of TLOP (whether it be deterministic or probabilistic) is pointless until you can explain how probability gives you free-will.

wraith: I'm saying that your actions manifest from your beliefs/desires/emotions. It's quite clear to me that your actions follow a pattern (this is not to say that they can't change).

Max: Right. And I'm saying that the sum of all of those parts (me) is greater than any one part or combination of parts. In fact, the more parts you add, the more I am capable of doing. The converse is also true (strokes, frontal lobe dementias, etc.).

I don't follow you. What do you mean by this?

wraith: Whatever happened in a point in Time could not have happened any other way at that point in Time.

Max:Right again. The past happened the way it happened. Once again, lets focus on what will happen, not what did happen.

Hang on. You're meant to say "wrong again". I thought that free-will relies on probability (which you still have to show why this is the case). You believe that whatever happened in a point in Time COULD have been different at that point in Time.

wraith: ...want to throw probability in there? Well do it. It's not going to give you your free-will.

Max: No, I'll just wait for you to show that when there are N choices, N-1=the choices which can't be made, as opposed to won't be made.

Whatever I say will be pointless unless you can explain how probability gives you free-will. Answer this, then we can start talking about the nature of TLOP.

[MRC_Hans]

Probability does not give us free will. Probability (or acausality) makes fatalism impossible. At time T, it is not entirely predictable what the state of the universe will be at T+1, because part of TLOP is probabilistic.

In the prediction example above, you are confirming that you know this. You say you cannot show the paper with your prediction because that might influence the outcome. So somewhere, you recognize that events are probabilistic and that you can influence their probability.

Hans

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Probability does not give us free will. Probability (or acausality) makes fatalism impossible. At time T, it is not entirely predictable what the state of the universe will be at T+1, because part of TLOP is probabilistic.

What do you base free-will on?

In the prediction example above, you are confirming that you know this. You say you cannot show the paper with your prediction because that might influence the outcome. So somewhere, you recognize that events are probabilistic and that you can influence their probability.

I was saying that I couldn't tell Max the answer (whether he would turn left or right) because he could turn in the opposite direction.

But being the skilled oracle that I am ;) I couldn't tell him the answer until he made the choice to turn either left or right because he always has the option to turn in the opposite direction after I gave the answer.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by wraith

What do you base free-will on?

No. What do you base fatalism on? I argued against fatalism, not for free will. I may do that in another discussion, but not here.


I was saying that I couldn't tell Max the answer (whether he would turn left or right) because he could turn in the opposite direction.

But being the skilled oracle that I am ;) I couldn't tell him the answer until he made the choice to turn either left or right because he always has the option to turn in the opposite direction after I gave the answer.

You use the word "choice" an awful lot for a fatalist. How has he the option to change his mind if he has no free will? Fatalism implies that his course was programmed from the initial state (and so is yours).

Hans

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by wraith


Why is free-will the means to get out of a bad situation? You certainly couldn't give a pat on the back to a drug addict for escaping his/her addiction because it was mere probability.

That because you are using the detrministic mind sey, i am say that the probability in the brain and the ability to alter that brain, gives the person the ability to make choices. It is not probable that someone will make a choice, I would say it is a matter of probability(the inner determinants) and the choice of the individual. Choice is the ability to act or not act, and as the red light story goes, it is not random, it is will.

Not mere probability, a human mind does interect with the human brain.


If it was their Fate to escape the addiction then their it was due to their nature. They will either win or lose with reason.

I sure hope your not an addictions counselor, that would just doom addicts, they make small choices in the moment to counter the addiction, no Fate(god condemning addicts) but the ability to make choices in a moment. It has a small basis in the probability but more in the will to make the small choices against the inner dterminants which say use.




Something can cause them to escape the addiction but it won't necessarily happen because it's not determined?
It happens becus ethey make small choices in the moment to counter the addiction, no Fate, just small choices. Addicts alreay blame Fate, you have to help them break that habit as well.



Sure, but only change through reason is benefical. Change through probability is meaningless.

the problem with reason is that it can be bent to any purpose, addicts already have reason to keep using. Again they can't use logic or reason to quit the addiction, they have to make small choices each moment to counter the addiction. Reason and logic are tools, they can be used to support or counter addiction.

[/B]

[Dancing David]

Probability is not the sole basis of free will, but the following.
The brain is not deterministic, it is based upon association, filtering and memory. Part of the biology is probablistic.
The 'mind' has the ability to alter the probabilities of the brain events.

Wraith, the world is more complex than one thought, you can't reduce free will to a single thought.

And so far you haven't proved fate either.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Probability is not the sole basis of free will, but the following.
The brain is not deterministic, it is based upon association, filtering and memory. Part of the biology is probablistic.
The 'mind' has the ability to alter the probabilities of the brain events.

..... the world is more complex than one thought, you can't reduce free will to a single thought.
Therefore you contend replacing the "physical human brain" can be achieved by a finite Turing machine, and that the result would be -- no more and no less -- a conscious human mind.

Proving that is a long way off. Nice materialistic/atheistic assertion though. Do you prefer epiphenomenalism as the answer?

I'd also assert that unpredictability is not the necessary & sufficient condition to disprove determinism.


And so far you haven't proved fate either.
Yeah, fate vs free-will will continue to vex all of us, and probably none of us will see The Answer in our (Terran) lifetimes. If wraith proved it that would be damned impressive wouldn't it? What would his Nobel be in I wonder?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk

Therefore you contend replacing the "physical human brain" can be achieved by a finite Turing machine, and that the result would be -- no more and no less -- a conscious human mind.

[/B] I would say so. but then I am am materialist.

Proving that is a long way off. Nice materialistic/atheistic assertion though. Do you prefer epiphenomenalism as the answer?
Ook, no, I would say that consiousness is a brain event and purely material, I don't think that is epiphenomena. I would say it is a dependant property of certain brains.

I'd also assert that unpredictability is not the necessary & sufficient condition to disprove determinism.


Oh yeah, well... well.. I can't refute that<...I just try to point out that the brain is not the same as a calulator, much to messy and organic for that.


Yeah, fate vs free-will will continue to vex all of us, and probably none of us will see The Answer in our (Terran) lifetimes. If wraith proved it that would be damned impressive wouldn't it? What would his Nobel be in I wonder?

Again, I believe in free will because I have lost it, when I get sick an dsuffer from compulsions. So I might actualy believe in degrees of free will.

[Max560]

Nevertheless...if you came to a fork in the road and you had to "choose" to go left or right, your past will force you to either go left or right, regardless if you perceive the two paths as equally benefical. That doesn't mean that your mind doesn't go through a series of steps to yield an outcome.

According to Fate, one of the paths will not be availabe to choose. It may appear to have all the features of the other path (the one you are destined to take), but it is impossible to actually take it. Is this a correct representation of your position? If it is, you still have to show which path can't be taken, not that one of them won't be taken.

Incedentally, at what time interval prior to the choice being made can a specific path be proven to be impossible to take? Is the choice always impossible? Does it fluctuate between available/not available?


How does probability allow you to have free-will?

I don't recall making such an assertion, but I think that MRC Hans covered this point quite nicely:

Probability does not give us free will. Probability (or acausality) makes fatalism impossible. At time T, it is not entirely predictable what the state of the universe will be at T+1, because part of TLOP is probabilistic...etc.

But that really wasn't a part of our discussion, so we shall move on. If you don't like it, talk to the Hans.


Again, I don't have the information. If I had the complete information, then I would be able to tell you. Just give me your algorithm.

Until such a thing is possible, I, and I alone will choose.


wraith: You have control over your "choices"? That's saying that you have control over your emotions. What's something that you don't like doing? Why don't you "choose" to like them?

Max: No, those would be two separate claims. I made the first claim, you brought up the second. Once again, we drift back to the why don't you choose to run a red light/jump off a building/do something you don't like doing/something harmful scenario. Lets stick to my parking lot example, or your pick a number scenario.

You call this a diversion. It is not. It is redirection towards whether or not choices are due to free will or fate. Dressing up one of the choices to be more difficult/unpleasant/harmful than the other doesn't help further the discussion. I believe that this is just a ploy to extract an "I won't" from your detractors, and then parading it around (incorrectly) as an "I can't".

Regarding whether or not I have control over my emotions, this simply isn't necessary or sufficient to validate fatalism or free will.


Yes, that's why I would write the answer on a piece of paper and wait till you made your "choice" then I would show you the answer. Otherwise, new information would enter the "system". If I told you the answer, then out of pure spite, you may turn in the opposite direction. Then this would have to be factored in. You can always do the opposite of my prediction. So I have to factor that into the calculations and so on and so on....

So in other words (provided that you had sufficient info to be accurate), you would have the ability to write down a choice that is actually impossible for me to make......unless you tell me--in which case it will be possible? As soon as you reveal what you have written, what is the state of the information written- True or False?

Why is it that telling me which choice I can't make suddenly makes that same choice one that I can make?


Max: Right. And I'm saying that the sum of all of those parts (me) is greater than any one part or combination of parts. In fact, the more parts you add, the more I am capable of doing. The converse is also true (strokes, frontal lobe dementias, etc.).

wraith: I don't follow you. What do you mean by this?

What I mean is that I am greater than any sub system which is a part of who I am (I>My optic tract+my right parietal lobe), in that the whole of me is capable of more than any part of me. I choose which path I will take, my senses/memories/subsection of my CNS don't. The more parts that I have which contribute the decision process, the more choices become available to me. THe more components, the less influence any one component has on the final choice I make. When you knock out parts of the system through trauma, some choices disappear, and remaining operational components become proportionately more important to the decision making process (especially when a knocked out component used to inhibit a surviving component).

In any case, even a simple binary choice made by you or me (with our respective hardware and software) is exceedingly complex, to the point where it is currently impossible to recreate any specific choosing process that we make. This makes your choices your own, and my choices my own. You will have to find a much simpler decision making machine, place it in a much simpler universe, and control way more variables before you can demonstrate fate. Otherwise, you have a theory, and that's about it.

[Ossai]

This is what I get for reading the threads in which Wraith posts. :hb:

Basically all Wraith is currently doing and has always done is spout the fundy predestination line. He removes some of the more obvious references but it’s the SSDD.

Next, unless he’s already done it in another thread, he’ll be posting about how a select few are guaranteed to meet the great LG.

Ossai

[wraith]

wraith: What do you base free-will on?

Hands: No. What do you base fatalism on? I argued against fatalism, not for free will. I may do that in another discussion, but not here.

Oh that's poetic bull5h17. You don't have clue on what you're talking about. You don't know how probability allows you to have free-will.

Set me straight and tell me here.

You use the word "choice" an awful lot for a fatalist. How has he the option to change his mind if he has no free will? Fatalism implies that his course was programmed from the initial state (and so is yours).

Yes, but unlike you, I believe that my choice is the outcome of my algorithm.

[wraith]

That because you are using the detrministic mind sey, i am say that the probability in the brain and the ability to alter that brain, gives the person the ability to make choices. It is not probable that someone will make a choice, I would say it is a matter of probability(the inner determinants) and the choice of the individual. Choice is the ability to act or not act, and as the red light story goes, it is not random, it is will.

You can have all the determinants in the world, but as soon as a variable is ultimately probabilistic, then it's probabilistic.

Hence, you have to explain how probability allows free-will.

a human mind does interect with the human brain.

What's the difference according to Materialism?

I sure hope your not an addictions counselor, that would just doom addicts.

I wouldn't say this to them because they wouldn't comprehend the meaning that I'm trying to send.

they make small choices in the moment to counter the addiction, no Fate(god condemning addicts) but the ability to make choices in a moment. It has a small basis in the probability but more in the will to make the small choices against the inner dterminants which say use.

As I said before,

You can have all the determinants in the world, but as soon as a variable is ultimately probabilistic, then it's probabilistic.

Hence, you have to explain how probability allows free-will.

wraith: Something can cause them to escape the addiction but it won't necessarily happen because it's not determined?

Dave: It happens becus ethey make small choices in the moment to counter the addiction, no Fate, just small choices. Addicts alreay blame Fate, you have to help them break that habit as well.

Again, you have to explain how probability allows free-will.

wraith: Sure, but only change through reason is benefical. Change through probability is meaningless.

Dave: the problem with reason is that it can be bent to any purpose, addicts already have reason to keep using. Again they can't use logic or reason to quit the addiction, they have to make small choices each moment to counter the addiction. Reason and logic are tools, they can be used to support or counter addiction.

That's not what I'm saying though. Probability is pointless/meaningless.

[MRC_Hans]

Wraith (old quotes included for clarity -- note little Franko-details like misspelling of my name :rolleyes: ) :


quote--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wraith: What do you base free-will on?

Hands: No. What do you base fatalism on? I argued against fatalism, not for free will. I may do that in another discussion, but not here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Oh that's poetic bull5h17. You don't have clue on what you're talking about. You don't know how probability allows you to have free-will.

Set me straight and tell me here.

I think you are loosing it. You used to be a bit more supple. You answered my question with an irrelevant counter-question, and I refused it. It won't help to restate it. You are discussing free will with others here, but you are only discussing fatalism (the original thread topic) with me. What's the matter with you lately? You used to be quite good at holding several balls in play.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You use the word "choice" an awful lot for a fatalist. How has he the option to change his mind if he has no free will? Fatalism implies that his course was programmed from the initial state (and so is yours).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, but unlike you, I believe that my choice is the outcome of my algorithm.

If it was preprogrammed, it is not a choice. A preprogrammed algorithm has no branches.


Hans

[wraith]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Probability is not the sole basis of free will, but the following.
The brain is not deterministic, it is based upon association, filtering and memory. Part of the biology is probablistic.
The 'mind' has the ability to alter the probabilities of the brain events.

Firstly, what the difference between "mind" and "brain" according to Materialism?

You seem to say that the "mind" is deterministic. How can this be if you're saying that you're just a bunch of atoms with a probabilisitic nature?

Also, if the mind has the ability to alter brain events, this seems to help the argument for Solipsism.

Wraith, the world is more complex than one thought, you can't reduce free will to a single thought.

What do you mean?

And so far you haven't proved fate either.

Arguing against probability/free-will helps my case ;)

[wraith]

Originally posted by hammegk
If wraith proved it that would be damned impressive wouldn't it? What would his Nobel be in I wonder?

haha :)

A F-22 would be nice :roll:

[wraith]

I'll relpy to the remainder of the posts a little later.

Oh and Hans, no hard feelings. I know how hard it must be for you to explain such a thing as free-will ;)

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by wraith
I'll relpy to the remainder of the posts a little later.

Oh and Hans, no hard feelings. I know how hard it must be for you to explain such a thing as free-will ;) Not hard at all. Except to you. But then, anything is hard to explain to you.

Hans

[wraith]

Originally posted by Max560
According to Fate, one of the paths will not be availabe to choose. It may appear to have all the features of the other path (the one you are destined to take), but it is impossible to actually take it. Is this a correct representation of your position?

Yes, thats exactly what I'm saying.

If it is, you still have to show which path can't be taken, not that one of them won't be taken.

I can't say which path that you would definitely take because I don't have all the information.

It is evident that you follow a pattern in your actions. eg, you wont run red lights. ie with the information that you carry, at the point in Time, wont allow you to run the red light. It's not a course of that you will take, even though you perceive it as an "available" option. So you can't run the red light.

How is the "thought process" that your mind goes through when determining a beneficial outcome (eg stopping at a red light) more different compared to determining a beneficial outcome when "choosing" a number between 1 and 100 or deciding to turn left or right?[/QUOTE]

Incedentally, at what time interval prior to the choice being made can a specific path be proven to be impossible to take? Is the choice always impossible? Does it fluctuate between available/not available?

That's along the lines what I've been asking you guys, since you are claiming TLOP is ultimately probabilisitic.

Since your "choices" yield an outcome that is ALWAYS benefical to you, I don't see how they can fluctuate. This is not saying that people don't frantically try to figure out a course of action in a stressful situation. How often do you fluctuate bewtween "choosing" to run red lights?

How about something more subtle, like deciding to turn left or right at a fork in the road? You might want to turn left, then change your mind to go right. You might even spend an hour trying to figure out which way to go. This doesn't mean that your mind doesn't go through a process to try and yield the most benefical outcome. Your past will determine your "choice".

Even then, if you see this as being no more than "bunk" and that the "choices" that you make can fluctuate/change at the same point in Time, then you have to show how probability allows you to have "free-will".

wraith: How does probability allow you to have free-will?

Max: I don't recall making such an assertion, but I think that MRC Hans covered this point quite nicely.

Hans: Probability does not give us free will. Probability (or acausality) makes fatalism impossible. At time T, it is not entirely predictable what the state of the universe will be at T+1, because part of TLOP is probabilistic...etc.

Well that's fine. Lets for argument sake, assume that this is True. How does this then allow you to have free-will? All that you have done, by saying this, is that you still obey TLOP but you do things for no reason. It's all probabilisitic.

But that really wasn't a part of our discussion, so we shall move on. If you don't like it, talk to the Hans.

Actually, this point is quite important.
You seem to believe what he said. Do you understand it? Why not back it up?

wraith: Again, I don't have the information. If I had the complete information, then I would be able to tell you. Just give me your algorithm.

Max: Until such a thing is possible, I, and I alone will choose.

Ignorance doesn't make things True :rolleyes:

Besides, regarding your algorithm, one can still see the patten of your actions.

wraith: wraith: You have control over your "choices"? That's saying that you have control over your emotions. What's something that you don't like doing? Why don't you "choose" to like them?

[quoteMax: No, those would be two separate claims. I made the first claim, you brought up the second. Once again, we drift back to the why don't you choose to run a red light/jump off a building/do something you don't like doing/something harmful scenario. Lets stick to my parking lot example, or your pick a number scenario.

You call this a diversion. It is not. It is redirection towards whether or not choices are due to free will or fate. Dressing up one of the choices to be more difficult/unpleasant/harmful than the other doesn't help further the discussion. I believe that this is just a ploy to extract an "I won't" from your detractors, and then parading it around (incorrectly) as an "I can't".

It's simple. How is not running a red light/eating pizza/going to work etc more different, than turning left or right?

How is probability givinig you free-will?

Regarding whether or not I have control over my emotions, this simply isn't necessary or sufficient to validate fatalism or free will.

Why not? You're the one claiming to call ALL the shots.

wraith: Yes, that's why I would write the answer on a piece of paper and wait till you made your "choice" then I would show you the answer. Otherwise, new information would enter the "system". If I told you the answer, then out of pure spite, you may turn in the opposite direction. Then this would have to be factored in. You can always do the opposite of my prediction. So I have to factor that into the calculations and so on and so on....

Max: So in other words (provided that you had sufficient info to be accurate), you would have the ability to write down a choice that is actually impossible for me to make......unless you tell me--in which case it will be possible? As soon as you reveal what you have written, what is the state of the information written- True or False?

Regarding to which situation?
The situation where I told you my answer before you turned or the situation where I didn't tell you?

I would have only predicted one of them.

Why is it that telling me which choice I can't make suddenly makes that same choice one that I can make?

Because you could always turn in the opposite direction if I told you my preiction. In that case, I would have to predict that I would tell my answer, and that you would turn in the opposite direction after I told you my answer.

But I couldn't tell you that you were going to turn in the other direction after I told you my answer because you can always do something different.

What I mean is that I am greater than any sub system which is a part of who I am (I>My optic tract+my right parietal lobe), in that the whole of me is capable of more than any part of me. I choose which path I will take, my senses/memories/subsection of my CNS don't.

Well according to Materialism, there is no "You" so to speak. You're just a bunch of atoms obeying non-conscious TLOP.

No free-will here.

The more parts that I have which contribute the decision process, the more choices become available to me. THe more components, the less influence any one component has on the final choice I make. When you knock out parts of the system through trauma, some choices disappear, and remaining operational components become proportionately more important to the decision making process (especially when a knocked out component used to inhibit a surviving component).

In other words, you're obey TLOP which is running your algorithm?

Again, I don't see the free-will.

In any case, even a simple binary choice made by you or me (with our respective hardware and software) is exceedingly complex, to the point where it is currently impossible to recreate any specific choosing process that we make.

You know, you may be right. But to say that the total unpredicatability of one's actions to invalidate Fate is a misapplication of logic.

If I couldn't predict with certainty that you drank a glass of water at a certain time, doesn't mean that you didn't have a glass of water at a certain time.

What you're saying is that at that point in Time, it was possible for another event to take place for you. Im saying that it isn't.

You're saying that TLOP is probabilistic. You havn't explained how this gives you free-will.

This makes your choices your own, and my choices my own.

Yes, our "choices" are our "choices".

You will have to find a much simpler decision making machine, place it in a much simpler universe, and control way more variables before you can demonstrate fate.

You're demonstrating it quite well actually ;)

Otherwise, you have a theory, and that's about it.

That's right. Free-will is concrete Truth.
:rolleyes:

[wraith]

Originally posted by Ossai
This is what I get for reading the threads in which Wraith posts. :hb:

Basically all Wraith is currently doing and has always done is spout the fundy predestination line. He removes some of the more obvious references but it’s the SSDD.

Next, unless he’s already done it in another thread, he’ll be posting about how a select few are guaranteed to meet the great LG.

Ossai

Put you're pimple stuff on and go to bed.

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I think you are loosing it. You used to be a bit more supple. You answered my question with an irrelevant counter-question, and I refused it. It won't help to restate it. You are discussing free will with others here, but you are only discussing fatalism (the original thread topic) with me. What's the matter with you lately?

haha! Like Fool, you are good at humour.
Like I said before, no hard feelings, but I know it and I think that you know it, that you don't know what you're talking about ;)

You used to be quite good at holding several balls in play.

Well, I've got yours ;)

If it was preprogrammed, it is not a choice. A preprogrammed algorithm has no branches.

That's what I'm saying :rolleyes:

[MRC_Hans]

Well, just for the sake of old times........

Above, we seem to be able to at least agree on the working assumption that reality is not entirely deterministic, right?

The state of the universe at time t+1 is certainly derived from the state at time t, but an amount of probability is added. Dont' worry, I am getting to free will, but one step at the time: Can we agree on the above?

(On balls: You may have balls, but I'm afraid you lost your marbles long ago ;) )

Hans

[Dancing David]

Quote of FrankenWraith

As I said before,

You can have all the determinants in the world, but as soon as a variable is ultimately probabilistic, then it's probabilistic.

Hence, you have to explain how probability allows free-will.



OOOH, the elephant is a cookie becase he ate the cookie argument.

I don't understand where the role of probability in some events makes all events based upon probability, although it is not a thing I would have a problem with.

I would say that you can have them all, totaly determined events, partly determined events and totaly probable events.

In the other post I used 'mind' because it is a useful bag for all the brain events.

I didn't know I was proving free willy, I thought you were proving fatalism.

POV Question:

If we could rerun the reality tape, you know , have a system and go back in time to see if events play out the same, each time you rerun the tape.
But in this thought experiment ,to keep from violating the whole universe ,we will say that we can rerun things in just a large box. The box can be set to return from a certain event to the original time. And when it returns, the box rewind times, so that the objects in the box return to thier original state.

We put a clock, a radioactive atom and a gieger counter in the box, there is further a device that will write the time on the clock when the atom decays, there is a second device that will place a sticky with the time on the outside of the box and then the box will go back in time.

So essentialy we run the experiment and the box comes back in time to us with a sticky note on the outside saying at what time the atoms decays.(The gieger counter triggers the device that writes the time, the second device puts the time the gieger counter was triggered, and the box itself goes back in time, the box then returns the materials indide the box to thier original state..)

Now the cool thing about the box, is that it is not just a time travel device but it also returns the clock the geiger counter, the device and the atom to us as they were before the experiment was run.(In other words it rewinds the reality tape in the box and returns things to thier initial conditions)

So the first trial occurs: we start the device and bing, the box is back with a sticky on it giving the time elapsed before the atom decayed.
The atom in the box has been returned to it's original state, we set the box for another tirial and bing the box is back with another sticky giving the time elapsed before the atom decays.

Question: each time we run the experiment will the box return with the same time elapsed for the decay of the atom?

PS You should really help out Lifegrazer he needs some asasistance in the forum!

[hammegk]

DD, your contributions usually make at least a modicum of sense; that one didn't at least to me. :(

Would you try again with a different thought experiment? Unless you care to demonstrate tachyons actually exist and support time-travel with info exchange.

[Dancing David]

Well Hamme thanks for the info that the post was unclear.

The box is of course magical in that it can:
1. Go back in time after the geiger counter is triggered.
2. Return the things in the box to thier original state by rewinding the reality tape to the point right before the box was activated.

From my understanding of expanding space and entropy, I don't think that time travel is impossible, and it would of course take a miracle to return something to it's original state.

The question is this, if we could rweind the reality tape would the atom have decayed at the same point in time for each trial. I would think that would prove Fate or determinism to a tee.

A modicum of sense huh, is that smaller than a dram or a gitt?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dancing David

The question is this, if we could rweind the reality tape would the atom have decayed at the same point in time for each trial. I would think that would prove Fate or determinism to a tee.

I agree. Trouble is even as a thought experiment you get no "answer" -- see the problem?

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Well, just for the sake of old times........

Above, we seem to be able to at least agree on the working assumption that reality is not entirely deterministic, right?

The state of the universe at time t+1 is certainly derived from the state at time t, but an amount of probability is added. Dont' worry, I am getting to free will, but one step at the time: Can we agree on the above?

Negative ;)

I don't believe in total probability.
I believe in total Fate.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Dancing David
OOOH, the elephant is a cookie becase he ate the cookie argument.

I'm not saying that ;)

I don't understand where the role of probability in some events makes all events based upon probability, although it is not a thing I would have a problem with.

So you're saying that some events are deterministic and some are probabilistic? Unless deterministic and probabilisitc systems are separate from each other, how can they both co-exist in a sigle system?

I would say that you can have them all, totaly determined events, partly determined events and totaly probable events.

Like before, how can they co-exist?

In the other post I used 'mind' because it is a useful bag for all the brain events.

But ultimately, you're fundamentally a bunch of atoms?

I didn't know I was proving free willy, I thought you were proving fatalism.

You have to explain what you believe and so do I.

POV Question:

If we could rerun the reality tape, you know , have a system and go back in time to see if events play out the same, each time you rerun the tape.
But in this thought experiment ,to keep from violating the whole universe ,we will say that we can rerun things in just a large box. The box can be set to return from a certain event to the original time. And when it returns, the box rewind times, so that the objects in the box return to thier original state.

We put a clock, a radioactive atom and a gieger counter in the box, there is further a device that will write the time on the clock when the atom decays, there is a second device that will place a sticky with the time on the outside of the box and then the box will go back in time.

So essentialy we run the experiment and the box comes back in time to us with a sticky note on the outside saying at what time the atoms decays.(The gieger counter triggers the device that writes the time, the second device puts the time the gieger counter was triggered, and the box itself goes back in time, the box then returns the materials indide the box to thier original state..)

Now the cool thing about the box, is that it is not just a time travel device but it also returns the clock the geiger counter, the device and the atom to us as they were before the experiment was run.(In other words it rewinds the reality tape in the box and returns things to thier initial conditions)

So the first trial occurs: we start the device and bing, the box is back with a sticky on it giving the time elapsed before the atom decayed.
The atom in the box has been returned to it's original state, we set the box for another tirial and bing the box is back with another sticky giving the time elapsed before the atom decays.

Question: each time we run the experiment will the box return with the same time elapsed for the decay of the atom?

In other words, if we rewound the Universe back to the big bang and pressed play, would the same events take place?

I believe that they do.

PS You should really help out Lifegrazer he needs some asasistance in the forum!

He is holding his own ;)