Those darned Laws Of Physics

[Soubrette]

Hey all

First, for those interested - I'm back after a long and arduous trip :)

Second - before I left I was involved in a discussion regarding Frank's jingle. I have no idea where it is anymore so I hope that those involved will indulge me in continuing with a new and more relevant thread.

So to recap, and in the unlikely event that anyone is unaware of Frank's jingle here it is:

Atoms obey the Laws of Physics
People are made of Atoms
People obey the Laws of Physics.

So we have what appears to be a syllogism - two premises leading to a conclusion.

Now I am going to admit that I have no problem with the conclusion assuming the person it is aimed at is a Hard Materialist. If you follow these beliefs then the idea that people obey the laws of physics seems to me an obvious one - I want to discuss this.

But I also want to discuss the actual syllogism itself - where does it stand or hold for you? Is there something wrong with the premises? Or in the conclusion?

Please can I ask that everyone concentrate on the syllogism and its conclusion exclusively - I'm not interesting a bashing thread - I believe we have plenty of those already.

I also don't want the thread to become a battle of crappy syllogisms - if you want to use one as an example then please do, but also explain clearly why you are using it.

And would those who were kind enough to post to the other thread please feel free to repeat their initial points - I would be very grateful if they would :)

Sou

(Edited to add: The journey back was long and arduous - as well as incredibly boring. The holiday itself wasn't :) It occured to me that trip could have more than one meaning - but now I'm babbling so I'll shut up :o ;))

[Win]

Hiya Sou:

I wonder if we might replace the first premise with the following: The behaviour of atoms is described by the laws of physics?

Let me know.

[Doctor X]

I am sorry . . . who are you again?

[Stop that!--Ed]

Ah . . . yes, pull up a chair, I will have Seed bring you some tea unless you prefer something more "medicinal."

Anyways, I remain unaware of anything done by humans with free will that breaks the laws of physics. Thus, I am afraid I have recognized the whole rant about "free will" rather facile.

--J.D.

[Win]

Frank ... er, I mean Doctor X:

Of course you know who Sou is.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by Win
Hiya Sou:

I wonder if we might replace the first premise with the following: The behaviour of atoms is described by the laws of physics?

Let me know.

Hey Win :)

Never become an advertiser :p

How does your phrase differ substantively from the original "atoms obey the laws of physic"?

What I suppose I'm asking is that your premise certainly seems more precise than the original premise but the original premise conveys the same meaning does it not? If you don't think so then explain to me why not :)

Dr X (and Ed)

Are you saying that for you this syllogism holds?

And I'll have a hot chocolate if there's one going :p

Sou

[c4ts]

I say obedience only applies to cognizant beings anyway. Anything that "obeys" simply because it is acted upon by a physical force isn't really "obeying" the force, it has no capabilities of its own. Atoms don't "obey," but people can.

[Win]

Sou:

You ask:

How does your phrase differ substantively from the original "atoms obey the laws of physic"?

And I respond, well, that's exactly what I was asking when I said, "I wonder if we might replace the first premise with the following."

Ultimately, I already have all the answers. ;)

I'm just trying to make it fun for the rest of you. :D

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by c4ts
I say obedience only applies to cognizant beings anyway. Anything that "obeys" simply because it is acted upon by a physical force isn't really "obeying" the force, it has no capabilities of its own. Atoms don't "obey," but people can.

So are you saying, c4ts that you only have a problem with the word obey? That if we were to change the intial premise to Win's suggestion then, for you, the syllogism would hold?

Win - if you know it all, then share with your eager acolyte :p In your opinion does your premise differ substantively from the original? In my opinion it doesn't, but if you think differently then I'd like to know :D

And you always make things...interesting ;)

Sou

[Win]

Sou:

You ask:

In your opinion does your premise differ substantively from the original?

Well, yes. Otherwise I wouldn't have offered it as an alternative.

Nevertheless, you say:

In my opinion it doesn't

and I'd be interested in reading exactly why you feel the two are effectively the same.

[Doctor X]

Sou:

Where are your Banshees?

Anyways, I believe we have some Giardelli's left. . . .

For me, agreeing with the semantics over "obey," the syllogist lacks a point.

If I trip I fall.

If I toss you over the balcony, you scream and fail your arms for an amusing second or two before you demonstrate Newtonian interaction with the pavement followed by the Hounds removing what is left.

All of that is consistent with the laws of physics.

I suppose some wish to argue that my choice to toss you is somehow governed and decreed by a law somewhere . . . an equation.

Certainly, if you ask the Staff direct the Quartet to perform their rendition of "Achy Breaky Heart" this will elicit said demonstration of gravity, though Staff may get to you before I do.

Of course, that is your choice.

I find this whole "free will" debate rather sophmoric, frankly, right up there with the "how do you know that the tree is still there when you are not looking at it?"

If someone wishes to delude himself that he has no free will, very well.

--J.D.

[Win]

Doctor X:

If I trip I fall.

Tell me about it, Franko.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Soubrette


So are you saying, c4ts that you only have a problem with the word obey? That if we were to change the intial premise to Win's suggestion then, for you, the syllogism would hold?

Win - if you know it all, then share with your eager acolyte :p In your opinion does your premise differ substantively from the original? In my opinion it doesn't, but if you think differently then I'd like to know :D

And you always make things...interesting ;)

Sou

Well, it's not simply semantics, or I could just look up "obey" and say Franko wasn't fitting the same definition in both cases. It's the distortion of the concept of obedience, or of what most people consider obedience to be.

I disagree entirely with Franko's use of the word "obey," or any other word he would use to mean the same thing. Obedience applies to a relationship between a master and a subject, where the master orders the subject. For example, "dogs can obey humans" or "dogs can obey the commands of humans" are essentially the same thing (although the wording is different). But to say "clothes obey humans" or "clothes obey human commands" doesn't quite make sense. Franko says TLOP are the commands of the Goddess when he says "you obey TLOP," so when Franko says "atoms obey TLOP," he means "atoms obey the commands of the Goddess" which doesn't make sense without antrhopomorphizing the atoms first, which is absurd. Atoms obey commands no better than clothes. Also, are there any situations concerning obedience, other than non-examples, where disobedience is impossible?

[Soubrette]

Win - just to make it easier for me, let's look at the two alternatives.

The somewhat basic but snappy:

"Atoms obey the Laws of Physics"

And the more substantial:

"The behaviour of atoms is described by the laws of physics?"

So we have the idea that the behaviour of atoms rather than the atoms themselves are the ones affected by the laws of physics. This, I think, in the first instance, is more accurate but surely referring to "atoms" themselves would still be understood.

If I could use an example. My car works when I start the ignition - surely it would be more accurate to say - my car's engine works when I start the ignition. However understanding is certainly not precluded by the use of the imprecise original sentence?

Then we have the words "obey" and "described" Again the second word, for me. is more accurate - but the word obey is still meaningful in its context.

In short - the new premise is semantically more correct but the original one conveys the same meaning - if in a much simple and more colloquial way.

Now I've shown you mine - you show you me yours :)

Dr X - it always amazes me that people wish to take part in a discussion only to pronounce on how boring it is :p

Win - please stop teasing Dr X.

c4ts - so again - if we put Win's suggestion in the place of the initial premise - would the syllogism hold for you

The behaviour of atoms is described by the laws of physics
People are made of atoms
The behaviour of People is described by the laws of physics

Thanks

Sou

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Soubrette

c4ts - so again - if we put Win's suggestion in the place of the initial premise - would the syllogism hold for you

The behaviour of atoms is described by the laws of physics
People are made of atoms
The behaviour of People is described by the laws of physics

Thanks

Sou

No. That's just doing the same thing again, this time with behavior.

[Eyes Shining Angrily]

Originally posted by Soubrette
Hey all

First, for those interested - I'm back after a long and arduous trip :)

Second - before I left I was involved in a discussion regarding Frank's jingle. I have no idea where it is anymore so I hope that those involved will indulge me in continuing with a new and more relevant thread.

So to recap, and in the unlikely event that anyone is unaware of Frank's jingle here it is:

Atoms obey the Laws of Physics
People are made of Atoms
People obey the Laws of Physics.

So we have what appears to be a syllogism - two premises leading to a conclusion.



People are made of atoms? What exactly is that supposed to mean? The only meaning that I can attach to it is that people can be completely understood once we know everything about the atoms and their properties, and their interactions of other atoms comprising a persons body. But in supposing this we are implicitly assuming the correctness of both reductionism and the notion that the world is physically closed. But once we assume this then it necessarily follows that people obey the laws of physics.

In other words the argument establishes precisely nothing because the second premise on its own entails the conclusion. And the second premise I would assert is far from being certain.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Soubrette
Win - just to make it easier for me, let's look at the two alternatives.

The somewhat basic but snappy:

"Atoms obey the Laws of Physics"

And the more substantial:

"The behaviour of atoms is described by the laws of physics?"

So we have the idea that the behaviour of atoms rather than the atoms themselves are the ones affected by the laws of physics.

I think your very last sentence displays the basic attitude that Win objects to -- it certainly sets off warning lights for me.

Nothing is "affected" by the laws of physics. The laws of physics are mathematical formulae that humans have invented to describe objective behavior that we observe. They certainly do a goob job of describing many things we see, but a) they are admittedly incomplete, and b) it is only a human assumption that nature must work in a predictable, rationally knowable way. That outlook has worked for us pretty well so far, but we assume that it must always be so at our own peril.

Suppose that we were watching a basketball game, and trying to figure out the rules. It seems pretty obvious at first glance that two points are scored whenever a basket is made. If all we ever saw was a game where no three-point shots were successful, we might even conclude that two points per basket was a fundamental "law of basketball." But we would be wrong, simply because our observation was incomplete. Now, obviously, further observation would help us figure out the more subtle rules -- but could we ever be 100% sure that we knew all of the rules? What if there was some obscure rule that had just never come up?

That's the distinction I'm trying to make. It's a mistake for us to assume that the laws of physics that we have derived dictate the behavior of nature, just as it would be a mistake to assume that the "laws of basketball" we derived from watching a game for half an hour dictated the behavior of the game itself.

In my opinion, the phrase "atoms obey the laws of physics" underscores that difference. It implies that the "laws of physics" are prescriptive rather than descriptive, which is the attitude that opens the door for nonsense of the Franko variety.

Does that make any sense?

Jeremy

[Win]

Sou:

Now I've shown you mine - you show you me yours

'kay.

The word "obey" conveys the idea that the laws of physics are some kind of "meta-cop" that dictate the action of things that exist in the physical world. The "laws of physics" say jump, and we mere partciles say "how high."

The fact that we use the phrase, "the laws of physics," to describe our understanding of the world is just an accident of language.

Even assuming that when we talk about the "laws of physics," we're really talking about the *ultimate* laws of physics, all we're saying is: The behaviour of atoms is described in the following way.

If you'd like to maintain that we can get fro there to "Atoms obey the laws of physics," I'd love to read the argument.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Win,

The word "obey" conveys the idea that the laws of physics are some kind of "meta-cop" that dictate the action of things that exist in the physical world. The "laws of physics" say jump, and we mere partciles say "how high."

The fact that we use the phrase, "the laws of physics," to describe our understanding of the world is just an accident of language.

Even assuming that when we talk about the "laws of physics," we're really talking about the *ultimate* laws of physics, all we're saying is: The behaviour of atoms is described in the following way.

If you'd like to maintain that we can get fro there to "Atoms obey the laws of physics," I'd love to read the argument.

I agree totally (imagine that :p). Unfortunately Franko has made it absolutely clear that by "atoms obey the laws of physics", he literally means that the laws of physics are some "entity" or "thing" that is controlling everything else.

Of course, it is all irrelevant, since this failed attempt at a syllogism is intended to show that materialism is incompatible with Libertarian free-will, which none of the materialists here claim to believes in anyway.

Dr. Stupid

[gentlehorse]

Doctor X:
Anyways, I remain unaware of anything done by humans with free will that breaks the laws of physics.
Perhaps it's not the actions of humans which break the laws of physic, but rather free will itself that would do so, were it to exist. If free will is a characteristic of human consciousness, which itself is an emergent property of physical complexity, then to what extent, exactly, is free will "free"? If physical interactions in the brain yield other physical interactions, which yield other physical interactions, all of which are, in principle, predictable as viewed from a given initial state and which eventually result in the emergence of consciousness, how can free will be said to exist?

In trying to view things from a strictly materialist viewpoint, the only way I can see the will being "free" from determinism is if there exist random influences in a given sequence of physical interactions in the brain which result in unexpected subsequent interactions. If this is the case, as it seems to be, then it could probably be said that human consciousness is not deterministic. But would these random influences, which yield this freedom from determinism, result in free will or in random behavior? If consciousness emerges from nondeterministic, complex physical interactions, we still don't seem to be able to say that free will exists, unless we're willing to say that the source of free will is randomness. Somehow, randomness doesn't quite equate with free will in my mind. It seems to me that free will would be freedom from the results of deterministic physical interactions and randomness, which, I guess, is impossible. The existence of free will would therefore breach the laws of physics. I don't know.

Of course, Franko doesn't buy the random influence bit anyhow. In his mind, the appearance of randomness is nothing more than a reflection of the limitations of the models we use to describe reality and make predictions. Moreover, he feels that as our models approach a perfect description of reality, there will be fewer and fewer observations of random influences until, finally, there will be none. Which, of course, still leaves us hanging out in the cosmos, obeying the laws of physics without any cottin pickin' free will.

I had no choice but to babble thusly. I am made of atoms. Or perhaps Franko is wrong and this post is nothing more than a random brainfart. :D

[Soubrette]

I think it is important to remember that the syllogism applies to Hard Materialism only. The Laws of Physics mentioned are the actual laws of physics - not the imperfect mathematical formulae that we use to attempt to explain them.

Of course if you don't believe that there is an underlying Law of Physics - which may be only theoretically knowable - then what do you believe in? Interested parties wish to know:p

c4ts

Actually I'd like to move away from the conclusions that Frank reaches beyond his syllogism and just concentrate on the it alone. I'm not interested at this point in time in Logical Deism, the goddess etc - all I'm interested in is that syllogism. I want to understand why it provokes such a strong response:) And I want to see why it doesn't provoke such a strong response in me - where am I looking at it differently compared to you :)

So you don't believe that the laws of physics affect the behaviour of people? And if you don't - what do you think does affect their behaviour?

Eyes Shining Angrily

So let's take the position that "atoms" is another colloqialism for all the physical odds and bods that we, as people, are made of - isn't this what a Hard Materialist would believe? If not. what else would they be looking for?

Jeremy

I like your phrase "it is only a human assumption that nature must work in a predictable, rationally knowable way." I agree wholeheartedly with that - but isn't this the assumption that Hard Materialism is based on?

As I have said at the beginning of this post - I don't believe that the syllogism refers to the mathematical formulae that we use to try and describe the laws of physics - I think it relates to what Win refers to as the "ultimate" laws of physics - the actual underlying laws of physics.

To use your basketball analogy. We may not be able to know all the rules after watching basketball for a half an hour - but we might take a stab at writing those rules down - we might get some right and some wrong - but it doesn't take away from the fact that those players are playing to some rules - whether you or I know them, or not:)

Win

I can't add to my argument - I think the original syllogism uses colloquial language to make its point. For a person to say they disagree because they believe the terms used are imprecise, to me at this time, is just semantics.

Persuade me :)

Stimpy

You agree with Win :eek: Actually I think you and Win are closer in agreement with lots of things:)

But why does this syllogism fail? - forget the conclusions that Frank draws from it - I want to talk about this syllogism only - for a Hard Materialist - why would it fail?

Thanks

Sou

[Win]

Stimp:

I agree totally (imagine that ).

I'm sure we agree about a lot of things, our disagreement with regard to HPC notwithstanding.

Unfortunately Franko has made it absolutely clear that by "atoms obey the laws of physics", he literally means that the laws of physics are some "entity" or "thing" that is controlling everything else.

What could that possibly mean?

Of course, it is all irrelevant, since this failed attempt at a syllogism is intended to show that materialism is incompatible with Libertarian free-will, which none of the materialists here claim to believes in anyway.

"Libertarian free will" is meaningless.

[Eyes Shining Angrily]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Win,



I agree totally (imagine that :p). Unfortunately Franko has made it absolutely clear that by "atoms obey the laws of physics", he literally means that the laws of physics are some "entity" or "thing" that is controlling everything else.

Of course, it is all irrelevant, since this failed attempt at a syllogism is intended to show that materialism is incompatible with Libertarian free-will, which none of the materialists here claim to believes in anyway.

Dr. Stupid


Only if all possible formulations of materialism incorporate reductionism and a closed physical world.

[Tricky]

Hi Sou et. al.

Getting in a little late on this, so apologies if I cover old ground.

A lot of points about syllogisms are covered in a discussion with Beleth (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=326075&highlight=actually+defy+logic#post326075) in the "Can God make a rock..." thread. In it I defined my terms and asked if Beleth accepted the premises based on those definitions. In logic, if you accept the premisises and the syllogism is valid, then you accept the conclusion.

With Franko's "jingle" (good name for it, BTW) I can accept it (even though slightly faulty because of the fallacy of composition) IF the terms are defined to my satisfaction. This becomes quite a bit more verbose than the syllogism itself.

I have harped before on the point that by "The Laws of Physics" in the Major Premise, Franko actually means the perfect laws of physics, or what they would be if we knew everything. The "best description" laws of physics that we have are broken every time a new principle is accepted.

"Obey" has been discussed, so I won't belabor the point. On to the minor premise.

We are made of atoms, but we are made of atoms and other things. Some say a soul, some say a graviton, some say a consciouness. All of these things cannot be shown to obey the laws of physics. Some of them outright defy them. For me, this is not a problem since I think that both souls and consciousness are emergent properties of the very physical brain. Although I have pointed out that we are also composed of things which are not atoms, like interatomic bonds, ions etc, electrical impulses etc., this is also not a problem for me because I believe that these things also "obey" the perfect laws of physics.

On to the conclusion!. I can't see any way to get around the fallacy of composition, even if I substitute all of my definitions, but I still accept the conclusion. Let me (here we go again) offer yet another version.

P1: All real things are constrained by the perfect laws of physics.
P2: Humans are composed only of real things
C: All componant of humans are constrained by the perfect laws of physics.

Now it is obvious that things like "immortal souls" are unconstrained by the laws of physics. They require storage of information in ways that are hitheto undiscovered. Perhaps they are possible in the perfect laws of physics, but we have no reason to suppose so. It is still conceivable that we could assemble a bunch of physics-obeying componants in order to disobey the perfect laws of physics, but if they did, under premise 1, the resultant thing would no longer be real. In fact, if you accept premise one, Franko's "jingle" is unnecessary, provided you accept humans as real. (See the
God's rock (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=326075&highlight=actually+defy+logic#post326075) thread for my definition of "real")

[Win]

Tricky:

Blah, blah.

Short paragraphs, easily understood points, please.

Otherwise, you're just boring.

[Eyes Shining Angrily]

Originally posted by Win
Stimp:


"Libertarian free will" is meaningless.

Only if you can demonstrate that it is inconceivable that our actions can be anything other than determined, or a consequence of innate randomness, or some mixture of those two.

[Win]

Eyes:

Only if you can demonstrate that it is inconceivable that our actions can be anything other than determined, or a consequence of innate randomness, or some mixture of those two.

With regard to so called "libertarian free will," I ask you to think about the nature of identity. What could it possibly mean for "you" to chose to do something, when "you" could chose to do otherwise.

Think about it.

[Eyes Shining Angrily]

Originally posted by gentlehorse


It seems to me that free will would be freedom from the results of deterministic physical interactions and randomness, which, I guess, is impossible.


If it is impossible you should be able to demonstrate this.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Win
Tricky:
Blah, blah.
Short paragraphs, easily understood points, please.
Otherwise, you're just boring.
Please, Win. Sou likes her threads free of personal attacks. However, I will attempt to refrain from sesquipedalian rants.

I see I have covered old ground. My "perfect laws of physics" is equivalent to Win's "ultimate laws of physics". I would argue that both of these concepts are not "real". Using the definition (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/r/r0069700.html) in Dictionary.com:
real - True and actual; not imaginary, alleged, or ideal
By this definition, the ultimate or perfect laws of physics are ideal. They are unattainable, and therefore not real.

[Soubrette]

Tricky

Isn't there a world of difference between unattainable and unknowable?

And thank you :)

Sou

[Eyes Shining Angrily]

Originally posted by Win

Only if you can demonstrate that it is inconceivable that our actions can be anything other than determined, or a consequence of innate randomness, or some mixture of those two.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



With regard to so called "libertarian free will," I ask you to think about the nature of identity. What could it possibly mean for "you" to chose to do something, when "you" could chose to do otherwise.

Think about it.



Possibly the train of mental events leading to me choosing A rather than B is neither determined by physical laws nor is a consequence of incorrigible "mental laws". Rather the sequence of events may be influenced by the Will. By the Will I mean an intrinsic facet of the self which has the capacity to choose. Such an action inniated by the Will would neither be entailed by physical laws, "mental laws" nor be random.

Obviously very difficult to define. But I would say that anyone who maintains that we can only act as a consequence of physical laws, mental laws, or randomness has the onus of demonstrating why this is so.

edited to add: btw it is perfectly possible for the Will to make an arbitrary decision and yet not at all be random.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Soubrette
Tricky

Isn't there a world of difference between unattainable and unknowable?
Not a world of difference, but some. A working definition of "unknowable" would be "knowledge that is unattainable".

But you got me. Unknowable would have been a better word in my previous post.

[Win]

Eyes:

Obviously very difficult to define. But I would say that anyone who maintains that we can only act as a consequence of physical laws, mental laws, or randomness has the onus of demonstrating why this is so.

I disagree. I would say that anyone who maintains that I act in any other way than that which is determined by my identity has the onus of demonstrating exactly how that is so.

[Eyes Shining Angrily]

Originally posted by Win


Unfortunately Franko has made it absolutely clear that by "atoms obey the laws of physics", he literally means that the laws of physics are some "entity" or "thing" that is controlling everything else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What could that possibly mean?


god maybe?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Eyes Shining Angrily


god maybe? [/B]

Goddess, actually. See the thread "Logical? Deism," for more information on Franko's beliefs. For more information on Franko, see the thread "Franko! the comic."

[Eyes Shining Angrily]

Originally posted by Win
Obviously very difficult to define. But I would say that anyone who maintains that we can only act as a consequence of physical laws, mental laws, or randomness has the onus of demonstrating why this is so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I disagree. I would say that anyone who maintains that I act in any other way than that which is determined by my identity has the onus of demonstrating exactly how that is so.


By introducing the concept of identity you make things confusing. Much rather talk about physical laws, mental laws, and randomness :mad: ;) But anyway, if you mean I will act in a given way according to everything I am at any particular specific moment in time, and within a particular environment, then this cannot be denied unless you introduce the idea of acting randomly.

Maybe more on this later. I know you don't like reading long posts ;)

[Darat]

(Off topic to annoy Sou :p )

Great new avatar Sou - very stylish and p....

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Soubrette
I like your phrase "it is only a human assumption that nature must work in a predictable, rationally knowable way." I agree wholeheartedly with that - but isn't this the assumption that Hard Materialism is based on?

Yes. That's why I'm not a materialist, I'm a pragmatist -- I try to keep assumptions to an absolute minimum. Materialism and idealism are both unsupportable positions -- and meaningless, to boot.

As I have said at the beginning of this post - I don't believe that the syllogism refers to the mathematical formulae that we use to try and describe the laws of physics - I think it relates to what Win refers to as the "ultimate" laws of physics - the actual underlying laws of physics.

What if there aren't any ultimate laws of physics? Seriously, why are people so sure there are? That's a leap of faith no different from any variety of theism.

Sure, mathematics can describe reality to a certain degree...but can it describe reality completely? Do we have a guarantee that the laws of physics are static and immutable? They seem to be, but a window of a few hundred years in one tiny corner of the universe isn't even a valid statistical sample, let alone a universal decree.

A century ago, it was assumed that the universe was a great clockwork machine, and many people still intuitively feel that it must be. But quantum mechanics threw determinists for a loop then, and I don't see why people are so quick to make the same mistake again today.

To use your basketball analogy. We may not be able to know all the rules after watching basketball for a half an hour - but we might take a stab at writing those rules down - we might get some right and some wrong - but it doesn't take away from the fact that those players are playing to some rules - whether you or I know them, or not

But think about what that means: the players in the game always act within the rules (or are punished in a deterministic way for breaking the rules ;)), but that still doesn't mean that the rules of basketball determine the way a game of basketball will be played -- the rules don't specify how players will act and react. Even under your "hard basketballism," the rules are descriptive rather than prescriptive. :)

Jeremy

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by c4ts


Goddess, actually. See the thread "Logical? Deism," for more information on Franko's beliefs. For more information on Franko, see the thread "Franko! the comic."

I think you are allowing your Frank obsession to intrude on a conversation between Win and Eyes Shining. I'd prefer you to keep your Frank bashing to the multitude of threads started for that purpose

Thank you

Sou

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Sou,

But why does this syllogism fail? - forget the conclusions that Frank draws from it - I want to talk about this syllogism only - for a Hard Materialist - why would it fail?

It doesn't succeed or fail. It is simply not a valid syllogism. Even if we accept the two premises as valid, the conclusion does not logically follow from those premises.

That said, based on the way Franko uses the term "obey", his premises are false, and so is the conclusion. If we take "x obeys the laws of physics" to simply mean that x's behavior can be described in terms of some set of natural laws, then (at least according to materialism) his premises are true, and so are the conclusions. But either way, the conclusion does not follow from the premises. It is simply a flawed argument.


Win,

Unfortunately Franko has made it absolutely clear that by "atoms obey the laws of physics", he literally means that the laws of physics are some "entity" or "thing" that is controlling everything else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What could that possibly mean?

He believes that the laws of physics are God. That they are a conscious, intelligent, immortal entity. Unfortunately, he also insists on projecting this irrational belief onto materialists, insisting that if we believe in natural laws at all, that we must logically accept that those laws are a conscious being that controls everything. Hence all of his ridiculous "is your car more conscious than you?", and Dungeons and Dragons analogies.

Of course, it is all irrelevant, since this failed attempt at a syllogism is intended to show that materialism is incompatible with Libertarian free-will, which none of the materialists here claim to believes in anyway.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Libertarian free will" is meaningless.

Ironically enough, Franko agrees with that fact. But he will not acknowledge that the materialists here who have said they believe in free-will, aren't talking about that conception of free-will. Instead, he insists that the incoherent Libertarian definition of free-will is the only thing that can reasonably be called free-will, and thereby claims that we believe in it, no matter how many times various materialists tell him that we do not.

What is really bizarre, though, is that he has somehow decided that the belief in Libertarian free-will is an atheistic concept, and that all atheists believe in it, and that no theists do. Especially ironic, since the only people I have seen even attempt to defend Libertarian free-will on this board are theists. Go figure.

Eyes Shining Angrily,

Only if all possible formulations of materialism incorporate reductionism and a closed physical world.

Perhaps I should clarify. When I say "materialism", I am referring to modern scientific materialism, which is both reductionist, and assumes a closed physical world. I cannot speak for any other forms of materialism, because I do not know of any other forms of materialism that are not incoherent.

"Libertarian free will" is meaningless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only if you can demonstrate that it is inconceivable that our actions can be anything other than determined, or a consequence of innate randomness, or some mixture of those two.

That is a tautology. The definition of "random" is "non-deterministic". If you mean something else by the word "random", you need to define what you mean by it.

Possibly the train of mental events leading to me choosing A rather than B is neither determined by physical laws nor is a consequence of incorrigible "mental laws". Rather the sequence of events may be influenced by the Will. By the Will I mean an intrinsic facet of the self which has the capacity to choose. Such an action inniated by the Will would neither be entailed by physical laws, "mental laws" nor be random.

So all you have done is add another set of laws. The "will laws". This is nothing more than word games. All of these laws fall into the category of "natural laws". Dividing them up into little arbitrary groups just confuses the issue.

Obviously very difficult to define. But I would say that anyone who maintains that we can only act as a consequence of physical laws, mental laws, or randomness has the onus of demonstrating why this is so.

Libertarian free-will is incoherent because it asserts that the will is not constrained by any natural laws. It literally asserts that the will is neither deterministic nor random. It must be one or the other.

edited to add: btw it is perfectly possible for the Will to make an arbitrary decision and yet not at all be random.

No, it isn't. If it is not random, then it is determined by something, which means it is not random.


Dr. Stupid

[neutrino_cannon]

Atoms obey the laws of physics

I thought the laws of physics were in part defined by the actions that have been observed in the particles that the laws pertian to. Isn't his statement then pointless?

People are made out of atoms

I happen to be made out of tau-leptons! I have never once seen them form atoms.

People obey the laws of physics

If we consider that people are made of the same atoms that define the laws of physics, I don't see why this statement has nay meaning. It's like saying that nothing can be outside the universe if the universe is everything

[Soubrette]

Darat

You mea.....:p

Jeremy

Indeed :) And I can see why for you the syllogism wouldn't hold - but what about if you were a Hard Materialist? Would it hold then - in your opinion?

I like the basketball analogy more now I understand it better :p

And leaps of faith or given axioms - wonderful phrases we would all do well to consider sometimes :p

Sou

[Darat]

Stimpy said:

..snip...

Perhaps I should clarify. When I say "materialism", I am referring to modern scientific materialism, which is both reductionist, and assumes a closed physical world. I cannot speak for any other forms of materialism, because I do not know of any other forms of materialism that are not incoherent.

...snip...



Stimpy - can you defend the assumption of "reductionism" in the "scientific materialism" you talk about.? Or is it one of the premises of "SM"? - Thanks

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Soubrette
Indeed :) And I can see why for you the syllogism wouldn't hold - but what about if you were a Hard Materialist? Would it hold then - in your opinion?

Yes, I think so. And note that I don't insist that people aren't governed by some set of uber-laws of physics, either. In fact, I don't even consider that an unknowable question, like I do materialism as a whole. I believe it's possible in principle to test whether consciousness is a physical or metaphysical phenomenon, even though the means to do so probably won't be available for many, many years, even if they're practical for humans at all.

Jeremy

----
I believe it's possible in principle to test whether consciousness is a physical or metaphysical phenomenon, ...
----


Great guru, what is consciousness?

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Darat,

Stimpy - can you defend the assumption of "reductionism" in the "scientific materialism" you talk about.? Or is it one of the premises of "SM"? - Thanks

Both.

First of all, the assumption of reductionism is an assumption of the scientific method. In that sense, you could think of it as a pragmatic assumption, rather than as a belief. In other words, you don't know whether it is true or not, but you pragmatically assume that it is, in order to apply the scientific method.

That said, the complete set of axioms of the scientific method form a falsifiable hypothesis. That is, if they are all true, then the scientific method should work. If the scientific method didn't work, we would never know which of the axioms were false. We would just know that at least on of them is not true.

This means that the success of the scientific method, the fact that it does, in fact work, constitutes supporting evidence for the hypothesis that its axioms are true. Not proof, just supporting evidence.

Thus the belief that scientific materialism is true is not just a leap of faith. For somebody who is unaware of the success of the scientific method, it would be, but for anybody who knows how successful the scientific method is, it is a belief based on overwhelming supporting evidence. Claiming that we don't know whether the assumptions of the scientific method are true or not, would be like claiming that we don't know whether the gravity will be turned on tomorrow.

Dr. Stupid

[Darat]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
…snip…



Thus the belief that scientific materialism is true is not just a leap of faith. For somebody who is unaware of the success of the scientific method, it would be, but for anybody who knows how successful the scientific method is, it is a belief based on overwhelming supporting evidence. Claiming that we don't know whether the assumptions of the scientific method are true or not, would be like claiming that we don't know whether the gravity will be turned on tomorrow.

…snip…

Whilst I totally agree that the scientific method has been and still is the singularly most successful tool humans have ever invented/created - it is still based on “unprovable” premises.

In other words the one “white crow” could bring the whole edifice crashing down to its foundations. No matter how successful it has been to date it is still based on assumption.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Darat,

Whilst I totally agree that the scientific method has been and still is the singularly most successful tool humans have ever invented/created - it is still based on “unprovable” premises.

In other words the one “white crow” could bring the whole edifice crashing down to its foundations. No matter how successful it has been to date it is still based on assumption.

That is exactly the point. Once you get beyond the inherently flawed notion of "absolute knowledge", the fact that it could be proven wrong becomes a strength, not a weakness. Our knowledge that the premises of the scientific method are true is not absolute knowledge. It cannot be proven in the logical sense. Only abstract logical tautologies can be "proven".

You can either reject the concept of knowledge completely, or accept the idea of probabilistic, provisional knowledge. All of our knowledge about "reality" is provisional and probabilistic. Hence my previous statement about the gravity being turned on tomorrow. I cannot "prove" that gravity will function tomorrow, but to claim that I do not know that it will, is nothing less than rejecting the concept of knowledge itself.

Dr. Stupid

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Soubrette
c4ts

Actually I'd like to move away from the conclusions that Frank reaches beyond his syllogism and just concentrate on the it alone. I'm not interested at this point in time in Logical Deism, the goddess etc - all I'm interested in is that syllogism. I want to understand why it provokes such a strong response:) And I want to see why it doesn't provoke such a strong response in me - where am I looking at it differently compared to you :)

So you don't believe that the laws of physics affect the behaviour of people? And if you don't - what do you think does affect their behaviour?[/B]

Well, that depends on how you look at it. Things like levitation, teleportation, and walking through walls aren't part of human behavior, and laws of physics are used to explain why we can't do such things, so in that sense I can say the laws of physics are affecting behaviour. Also, things like emotions are biochemical reactions on a physical level, and emotions affect behaviour except when someone has enough self control to restrain themselves. But in the same way, desires affect behaviour, and desires don't seem to be explained by the laws of physics alone (the laws of biology or psychology aren't the same as the laws of physics). On a more straightforward level, if a tractor obeying the laws of physics flips over and crushes your spine because you did not operate it in a safe manner, it has changed your behaviour for the rest of your life (because you're paralyzed).

So I am not saying the laws of physics don't affect people's behaviour, but that they can affect people's behaviour only to a certain degree. It is certainly not the way commands affect behaviour. But I don't know what would constitute the rest of behaviour.

[Eyes Shining Angrily]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Libertarian free will" is meaningless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only if you can demonstrate that it is inconceivable that our actions can be anything other than determined, or a consequence of innate randomness, or some mixture of those two.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That is a tautology. The definition of "random" is "non-deterministic". If you mean something else by the word "random", you need to define what you mean by it.


It doesn't mean non-deterministic if we believe in libertarian free will. Randomness means innately uncertain.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possibly the train of mental events leading to me choosing A rather than B is neither determined by physical laws nor is a consequence of incorrigible "mental laws". Rather the sequence of events may be influenced by the Will. By the Will I mean an intrinsic facet of the self which has the capacity to choose. Such an action inniated by the Will would neither be entailed by physical laws, "mental laws" nor be random.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So all you have done is add another set of laws. The "will laws".



Crucially though what the Will decides is not determined from without, but is a spontaneous decision by an individual. Thus from one second to another second we do what we do because of what we are, but what we intrinsically are is not something imposed upon us externally, but is an elementary reality which cannot be further analysed. In other words what we do is a consequence of ourselves. But the self itself is self-determining.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously very difficult to define. But I would say that anyone who maintains that we can only act as a consequence of physical laws, mental laws, or randomness has the onus of demonstrating why this is so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Libertarian free-will is incoherent because it asserts that the will is not constrained by any natural laws. It literally asserts that the will is neither deterministic nor random. It must be one or the other.


No it mustn't. If you mean by deterministic, imposed from without, so that our behavior is circumscribed by physical laws or some sort of mental laws, then I do not see this as being necessarily true. Behavior could be determined from within. In this situation behavior might not exhibit any patterns which can either be captured by any physical laws or "mental laws", but nevertheless the behaviour isn't random in that the behavior is dictated by the Will and is in general accordance with how a person might be expected to behave in certain given specific circumstances.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edited to add: btw it is perfectly possible for the Will to make an arbitrary decision and yet not at all be random.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No, it isn't. If it is not random, then it is determined by something, which means it is not random.


ok but determined by the self whose decision is not compltely dictated by factors external to the self.

[DanishDynamite]

c4ts:So I am not saying the laws of physics don't affect people's behaviour, but that they can affect people's behaviour only to a certain degree. Everything a human thinks, does or experiences is governed by the laws of physics. At least, there is no evidence to the contrary.

In this sense, the conclusion of Franko's logically flawed jingle (properly interpreted), is correct.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
c4ts: Everything a human thinks, does or experiences is governed by the laws of physics. At least, there is no evidence to the contrary.

In this sense, the conclusion of Franko's logically flawed jingle (properly interpreted), is correct.
True, but even so, this does not imply fatalism. The Franko character refuses to accept that some of the laws of physics are non-deterministic. The conclusion may be correct, but it certainly isn't what he meant.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
c4ts: Everything a human thinks, does or experiences is governed by the laws of physics. At least, there is no evidence to the contrary.

In this sense, the conclusion of Franko's logically flawed jingle (properly interpreted), is correct.

So even though I can imagine things that do not follow the laws of physics, they govern my thoughts anyway? Or are you just talking about mental activity itself?

[DanishDynamite]

Tricky:True, but even so, this does not imply fatalism. The Franko character refuses to accept that some of the laws of physics are non-deterministic. The conclusion may be correct, but it certainly isn't what he meant. True. Our future cannot, even in principle, be predicted with 100% accurracy.

c4ts:So even though I can imagine things that do not follow the laws of physics, they govern my thoughts anyway? Or are you just talking about mental activity itself? The process by which you imagine things, is governed by the laws of physics. What you imagine, is not.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Eyes,

That is a tautology. The definition of "random" is "non-deterministic". If you mean something else by the word "random", you need to define what you mean by it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It doesn't mean non-deterministic if we believe in libertarian free will. Randomness means innately uncertain.

And that is different from "non-deterministic" how? If something is deterministic, then it is necessarily certain. If it is innately uncertain, then it cannot be deterministic.

Put simply, something that is random is clearly non-deterministic. If you are going to claim that non-determinism alone is not enough for something to qualify as random, then you need to explain what the additional criteria are.

So all you have done is add another set of laws. The "will laws".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Crucially though what the Will decides is not determined from without, but is a spontaneous decision by an individual. Thus from one second to another second we do what we do because of what we are, but what we intrinsically are is not something imposed upon us externally, but is an elementary reality which cannot be further analysed. In other words what we do is a consequence of ourselves. But the self itself is self-determining.

Our decisions are clearly influenced by outside factors. Even if you allow for some non-reducible "will" that makes the decision, it is affected by outside influences. That will is either deterministic or random, and the mechanism of the influence is also either deterministic or random. Thus the overall process is either deterministic (if both are deterministic), or random (if either or both are random). Either way, Libertarian free-will goes out the window.

Libertarian free-will is incoherent because it asserts that the will is not constrained by any natural laws. It literally asserts that the will is neither deterministic nor random. It must be one or the other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No it mustn't. If you mean by deterministic, imposed from without, so that our behavior is circumscribed by physical laws or some sort of mental laws, then I do not see this as being necessarily true.

That is not what deterministic means.

Behavior could be determined from within.

Not completely. And even if it were, it would still be deterministic.

In this situation behavior might not exhibit any patterns which can either be captured by any physical laws or "mental laws", but nevertheless the behaviour isn't random in that the behavior is dictated by the Will and is in general accordance with how a person might be expected to behave in certain given specific circumstances.

This is contradictory. The will interacts with the physical and mental world. The laws that describe it are therefore necessarily a part of the natural laws describing the physical and mental.

If the will is not described by any natural laws, then nothing it interacts with can be either. If it can be, then those laws manifest in the laws describing how the will interacts with other things. Indeed, our decisions are those interactions. The will can be thought of as a black-box algorithm, with our environment as the input, and our decisions as the output. If the will is deterministic, then there is a set of rules that dictate what our decisions will be for any input. If it is random, then those rules are probabilistic.

No, it isn't. If it is not random, then it is determined by something, which means it is not random.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ok but determined by the self whose decision is not compltely dictated by factors external to the self.

That is also contradictory. If the self is deterministic, then its state at any point in time is determined entirely by its initial conditions, and its external influences. What determines those initial conditions? Either they are random, or they are determined by something outside of the self.

You are asserting that there is something to the self which is not determined by anything outside of itself, and yet which is not random. That is contradictory. It must be one or the other.

Dr. Stupid

[whitefork]

I do wish people would not call those three claims a syllogism. It's not. In fact it is not even an argument in the formal sense since its third statement (the alleged conclusion) does not follow by any rules of inference from the first two (the alleged premises)....

Unless "composition" is a valid rule of inference and not a formal fallacy, in which case all arguments of that form are valid:

All geometric figures are made of points.
Points have no dimension.
Geometric figures have no dimension.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

[Underemployed]

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

A revised syllogism for Franko:

The behaviour of what we call atoms is consistent with equations we have made up after observing the universe.
We are made of atoms.
Our behaviour is consistent with equations we have made up after observing the universe.

Can't say fairer than that, now can you? Not as punchy, though. Can't have everything.

[justsaygnosis]

I think this is the thread you started before your trip.


http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=12693

[Soubrette]

:eek: curses to reality imposing limits on my virtual time :mad:

ok - a whole load of interesting ideas here :)

First to Tricky:

You talk about the fallacy of composition - am I understanding you correctly in that I think you are talking about the terms used being inadequate to convey the meanings behind them (obey, people are made of atoms etc). Or is there an actual objective fallacy of composition with the syll...sorry Whitefork - with the jingle? If the latter - could you explain in very simple terms - it may astound you to know (;)) that I've never done formal logic - all I know about it is what I've read on the boards.

Also I think I'm still going to take issue with the idea that the ultimate laws of physics being unreal because the knowledge of the them is probably unattainable. It doesn't matter if we can know them or if we cannot know them - they either exist or they don't, surely? If you say that they cannot exist because we cannot know them - then aren't you starting to sound a little like UcE?

Stimpy - could you explain in very simple terms why the two premises do not lead to the conclusion? I am assuming this to be the case even if we ruthlessly expunge the word obey from the jingle and use something like Win's alternative. (Although thinking some more on that I think Win was talking about our mathematical ideas of the laws of physics rather than the ultimate laws of physics.

c4ts - so would you consider yourself to be a modern materialist? If not - how would you categorise your beliefs?

And Whitefork - could you give me a little more detail as to why you feel that this jingle doesn't fit the formal pattern of a syllogism - or perhaps more accurately, why it doesn't follow as an argument in the formal sense - and I need it simple :)

and last - justsaygnosis - thanks for the link - I thought that one had died - but this discussion was started on another thread, not one of mine, I just want to see where it takes me really :)

Sou

[SpaceLord]

Soubrette: Love the new avatar. :eek:

Tricky mentioned the Fallacy of Composition. What follows is a link to a great webpage describing some common Fallacies of Ambiguity. Composition is about halfway down the page.

Fallacies of Ambiguity (http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e06c.htm)

There it is.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by SpaceLord
Soubrette: Love the new avatar. :eek:

Tricky mentioned the Fallacy of Composition. What follows is a link to a great webpage describing some common Fallacies of Ambiguity. Composition is about halfway down the page.

Fallacies of Ambiguity (http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e06c.htm)

There it is.

Thank you :)

And thanks for the link too - I'll peruse it now :)

And please feel free to call me Sou - everyone else does and it's easier to type;)

Sou

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Soubrette
First to Tricky:

You talk about the fallacy of composition - am I understanding you correctly in that I think you are talking about the terms used being inadequate to convey the meanings behind them (obey, people are made of atoms etc). Or is there an actual objective fallacy of composition with the syll...sorry Whitefork - with the jingle? If the latter - could you explain in very simple terms - it may astound you to know (;)) that I've never done formal logic - all I know about it is what I've read on the boards.
I've never done formal logic either, so don't expect my explanations to be authoritative. ;)

My purpose in rewriting the... thing... was to remove the "composition". I took out the part that said humans had a trait because the things they are made of have that trait, which (I hope) eliminates the fallacy of composition.

(Just so you won't have to scroll down, my jingle was:

P1: All real things are constrained by the perfect laws of physics.
P2: Humans are composed only of real things
C: All componants of humans are constrained by the perfect laws of physics.)



Unfortunately, that dang nearly, but not quite, makes MY syllo... uh... jingle into a "begging the question" fallacy, since P1 and C are nearly, but not quite identical. Only the possibility that humans could be composed of things other than real things keeps it from being so.

Originally posted by Soubrette
Also I think I'm still going to take issue with the idea that the ultimate laws of physics being unreal because the knowledge of the them is probably unattainable. It doesn't matter if we can know them or if we cannot know them - they either exist or they don't, surely? If you say that they cannot exist because we cannot know them - then aren't you starting to sound a little like UcE?
Actually, this makes me the Anti-Elephant. the Ultimate Laws of Physics, like Infinity, are concepts, or if you wish, mathmatical limits. If "ideal" things are not real (as stated in my definition), then these concepts, while useful, even vitally important, are not real things. However, I rely on the concept being understandable, or my jingle is worthless. (Some might say, "too late" :D)

UcE believes that Infinity is more than a concept and is in fact a real thing. Here we differ.

[Edited to say: P.S. I like your new avatar, but my favorite is still your first one.]

[whitefork]

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

You can say something like

Points are dimensionless
Lines are made of points
therefore lines are dimensionless.

Or

Lines have one dimension
Geometric figures are made of lines
therefore geometric figures have one dimension.

It doesn't matter. The point is that this argument:

X is made of A
A has attribute Q
Therefore X has attribute Q

Is not valid because it can have true premises and a false conclusion.

Valid argument - where the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. The conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true. A valid argument can have false premises, but in that case the conclusion may be either true or false.

See the threads called Introduction to Formal Logic and Fallacy of Composition for discussions ad nauseum.

There is a least one individual here who disagrees with this definition of validity. In his view, a valid argument has true premises and a true conclusion, and the terms in the conclusion must be present in the premises. This view is not widely held.

[Loki]

Sou,

Welcome back - nice trip?

The syllogism is pretty simple to expose - there are 3 different 'truths' here.

1. The premises are true,
2. The conclusion is true.
3. The argument (syllogism) is true (valid).

Franko says "if the premises are true, and the conclusion is true, then the argument must be valid".

This is the core of the problem - Franko's summary is not a true statement! logically, the argument is valid onlyif the conclsuion is always true when the premises are true. As Whitefork (amongst many others) have done, it's easy to produce examples of Franko's jingle in which the "form" os followed, and where the premsies are true, yet the conclusion is clearly false. Therefore, the "form" of his syllogism is false.

In other words, it's entirely logic to say (when refering to Franko's syllogism) that :

1. The premises are true,
2. The conclusion is true.
3. The argument is invalid.

All this does is to reduce Fanko's jingle to the status of "statement of opinion" rather than "logical proof".

Franko is trying to say "my syllogism is a logical proof - logic forces you to accept the conclusion if you cannot defeat the premises". This simply isn't true - accepting his premises does not force me to accept his conclusion. Of course, I can accept his conclusion anyway!

[Loki]

Stimpy,

You are asserting that there is something to the self which is not determined by anything outside of itself, and yet which is not random. That is contradictory. It must be one or the other.

Now, let me just say that this is exactly the line I've been arguing with various people. However, dropping into Devils Advocate mode for a moment, why must "Will" reduce to either determinstic or random? Why can't we define 3 essential "behaviours" within the physical realm, rather than 2?

1. Determined
2. Random
3. Willed

In this instance, "Willed" is a "base attribute", not reducible to anything else. It is only available to "conscious" objects. Given that definition, why must "Willed" be a contradictory concept? Can't it be a standalone concept? Sure, it might be viewed as an "unlikely" property, but why must it be considered contradictory/illogical?

[whitefork]

Hello Loki - Yeah, I just can't get enough of this.

My problem with this - I will call it a paralogism - is that I don't know what Atoms, Obey, Laws of Physics, and YOU mean. For all I know, the atoms are Dalton's or Democritus's. Laws of physics? Newton, Archimedes, Einstein, somebody else?

I don't understand the terms so I can't evaluate the truth of the claims.

[BroodingSkill]

Ok I'm gonna put my foot in my mouth and my neck in the noose here so be nice. I'm taking a course in Descrete Mathmatics in school right now and decided to make a truth table out of Franko's little jingle. So here it goes...

Given: atoms obey TLOP
people are made of atoms
people obey TLOP
(I hope I haven't mistated that..)

Let: P=atoms
Q=TLOP
R=people

so I think we're left with this

P and Q
R and P
---------------
therefore R and Q

Now I hope I haven't got this wrong, I often get things wrong, so please correct me if you disagree.

Now for the purposes of this I'll use T=true and F=false.

The truth table for the "and" logical connective is this.

P Q| P and Q

T T T
F T F
T F F
F F F


So accounting for three variables I come up with this.


P Q R| P and Q| R and P| R and Q

T T T T T T
F F T F F F
F T T F F T
T F T F T F
T F F F F F
T T F T F F
F F F F F F

The right most column( R and Q) is the most important here. This whole thing speaks to the propostional form of the arguments and the not the truth of the individual propositions. So baring this is mind the syllogism is not a "tautology" which means that all possible values of its propostional variables are true for all conditions(plus if you think I left out any conditions in the left column please say so I will correct it and adjust where appropriate). It isn't a "contradiction" which is that all of the truth values of the propostional variables are false for all conditions. So what we are left with is a "contigency" which is neither a tautology nor a contradiction. Again this is about form and not the truth of the propositions themselves, that must be determined by other means.

Lastly, I thank anyone who bothered to read this, and I thank anyone who is willing to help me, I'm sucking in this class but I'm far from dead yet and I wish to apply what knowledge I gain at every opportunity. So thanx.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Sou,

Stimpy - could you explain in very simple terms why the two premises do not lead to the conclusion? I am assuming this to be the case even if we ruthlessly expunge the word obey from the jingle and use something like Win's alternative. (Although thinking some more on that I think Win was talking about our mathematical ideas of the laws of physics rather than the ultimate laws of physics.

It is the fallacy of composition, as Tricky said.

Formally, the syllogism can be expressed as follows:

All A have characteristic x.
B is made of A.
Therefore B has characteristic x.

This conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. Any number of counter examples can be presented to demonstrate this, such as:

All atoms are smaller than a chicken.
All animals are made of atoms.
Therefore all animals are smaller than a chicken.

The conclusion can be correct, for some values of A, B, and x, but it is not in general. That is why the syllogism is flawed. Given the proper definition of "obey", all three statements of the syllogism are true, but that doesn't change the fact that the third statement cannot be deduced from the first two. In order to make it into a formal proof, you would need additional steps. Specifically, you would need steps that explain how composition works with respect to atoms, and that explain which characteristics are preserved by composition, and which are not.


Loki,

You are asserting that there is something to the self which is not determined by anything outside of itself, and yet which is not random. That is contradictory. It must be one or the other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, let me just say that this is exactly the line I've been arguing with various people. However, dropping into Devils Advocate mode for a moment, why must "Will" reduce to either determinstic or random? Why can't we define 3 essential "behaviours" within the physical realm, rather than 2?

1. Determined
2. Random
3. Willed

In this instance, "Willed" is a "base attribute", not reducible to anything else. It is only available to "conscious" objects. Given that definition, why must "Willed" be a contradictory concept? Can't it be a standalone concept? Sure, it might be viewed as an "unlikely" property, but why must it be considered contradictory/illogical?

Good question. In principle, it is not. The problem is that simply stating it, as you have, does not constitute a formal definition. You have said that there are three mutually exclusive "behaviors", and attached names to them, but what are they?

I have a coherent formal definition for determinism, and a coherent formal definition for random. Under those definitions, anything must be one or the other. You can provide different definitions if you want, but when you do o, all you will be doing is taking behavior that I call either deterministic or random, and putting it in your "willed" category instead.

In other words, the argument is incoherent until such time as formal definitions for the three behaviors are provided, and even if you provide such definitions, the entire argument becomes a semantic one.

Dr. Stupid

[Soubrette]

Ok

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

In essence:

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

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

Is this what I'm understanding so far?

Brooding Skill - I hope someone can help you with your mathematical proof - it's totally beyond me but thanks for adding it:)

Sou

[BroodingSkill]

Sou, thank you, I'm just tying to learn and repeating and applying seem to work well and I thank you all for your indugence.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by BroodingSkill
Sou, thank you, I'm just tying to learn and repeating and applying seem to work well and I thank you all for your indugence.

I find repetition works for me - in the end;)

And I'm glad you added it to the thread - it was relevant (I think:p)

Sou

[Loki]

BroodingSkill,

Given: atoms obey TLOP
people are made of atoms
people obey TLOP
(I hope I haven't mistated that..)

Let: P=atoms
Q=TLOP
R=people

so I think we're left with this

P and Q
R and P
---------------
therefore R and Q

Nearly there ... the composition fallacy occurs because the syllogism actually resolves to :

P and Q
R and P1
---------------
therefore R and Q

P = Atoms
P1 = made of atoms.

The syllogism assumes P == P1, which is an implicit further premise.

[BroodingSkill]

Thanx Loki, the wording always trips me up. I guess that's one more thing I need to study.

[The Fool]

Franko's Jingle may be useful to franko. It may be useful to others as a point of debate. As far as Logic is concerned it is purely and simply a textbook example of Fallacy of composition. It could be used as a shining example of this fallacy in a first year logic class. It is simply a statement of franko's beliefs. Because it is structured in 3 lines doesn't make it a syllogysm. It is a fallacy. It is also not a sonnet, It is not a fourteen-line poem in iambic
pentameter with a carefully patterned rhyme scheme. It does not pass that test so it is not a sonnet. It does not pass many other tests either. It is a deliberately structured piece of smoke and mirrors used to support a fallacious argument.

It is not a joke either....It fails the "funny" test as well.....

[c4ts]

Originally posted by whitefork
I do wish people would not call those three claims a syllogism. It's not. In fact it is not even an argument in the formal sense since its third statement (the alleged conclusion) does not follow by any rules of inference from the first two (the alleged premises)....

Unless "composition" is a valid rule of inference and not a formal fallacy, in which case all arguments of that form are valid:

All geometric figures are made of points.
Points have no dimension.
Geometric figures have no dimension.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

Tangent time!

In mathematical terms, here is why the syllogism is correct given only the first two statements:
p = 0 (given)
n = any positive integer >0 (given)
magnitude of any figure = 0n
0n = 0 (property of 0)

Here is why the first statement is false:

I say if points have no dimension, then no amount of points can make a geometric figure. Let all geometric figures have parts. Let points have no part. The part cannot be greater than the whole (postulate). In order for a point to have any part whatsoever, the part would have to be more than no part, therfore greater than the whole, therefore it is absurd. Bow to Euclid, Q.E.D.

[hammegk]

Even after the oodles of logical obfuscation above, does your *I* seem more real to you than your bag-o-bones *me* that is perceived by your *I*?

Is it true that "Atoms obey the laws of the universe-that-is"?

Is it true your *me* is composed of "atoms"? But what do you know about your *I*? Is it "atoms" too? ;)

[MRC_Hans]

So, if I take the liberty to conclude on the debate so far, in relation to Sou's original questions, the jingle is really a Tautology (True, but meaningless statement).

Ranging from the hard-core Materialist to devout Theist, it has the virtue of stating the obvious:

Atoms obey tlop: Yup, Materialist through Theist should have no problem with this.

People are made of atoms: Materialists and Theists might both say, well, but not entirely. The Materialist would mention information as an additional component, the Theist would, of course, mention Soul.

People obey tlop: Here the jury is out, but this is not especially between Materialists and Theists; scattered among the crowds are psi-, astrology-, black cat-, etc. believers.

None of it has any logic evidence value, and the purpose Franko is using it for (debunking free will) is moot. This doesnt even depend on how you view the laws of physics:

Having to act within a rule set only limits willful choice, it doesnt preclude it.

Accepting TLOP as a conscious entity does not preclude free will, as said entity might support it.

Then why the heck are we wasting so much time on it? Dunno
:rolleyes:

Hans

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans


People are made of atoms: Materialists and Theists might both say, well, but not entirely. The Materialist would mention information as an additional component, the Theist would, of course, mention Soul.


You mean the materialist would say a non-materialist would say "soul". And by the way, I wouldn't say people are made of atoms at all. I find the notion perfectly stupid if not meaningless.



People obey tlop: Here the jury is out, but this is not especially between Materialists and Theists; scattered among the crowds are psi-, astrology-, black cat-, etc. believers.



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

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


You mean the materialist would say a non-materialist would say "soul". And by the way, I wouldn't say people are made of atoms at all. I find the notion perfectly stupid if not meaningless.



Again this is utterly absurd. I have free will. And I mean what materialists call "libertarian free will". Mmmm, I have certainly heard non-materialists mention "soul" on numerous occasions.

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

Well, we agree that its absurd. Thats exactly what I'm saying: The sillogism has no relevance for the discussion on free will at all.

Hans

[Peskanov]

Ian;

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

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

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat



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



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



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


You don't know what free will is? :rolleyes:



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



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


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


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

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Peskanov
Ian;

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

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

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

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

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

[whitefork]

Breaking news: Today's (February 10) Dilbert

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

[Interesting Ian]

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

[whitefork]

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

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

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by whitefork
Breaking news: Today's (February 10) Dilbert

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

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

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

[Interesting Ian]

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

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

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

[whitefork]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


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

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

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

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

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

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

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

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

You don't know what free will is?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Stupid

[Peskanov]

Ian,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Franko]

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

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

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

[MRC_Hans]

?...Someone who knows about maths can explain to me how many points a circle has.The formal definition for a circle is that it is the geometrical location for all points of equal distance to the center (thus, a circle consists of an indefinite number of points).

Hans

[Franko]

Brette:
Ok

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

In essence:

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

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

Is this what I'm understanding so far?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Franko]

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

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

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

[Franko]

Ian:

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

Define "free will" Ian.

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

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Franko

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

Thats because he was dressed in your syllogism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed

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

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



Hans

[Franko]

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

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

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

[Franko]

MRC:

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

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

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

WTF are you claiming MRC?

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

[MRC_Hans]

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

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

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

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


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

And I repeat the question: How does that follow?

Hans

[Franko]

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

According to me???

What me?

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

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Franko


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

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

WTF are you claiming MRC?

I think it is time for you to accept the fact that you are a brainwashed religious fanatic who has totally lost sight of the Truth in your blind pursuit of Dogma. Thank guys like Stimpy. I'm claiming that it might change. What part did you not understand? Of course it would not change in the past. WTF are you thinking about?

Hans

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by Franko
I think it is time for you to accept the fact that you are a brainwashed religious fanatic who has totally lost sight of the Truth in your blind pursuit of Dogma.
Interesting that you never talk to Sou this way.

DOH! She's a girl. What was I thinking?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Franko


According to me???

What me?

I'm just a figment of your imagination ... don't you remember? Right now you are an idiot. But I take it you pull ye olde Inverse Solipsism card because you dont have a sensible answer. Didnt take long this time.

Hans

[Franko]

Interesting that you never talk to Sou this way.

DOH! She's a girl. What was I thinking?

That's because the Brette is actually a Skeptic, and not just some brain-dead A-Theist religious fanatic here to Troll their Dogma.

She's capable at seeing things from more than one POV.

You should pay attention Aardvark, maybe you'll learn something.

[Franko]

MRC:

Rignt now you are an idiot. But I take it you pull ye olde Inverse Solipsism card because you dont have a sensible answer. Didnt take long this time.

So you are claiming that the FACT you cannot disprove Solipsism is True somehow proves you have "free will" and are NOT controlled by TLOP???

Like I said MRC, you are nothing but a religious fanatic and Troll on a Skeptics Web site. You are one of Trixy's little flunkies and nothing more.

[Franko]

Stimpson:
the complete set of axioms of the scientific method form a falsifiable hypothesis.

Please list your complete set of "axioms of the scientific method", and let me see EXACTLY how your worldview is falsifible Stimpson.

I keep asking you how your worldview is possibly falsifible, and you KEEP DODGING THE QUESTION.

Face it Stimpy you have a load of Religious Dogma that you can't prove as True, so you just accept it as True so you can go on prtending that you have magic "free will" powers, there won't be any consequences for your actions, and there is no God more powerful than YOU.

How -- precisely -- is Solipsism falsifible according to your philosophy?

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by Franko
You should pay attention Aardvark, maybe you'll learn something.
Nope, Franko, I have paid attention. I'm fairly sure that Q-Source is an atheist, but surprisingly you're not rude and offensive to her. I wonder why that is?

[Franko]

Aardvark: (A-Theist fanatic and Trixy Toadie)

I'm fairly sure that Q-Source is an atheist, but surprisingly you're not rude and offensive to her. I wonder why that is?

That's because the Source is actually a Skeptic, and not just some brain-dead A-Theist religious fanatic here to Troll their Dogma.

She's capable at seeing things from more than one POV.

You should pay attention Aardvark, maybe you'll learn something.

[Aardvark_DK]

She's a skeptic and an atheist? But... isn't that... impossible?

[Franko]

She's a skeptic and an atheist? But... isn't that... impossible?

Well you got it half right (which isn't bad for a half-wit).

Hey Aardfart ... didn't you concede that you were more of an Agnostic then an A-Theists just about a week or so ago?

What happened? Why the flight back to insanity? Did you really miss kissing Trixy's ass that much?

[SpaceLord]

AS I guessed, Franko has refused to discuss that his often cited syllogism is false. Instead, he attacks the syllogism that makes fun of his syllogism. :rolleyes:

And I wonder if he will post his flawed "logical" statement again.

[Franko]

SpacePeon: (A-Theist fruitcake)
AS I guessed, Franko has refused to discuss that his often cited syllogism is false.

Hey … YOU are the nitwit that is claiming 2 + 2 = 4 is FALSE and has an invisible flaw (“The Fallacy of Composition”). If you are claiming there is an Error – if YOU are claiming to possess “free will” – then the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate your claim. So far I haven’t seen any reason to believe that you have “free will”, and other than YOU and the other fanatically religious A-Theists claiming the syllogism is flawed you have presented no evidence that this is the case.

Try addressing the post I made to Sou. I dare you.

Instead, he attacks the syllogism that makes fun of his syllogism.

So your argument is basically nothing but more A-Theist obfuscation of the issue.

Either you have evidence for “free will” or you don’t.

But thank you Spaceball for the repeat performance of your fanatical devotion to the cult of A-Theism.

And I wonder if he will post his flawed "logical" statement again

I wonder if you will ever realize that a Real Skeptic would be skeptical of ALL religions … including the Religion of A-Theism?

I doubt it is your Destiny.

[SpaceLord]

Originally posted by Franko


Hey … YOU are the nitwit that is claiming 2 + 2 = 4 is FALSE and has an invisible flaw (“The Fallacy of Composition”). If you are claiming there is an Error – if YOU are claiming to possess “free will” – then the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate your claim. So far I haven’t seen any reason to believe that you have “free will”, and other than YOU and the other fanatically religious A-Theists claiming the syllogism is flawed you have presented no evidence that this is the case.

Try addressing the post I made to Sou. I dare you.



So your argument is basically nothing but more A-Theist obfuscation of the issue.

Either you have evidence for “free will” or you don’t.

But thank you Spaceball for the repeat performance of your fanatical devotion to the cult of A-Theism.



I wonder if you will ever realize that a Real Skeptic would be skeptical of ALL religions … including the Religion of A-Theism?

I doubt it is your Destiny.

What the heck? What post did you read, franko? I said nothing about atheism or free will. Nothing. All I said is that your syllogism is false. The only obfuscation comes from you, franko.

I am not saying that 2+2=4 is false. Quit being ridiculous. Is everyone who disagrees with you a radical, brainwashed atheist? At least those who are male?

I am seriously beginning to believe franko is not all there.

[Franko]

Spacebalz,

What is your specific reason for beliving that Syllogism is False?

All you have done is to claim it is FALSE.

It is JUST LIKE you claiming that 2 + 2 = 4 is False except you CANNOT explain why or how it is wrong.

What is your Evidence for "free will"?

[Tricky]

Bumping the last Pre-Spam post. Ian, I would be interested ;) in hearing your response.

Originally posted by Peskanov
Ian,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SpaceLord]

Originally posted by Franko
Spacebalz,

What is your specific reason for beliving that Syllogism is False?

All you have done is to claim it is FALSE.

It is JUST LIKE you claiming that 2 + 2 = 4 is False except you CANNOT explain why or how it is wrong.

What is your Evidence for "free will"?

Aw, damn it. I thought maybe you had read the 30 or so posts pointing out the flaw in your logic.

As a review, read the following page:Fallacies of Ambiguity (http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e06c.htm) . Read the "Fallacy of Composition" entry.

A passage from that page:

The fallacy of composition involves an inference from the attribution of some feature to every individual member of a class (or part of a greater whole) to the possession of the same feature by the entire class (or whole).


That is exactly the mistake you've made. Of course, you have yet to admit you can make a mistake. And you don't want to debate, you want to yell at someone, and use your various sockpuppets to pat yourself on the back.

Yet again, where did you get the loony idea that I espouse "free will" in this thread? My idea on free will: I am not sure what it exactly entails, or what it truly means. So, how can I know if I have it or not? The jury is still out.

So, from now on, franko, if you post about my belief in free will falsely, I will ignore that portion of your little rant.

[Franko]

Spacemoron: (A-Theist nitwit)
[Fallacy of composition …]That is exactly the mistake you've made. Of course, you have yet to admit you can make a mistake.

So you are claiming that YOU DO NOT OBEY THE LAWS OF PHSYICS???

Can you prove this claim? – because you sound insane just by muttering it.

And you don't want to debate, you want to yell at someone, and use your various sockpuppets to pat yourself on the back.

sockpuppets and logical fallacy are the ballywick of you and your a-Theist friends. I deal in facts, such as:

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP!

Deal with it religious fanatic. Deal with it before it is too late.

Yet again, where did you get the loony idea that I espouse "free will" in this thread?

When since I am arguing that you don’t have “free will” and you seem to be disagreeing with me I guess I got the crazy idea that you (An A-Theist) were actually trying to take a position and argue a point, but I guess it’s silly to assume that an A-Theists would actually have enough Ballz to take a position and stick to it.

My idea on free will: I am not sure what it exactly entails, or what it truly means. So, how can I know if I have it or not? The jury is still out.

Why isn’t “the jury still out on God then”? How did you manage to assume A-Theism so fast?

Without evidence for “free will” you’re a-Theism is even less logical than a belief in the Tooth Fairy.

So, from now on, franko, if you post about my belief in free will falsely, I will ignore that portion of your little rant.

So if you honestly don’t believe in “free will”, then that means you MUST believe that this is TRUE.

TLOP (God) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.

If not explain why you don’t believe it, and how you account for this matter instead?

Or you can go on demonstrating that you aren’t interested in discussion, and instead are just here to promote your unfounded dogmatic religious beliefs in the divine cult of A-Theism.

[Aardvark_DK]

Aardvark sits down for a game of poker with Franko's straw men.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Peskanov
Ian,

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

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


By physically closed I mean that all change in the Universe is explicable through prior physical causes. This includes human behaviour.


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

Of course, a system partially determined is not a deterministic system. Only the determined parts are. :)



Yes that's right.



But, why do you supose there are un-deterministic parts? Our observation of this system only showed some sub-atomic randomness which is probably meaningless...



Let's imagine the world is not physically closed. Let's imagine that what a person is is an essential non-physical self. This self has mental causal powers which initiate activity in the brain leading to our behaviour. So myself is partially responsible for my behaviour. But why do I desire to act in certain ways? What I'm getting at is if I am determined even if interactive dualism or idealism is correct, then what is actually doing the determining?




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

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

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

I think that if I were to respond to your questions here the debate would turn into one regarding materialism and non-materilist positions.

If you'll forgive me I'd rather avoid that as it has been extensively discussed before.

Specifically what I'm interested in is if we assume materialism, or indeed any materialist position to be incorrect (notwithstanding the merits or otherwise of that position), why is it still meaningless for libertarian free will to exist? If my understanding is correct people such as Win, Victor Danilchenko and Stimpy Cat all deny the intelligibility of libertarian free will no matter what metaphysical position we assume to be correct

Maybe there's some confusion over the phrase "libertarian free will"? To clarify, I am not denying that the self partially determines ones actions (only partially because of human limitations and state of ones brain). And of course ones mood, purposes, previous experiences will influence ones actions. And indeed if one knew absolutely everything about a person at a given specific point in time, and knew absolutely everything about his environment, then one could predict his behaviour with complete confidence. So yes, my behaviour is determined by what I am. What I am denying is that ones actions are completely determined by factors external to oneself. Since I clearly have free will (in the broadest sense) since I can decide to scratch my nose right now or whatever, it seems that those who propose libertarian free will is meaningless must assert that what we intrinsically are is determined by factors external to oneself. So if materialism is false what could these factors possibly be?? :confused:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat

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

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



If you cannot give a formal definition for it then you cannot meaningfully talk about it.



Even if so that doesn't alter the fact we can directly experience it.



Saying that it does or does not exist is completely devoid of any meaning.



Absolutely not. If we directly experience something, then that something exists.



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


:rolleyes: Now you're really being preposterous! See what I said above.


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

You don't know what free will is?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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


Nope, see above.



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

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



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



You've defined they exhaust all possibilities yes. But your definition of random is contentious. Something might not be determined by its input and initial conditions and yet not be random; namely libertarian free will. You establish nothing by simply defining libertarian free will out of existence. You need to demonstrate your definition of randomness is sound.

Anyway this is all clearly nonsence as our behaviour is clearly not random, and yet it is conceivable that our behaviour could not be described by an algorithm. You cannot claim it is logically impossible for our behaviour not to be able to be described by an algorithm (and yet not be random).



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

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



It depends on how you define things. For me, saying that the physical world is not closed is meaningless, because the term "physical" refers to interactions.



As I've told you countless times before, you are in error with your definition of physical.




If something affects something physical, then it is also physical by definition of what "physical" means". Thus the physical world is closed by definition.



Ok let's put it another way. All change in the Universe is not amenable to description by physical laws.



If you define physical differently than I do, then you would need to explain how you define it before I could even attempt to address your question.



All that which can be discerned from the third person perspective.



I will say that your decision to scratch your nose must either be determined or random.



Yes I know, and as I keep saying you need to demonstrate this. Seems to revolve around your definition of "random".

Hmmmm, that's all you've said! :eek: So much for your demonstration that libertarian free will is meaningless :rolleyes:

[justsaygnosis]

Atoms obey the Laws of Physics
People are made of Atoms
People obey the Laws of Physics.


I have to agree that people are entirely subject to the laws of physics.
To my perception ( for what that's worth ) homo-sapien, as a subset of the laws of physics, has a greater range of expression and intents in how it will obey the laws of physics so this can easily be perceived as libertarian free will.
The question remains as to whether every choice made my a person is made exclusively by a 'higher power'.
If that is so then the homo-sapien is a puppet designed for the muse of that higher power.
With that said, it's easy to say to anyone who holds that premise to be true, "If you don't care for me then go and take it up with god. I have no control over how I am constituted, let alone anything else."

[SpaceLord]

Originally posted by Franko


So you are claiming that YOU DO NOT OBEY THE LAWS OF PHSYICS???

Can you prove this claim? – because you sound insane just by muttering it.



sockpuppets and logical fallacy are the ballywick of you and your a-Theist friends. I deal in facts, such as:

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP!

Deal with it religious fanatic. Deal with it before it is too late.



When since I am arguing that you don’t have “free will” and you seem to be disagreeing with me I guess I got the crazy idea that you (An A-Theist) were actually trying to take a position and argue a point, but I guess it’s silly to assume that an A-Theists would actually have enough Ballz to take a position and stick to it.



Why isn’t “the jury still out on God then”? How did you manage to assume A-Theism so fast?

Without evidence for “free will” you’re a-Theism is even less logical than a belief in the Tooth Fairy.



So if you honestly don’t believe in “free will”, then that means you MUST believe that this is TRUE.

TLOP (God) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.

If not explain why you don’t believe it, and how you account for this matter instead?

Or you can go on demonstrating that you aren’t interested in discussion, and instead are just here to promote your unfounded dogmatic religious beliefs in the divine cult of A-Theism.

Ok, franko, you''re really jibbering now. I never said that either of the first two parts of your cut-and-paste syllogism are completely incorrect. However, the fallacy occurs when you try to "compose" those two statements together falsely, thus, the Fallacy of Composition.

And, no, we are not arguring about free will. What I really want to do is point put the syllogism as a whole is flawed.

And when did you get the idea I am a atheist? Because I point out when you are incorrect? For the record, I am agnostic. I don't know whether there is a god or not. I haven't found good evidence for one.

And, franko, in my opinion, the "jury is still out on god." I do believe that's agnosticism.

Where is your evidence for the existence of your "Logical Goddess?" I want to see it. You've never provided it, yet not only do you believe a god exists, you have given the god a name. Heck, you've even given your "god" a gender.

So, you believe in something without giving evidence. So, until you can give out this bit of wisdom, you are no skeptic.

[Peskanov]

---
quote:
I think that if I were to respond to your questions here the debate would turn into one regarding materialism and non-materilist positions.

If you'll forgive me I'd rather avoid that as it has been extensively discussed before.
---

Ok;

--
quote:
Specifically what I'm interested in is if we assume materialism, or indeed any materialist position to be incorrect (notwithstanding the merits or otherwise of that position), why is it still meaningless for libertarian free will to exist? If my understanding is correct people such as Win, Victor Danilchenko and Stimpy Cat all deny the intelligibility of libertarian free will no matter what metaphysical position we assume to be correct
---

I am in that position too. Or very near.
I have read several texts about idealism, dualism, and even the mental monism suggested by Hammegk. All of them work with causation to establish relations between his parts. IMO, they try to avoid explaining how free will works putting it on the center of their scheme. Still, free will is a visible complex phenomena, not a simple one like, for example, movement. It must be a complex system, or it must be a really lucky random chain. :)
No matter you put free will inside or outside a physical model, you still have a complex thing to explain. UCE sugested to me that it could a very simple source, without capabilities of reckoning, or memory. But then, what is the difference with a random source?

---
quote:
Maybe there's some confusion over the phrase "libertarian free will"? To clarify, I am not denying that the self partially determines ones actions (only partially because of human limitations and state of ones brain). And of course ones mood, purposes, previous experiences will influence ones actions. And indeed if one knew absolutely everything about a person at a given specific point in time, and knew absolutely everything about his environment, then one could predict his behaviour with complete confidence. So yes, my behaviour is determined by what I am . What I am denying is that ones actions are completely determined by factors external to oneself. Since I clearly have free will (in the broadest sense) since I can decide to scratch my nose right now or whatever, it seems that those who propose libertarian free will is meaningless must assert that what we intrinsically are is determined by factors external to oneself.
---

Let's see you, say:
1.- If one knew absolutely everything about a person at a given specific point in time, and knew absolutely everything about his environment, then one could predict his behaviour with complete confidence.
2.- My behaviour is determined by what I am.

With these two, you are saying that free will coul be deterministic, aren't you? Maybe outside the physical mode, but still deterministic, not?

3.- Those who propose libertarian free will is meaningless must assert that what we intrinsically are is determined by factors external to oneself.

I think I get it. The key word here is "determined by external".
But in you view, a simple computer has free will, because the source of his behaviour is internal, not determined for external factors.
After all, I can program a computer to make all kind of decissions without external output...A computer can choose to "scratch his nose" by itself.
In both cases, human and computer, you could say that internal factors made the decission.

---
quote:
So if materialism is false what could these factors possibly be??
---

At risk of sounding thick, the few ones I can think are: telepathy, premonitory dreams, ghost visions...
But I am very suspicious about all of them :)

[Aardvark_DK]

Hey, Franko, your straw men are cheating at poker! I've lost several hundred imaginary dollars already!

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

If you cannot give a formal definition for it then you cannot meaningfully talk about it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even if so that doesn't alter the fact we can directly experience it.

No, it means that the above is a completely meaningless statement. If you can't define it, then you can't meaningfully talk about it.

I am certainly directly experiencing things. I have a choice.

(1) I can invent an intuitively motivated concept of "phenomenal consciousness", which I can't formally define, and which is therefore incoherent. I can then assert that phenomenal consciousness is what I directly experience, which is completely meaningless.

or

(2) I can define "phenomenal consciousness" to be my direct experiences, and then go about trying to determine what the actual characteristics of it are, and what its logical relationship to the rest of the World is.

I pick number (2).

Saying that it does or does not exist is completely devoid of any meaning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely not. If we directly experience something, then that something exists.

Yes, whatever it is that you directly experience, exists. If you define "phenomenal consciousness" to be your direct experiences, then it is formally defined, and it exists. But if you don't define it at all, instead asserting that it cannot be formally defined, and then assert that it is what you directly experience, then you are just talking nonsense.

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

Now you're really being preposterous! See what I said above.

How is it preposterous? I define phenomenal consciousness to be my experiences. The scientific evidence clearly indicates that my experiences are neurological processes in my brain. You claim that those processes are not the experiences themselves, but simply correlates to the real experiences, which are undefinable. I say this is meaningless nonsense.

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

Nope, see above.

Nothing you said above addresses the point that an undefined concept is not meaningful.

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

You've defined they exhaust all possibilities yes. But your definition of random is contentious. Something might not be determined by its input and initial conditions and yet not be random; namely libertarian free will. You establish nothing by simply defining libertarian free will out of existence. You need to demonstrate your definition of randomness is sound.

Contentious? I define random that way because that is the only coherent definition for the term that I know of. You are suggesting that it could be coherently defined in a different way, so as to allow for something to be non-deterministic and non-random. Provide your definition. If you don't like my definition for random, then provide one of your own, and explain what the difference between "random" and "non-deterministic" is.

Anyway this is all clearly nonsence as our behaviour is clearly not random, and yet it is conceivable that our behaviour could not be described by an algorithm.

This is not clear at all. Remember that random does not mean completely unpredictable. Where is your evidence that behavior is not random? Such evidence would be amazing, because it would make behavior the only phenomenon in nature that isn't.

You cannot claim it is logically impossible for our behaviour not to be able to be described by an algorithm (and yet not be random).

Nope. It is logically impossible, using the definitions I gave. If you mean something else by random, then provide your definition. As it is, I have no idea what you mean by "random". And since you are defining free-will in terms of that term, by saying that the will is neither deterministic nor random, I have no idea what that means either.

So far, you have only stated what free-will and random don't mean. You must explain what they do mean, and what the difference between them are, otherwise your entire argument is meaningless.

It depends on how you define things. For me, saying that the physical world is not closed is meaningless, because the term "physical" refers to interactions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I've told you countless times before, you are in error with your definition of physical.

How can a definition be in error? My definition of physical is the scientific definition of the term. If you mean something different by the term, then define it. Don't just tell me you disagree with my definition, but never provide one of your own!

If something affects something physical, then it is also physical by definition of what "physical" means". Thus the physical world is closed by definition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok let's put it another way. All change in the Universe is not amenable to description by physical laws.

That is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and therefore an undefendable position.

If you define physical differently than I do, then you would need to explain how you define it before I could even attempt to address your question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All that which can be discerned from the third person perspective.

OK. But that's not a very useful definition. In any event, what difference does this make. Your definition of the word physical is different than mine. So what? How does this relate to the argument? The set of things that I call "physical" is still closed. What difference does it make if you choose to refer to that set with a different label?

As for your previous question:

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

Yes, using your definition of "physical", it is still determined. Furthermore, what you are calling "physical" and "mental" are both just subsets of what I call "physical".

I will say that your decision to scratch your nose must either be determined or random.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes I know, and as I keep saying you need to demonstrate this. Seems to revolve around your definition of "random".

Hmmmm, that's all you've said! So much for your demonstration that libertarian free will is meaningless

Until you can provide a coherent definition for it, it is meaningless. What is free-will, according to you? Don't tell me what it isn't, tell me what it is.

Dr. Stupid

[Franko]

justsaygnosis,
Atoms obey the Laws of Physics
People are made of Atoms
People obey the Laws of Physics.


I have to agree that people are entirely subject to the laws of physics.
To my perception ( for what that's worth ) homo-sapien, as a subset of the laws of physics, has a greater range of expression and intents in how it will obey the laws of physics so this can easily be perceived as libertarian free will.

You are correct, but in calling it “free will” you are making about as much sense as a person who calls the Earth Flat, even though he knows it is a sphere.

You don’t have “free will”. Determinism is the rule, and your actions are governed by Fate/Destiny. Comprehend how reality really operates and you will find that reality is easier to navigate in a successful manner.

The question remains as to whether every choice made by a person is made exclusively by a 'higher power'.

You are an Agnostic … are you not?

(I like Agnostics – for the most part they are all Skeptics.)

If that is so then the homo-sapien is a puppet designed for the muse of that higher power.

Not necessarily.

With that said, it's easy to say to anyone who holds that premise to be true, "If you don't care for me then go and take it up with god. I have no control over how I am constituted, let alone anything else."

You think Fate is that simple? You shouldn’t be so naïve JSG, just as a round Earth turned out to be far more complex than a Flat one, Fate turns out to be much more complex than the childish notion of “free will”.

[Franko]

SpaceCadet:

Ok, franko, you''re really jibbering now. I never said that either of the first two parts of your cut-and-paste syllogism are completely incorrect. However, the fallacy occurs when you try to "compose" those two statements together falsely, thus, the Fallacy of Composition.

Okay … Here’s my syllogism:

Major Premise: Atoms obey TLOP (TLOP = The Laws of Physics)
Minor Premise: You are made of Atoms.
Conclusion: YOU OBEY TLOP!

Now you are conceding that the two premises are valid, and instead you are claiming that because of the logical error of The Fallacy of Composition that the Conclusion (YOU OBEY TLOP) is flawed – it is FALSE.

Okay, so this should be very simple for you to demonstrate. Because YOU OBEY TLOP is a binary mutually exclusive option. In order to prove it FALSE, all you have to do is prove that the opposite is more True – all you have to do is NOT OBEY TLOP!

So let us see your demonstration. If you are claiming that YOU DO NOT OBEY TLOP, then simply demonstrate YOU NOT OBEYING TLOP and I will concede that I am wrong and you really do have magic “free will” powers. (then Randi will give you $1,000,000.00)

And, no, we are not arguring about free will. What I really want to do is point put the syllogism as a whole is flawed.

Ehh … the syllogism is all about “free will” Spacecadet. You do know what we are talking about – don’t you A-Theist?

And when did you get the idea I am a atheist? Because I point out when you are incorrect? For the record, I am agnostic. I don't know whether there is a god or not. I haven't found good evidence for one.

And, franko, in my opinion, the "jury is still out on god." I do believe that's agnosticism.

Well in that case I apologize for being rude to you. My bad. I thought you were an A-Theist based on your language, style, and tone. :(

I have nothing against Agnostics though. In my experience Agnostics are generally Pragmatic and Skeptical; two highly desirable qualities in a Graviton.

Alright … good karma for you Spacelord Again, my apology.

Where is your evidence for the existence of your "Logical Goddess?" I want to see it. You've never provided it, yet not only do you believe a god exists, you have given the god a name. Heck, you've even given your "god" a gender.

So, you believe in something without giving evidence. So, until you can give out this bit of wisdom, you are no skeptic.

The evidence for God centers around the fact that Determinism is True and you do not have “free will”. A person cannot believe that they have “free will” (the A-Theist un-God) and perceive the Logical Goddess at the same Time. That would be kind of like trying to perceive that the Earth was a moving Sphere while simultaneously believing it was flat and motionless.

[Franko]

Brette:
Ok

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

In essence:

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

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

Is this what I'm understanding so far?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Akots]

Originally posted by Franko
You think Fate is that simple? You shouldn’t be so naïve JSG, just as a round Earth turned out to be far more complex than a Flat one, Fate turns out to be much more complex than the childish notion of “free will”.

If you hold your hands behind your back, one of them holding a penny, then to me, the odds of picking the penny are 50/50. The instant I choose, it is destiny... making the same choice again will yield identical results.

But to us, the odds are still 50/50... right up until you open your hands, and show us our fate.

Clearly, if fate is so complex as to be impossible to understand from a mortal viewpoint then it is indistinguishable from freedom. Our bodies are predestined, but not our minds. Our choices are still ours to make, and no higher power can take that from us.

It is easy to see things after they have happened, and say it was fate. If we cannot predict, then it is as good as random. That is all that matters.

[Franko]

Akots,

Prior to the other day … had we talked before Akots?

If you hold your hands behind your back, one of them holding a penny, then to me, the odds of picking the penny are 50/50. The instant I choose, it is destiny... making the same choice again will yield identical results.

But to us, the odds are still 50/50... right up until you open your hands, and show us our fate.

Aren’t the odds of you guessing the correct answer either 100% or 0% and it is all preordained in advance?

Clearly, if fate is so complex as to be impossible to understand from a mortal viewpoint then it is indistinguishable from freedom.

That would be True, except who ever said that it was “impossible”?

Beyond what is Logically contradictory, what exactly is “impossible”? Are you claiming that Determinism is somehow logically inconsistent or contradictory?

I think you have it backwards.

Our bodies are predestined, but not our minds.

Isn’t your mind (your physical brain) just a part of your body?

It is all “matter” – isn’t it? You are just an arrangement of Atoms and nothing more?

Our choices are still ours to make, and no higher power can take that from us.

In a manner of speaking you might be correct …

How do you label yourself Akots?

1) Theist/Deist (God Exist = True) GOD EXISTS.
2) A-Theist (God Exist = False) GOD DOES NOT EXIST.
3) Agnostic (God Exist = Unknown) NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION.

[SpaceLord]

franko:

So, if I believe determinism is real, and we do not have free will, I cannot be an atheist? Many Christians, albiet the least "thinking," believe in free will.

Why can't we believe in determinism and atheism?

Since Quantum Mechanics hinges on probability, do you believe it is wrong? Is there an "Evil Genius" tampering with the results? QM does appear to explain quite a few things rather well.

[Franko]

Spacelord:
So, if I believe determinism is real, and we do not have free will, I cannot be an atheist? Many Christians, albiet the least "thinking," believe in free will.

Many Christians who don’t know any better will tell you that they have “free will”, but as soon as you start getting specific it becomes apparent that not only don’t they actually believe in “free will’, but they don’t behave like they believe they have “free will”.

But it’s a moot point what Christians believe. We are talking about True reality, not Christianity.

Why can't we believe in determinism and atheism?

If Determinism is True and TLOP is non-conscious, then you are also non-conscious. Do you perceive that you are “non-conscious”???

In other words, if TLOP is non-conscious, then essentially you are saying that TLOP is just a machine. But by the same token you would also be just a machine, a simpler less complex machine controlled by (subordinate to) Superior TLOP.

Since Quantum Mechanics hinges on probability, do you believe it is wrong?

You cannot have probability without Determinism.

Think about this, if I ask you to randomly draw a card from a deck, what is the odds you draw a “red” card?

How do you know that the answer is 50% .... ? It’s because you know (intuitively determined) that all the cards are either “red’ or “black”. One hundred percent divided by 2 equals 50%, but if you had no idea what colors the cards could be you’d have no probability.

Is there an "Evil Genius" tampering with the results? QM does appear to explain quite a few things rather well.

Things aren’t as uncertain as they seem. Uncertainty and Science mix like oil and water. Science is all about predicting the future. The moment you claim that it is all random you have ceased being Scientific (or skeptical), and you have crossed into the realm of magic and mysticism.

[Soubrette]

Frank

Would you agree that the terms used in your jingle are imprecise?

That The Laws of Physics to which you are referring to is open to interpretation.

That the term obey is used conventionally with regard to other autonomous life forms

That people are made of more than atoms (see Tricky's post on exactly what)

I like your apology - a person acts in a certain way which you interpret as atheism and are rude to them for - you were wrong so you apologise. Yet the behaviour itself remains the same. So is it true to you that someone merely being an atheist is enough to justify rudeness to them - unless they own a pair of breasts of course :rolleyes:?

Sou

[SpaceLord]

Originally posted by Soubrette
Frank

Would you agree that the terms used in your jingle are imprecise?

That The Laws of Physics to which you are referring to is open to interpretation.

That the term obey is used conventionally with regard to other autonomous life forms

That people are made of more than atoms (see Tricky's post on exactly what)

I like your apology - a person acts in a certain way which you interpret as atheism and are rude to them for - you were wrong so you apologise. Yet the behaviour itself remains the same. So is it true to you that someone merely being an atheist is enough to justify rudeness to them - unless they own a pair of breasts of course :rolleyes:?

Sou

I need to get a pair of them. :eek:

[Akots]

Originally posted by Franko
Akots,

Prior to the other day … had we talked before Akots?


I do not recall specificaly... I have likely responded to your posts, but nothing I would call a conversation.


Aren’t the odds of you guessing the correct answer either 100% or 0% and it is all preordained in advance?


The odds are only "fixed" after the decision has been made... what if I make a guess, and then you refuse to show me? I will never know the answer, but to you, the odds are fixed; either 100%, or 0%. But to me, the odds are still based only on what I know of the situation. Likewise, if I keep my guess to myself, and you show me your hands, you are the one left unknowing... the odds to me are 100% or 0%, but to you, they are 50%, untill i tell you my guess.

A correct guess means 100% correct for that trial. Incorrect, means 0% for that trial. But until that happens, and the truth is revealed, the odds are still 50%... it doesn't matter that YOU know which hand holds the penny, because you do not know which choice I will make.

It's easy enough to infect the pure randomness, though... if you pick the left hand every time, then I will tend to lean that way.


That would be True, except who ever said that it was “impossible”?


I said "If it is impossible." I am not declaring this to be reality, but am stating a parameter of my argument. :)


Beyond what is Logically contradictory, what exactly is “impossible”? Are you claiming that Determinism is somehow logically inconsistent or contradictory?

I think you have it backwards.


I'm not one to judge your determinism (or rather, i am not aware if i am or now... :D). But it is relatively impossible for me to entre into orbit by bouncing on a pogo-stick. If every human being bounced on a pogo-stick once a day for a thousand years, not a single one would entre into orbit purely by means of the pogo-stick

Perhaps someday, reality will change, and we will gain the ability to fly through such a simplistic device... but until then, it is relatively impossible. It is not completely impossible, because I cannot say with any certainty that it will forever remain impossible.

However, for the purposes of argument, when i say "impossible" I refer to things that will never be possible. Conditions that our species will never be able to achieve. I can offer no theoretical examples of such a thing, and so I offer only conjecture. When i state this arguement, i do not say such an impossability exists... i simply refer to "that which cannot be possible."


Isn’t your mind (your physical brain) just a part of your body?


It could easily be argued that gravity is not a part of my body. It is a property of my body, non-physical itself, but still directly related to a state of matter, and completely quantifiable.

The question of immortality will be answered when we confirm if the soul is a propertyof the body, or instead the body is a property of the soul.


It is all “matter” – isn’t it? You are just an arrangement of Atoms and nothing more?


Yes, there is matter. But gravity, light, and heat are not matter in themselves... they are properies of matter. Conciousness and free will could easily be a property of matter, exceedingly exclusive to matter that we define as "organic."

I am nothing more than atoms... but oh! how gloriously and miraculously they arrange themselves. Surely, atomic physicists are the great philosophers of the earth...


In a manner of speaking you might be correct …


I was? I hope I didn't miss it... :)


How do you label yourself Akots?

1) Theist/Deist (God Exist = True) GOD EXISTS.
2) A-Theist (God Exist = False) GOD DOES NOT EXIST.
3) Agnostic (God Exist = Unknown) NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION.

A label is an arbitrary property ascribed by others. I am myself, and have no labels for such a normal state of being. I label others to define their existance in terms my "ego" can comprehend, because otherwise, I could not apply my experiences to theirs. In return, they label me.

Interestingly, it is their labels of myself that convinces me of their actual existance as more than figments of my imaginations.

I believe you have already labeled me A-Theist. So it is.

[Franko]

Soubrette,

Okay … Here’s my syllogism:

Major Premise: Atoms obey TLOP (TLOP = The Laws of Physics)
Minor Premise: You are made of Atoms.
Conclusion: YOU OBEY TLOP!

Now you are conceding that the two premises are valid, and instead you are claiming that because of the logical error of The Fallacy of Composition that the Conclusion (YOU OBEY TLOP) is flawed – it is FALSE.

Okay, so this should be very simple for you to demonstrate. Because YOU OBEY TLOP is a binary mutually exclusive option. In order to prove it FALSE, all you have to do is prove that the opposite is more True – all you have to do is NOT OBEY TLOP!

So let us see your demonstration. If you are claiming that YOU DO NOT OBEY TLOP, then simply demonstrate YOU NOT OBEYING TLOP and I will concede that I am wrong and you really do have magic “free will” powers. (then Randi will give you $1,000,000.00)

Would you agree that the terms used in your jingle are imprecise?

No, either you ALWAYS OBEY the laws of Physics, or you can DISOBEY the Laws of Physics. What EXACTLY do you find imprecise about this Brette?

What other option(s) are you and the A-Theists claiming is (are) missing?

That The Laws of Physics to which you are referring to is open to interpretation.

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

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

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

That the term obey is used conventionally with regard to other autonomous life forms

So you are claiming that Atoms do not “OBEY” the Laws of Physics now?

How about the Moon Brette? Does the Moon obey the Laws of Physics? What is making the Moon orbit the Earth … “free will”???

Does that make more sense to you Brette?

That people are made of more than atoms (see Tricky's post on exactly what)

Not if you want to call yourself a materialist they aren’t!

You are nothing more than the sum of your parts A-Theist. It’s not like you have a Soul … is it?

As for “Tricky”, all I hear from him is absurd dogma that I have refuted 100 times already. If you comprehend what Trixy claimed, then why don’t you explain it to me?

unless they own a pair of breasts of course

Yeah, think about it Darling … for all I know you are a 15 year old boy and you don’t have any breast either … ;)

[Soubrette]

No I'm saying the terms of the jingle are imprecise Frank - that's the only issue I wish to thrash out with you at this moment on this thread. Do you not agree that they are colloquial terms used to make your point?

To clarify - I have no problem with the premises or the conclusion but I am aware I give a liberal interpretation to the jingle compared to other people.

Sou

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
Major Premise: Atoms obey TLOP (TLOP = The Laws of Physics)
Minor Premise: You are made of Atoms.
Conclusion: YOU OBEY TLOP!

Now you are conceding that the two premises are valid, and instead you are claiming that because of the logical error of The Fallacy of Composition that the Conclusion (YOU OBEY TLOP) is flawed – it is FALSE.
It is quite possible to have a set of two premises and a conclusion that are all true, yet not be a valid syllogism. This example was given by Whitefork a long time ago.
Some Saudis are Muslims.
Some Muslims are terrorists.
Therefore some Saudis are terrorists.

No one would argue that there are some Saudi terrorists, but it does not follow from the sylogism. It is theoretically possible that the sets of Saudi Muslims and Muslim Terrorists do not overlap at all. The discovery that the sets do overlap in no way validates the syllogism.

Now as to the baseball analogy:
Do you concede that it is possible to know all the rules of baseball and to play a baseball game without violating a single rule, yet still not know the outcome of the game?

And thank you for the compliment.

[Franko]

Brette,

Conclusion: YOU OBEY TLOP!

Forget the syllogism!

All that really matters is the conclusion anyway:

YOU OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS!

Are you claiming that you do not ALWAYS obey the Laws of physics Brette???

When don’t you obey the laws of physics?

What is your EVIDENCE that You occasionally (or always?) disobey the laws of Physics?

Do you have any evidence? If not, then what happen to your Skepticism?

I thought you understood The Fallacy of Composition??? I thought you were gonna explain it to me in your own words? I still don’t see the invisible flaw whereby BOTH premises and the conclusion are correct, but one claims that the syllogism is Still flawed regardless. That sounds more like dogmatism then skepticism!

Don’t tell me that you can’t explain it Enchantress? I’ll be real disappointed if you have fallen under Whitefork and the Trickster’s spell so easily …

I have no problem with the premises or the conclusion but I am aware I give a liberal interpretation to the jingle compared to other people.

You mean you have a “normal interpretation” whereas Tricky and his A-Theists lackeys use every semantic trick in the book because they desperately don’t want this to be True?

[Franko]

Tricky: (A-Theism Cult recruiter)
It is quite possible to have a set of two premises and a conclusion that are all true, yet not be a valid syllogism. This example was given by Whitefork a long time ago.

So you are conceding that the conclusion is True tricky-one?

YOU OBEY TLOP?

[Akots]

Franko:

Humans Define RLOP
Atoms Disobey RLOP
Humans Redefine RLOP

it is so.

RLOP <> TLOP

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko


So you are conceding that the conclusion is True tricky-one?

YOU OBEY TLOP?
I told you that I accepted it a long time ago, Franko, depending on your definition of "obey".

However, you have never shown any evidence that the laws of physics prohibit free will. You have never shown any evidence that the universe is deterministic.

Can I assume that you are now accepting that your syllogism is not valid, even if your conclusion is? Do you concede that even if a baseball game does not violate a single rule, that the outcome is uncertain?

[Franko]

So what are you claiming now Akots ... that the Laws of Physics don't exist?

Yeah ... very "scientific". :rolleyes:

Listen my little friend, if your religion requires you to deny the existence of the Laws of Physics, then it is time you seriously considered a new religion.

... next I suppose you will be telling me that TOAST is more complex than a HUMAN BEING?!?!!!

[Franko]

However, you have never shown any evidence that the laws of physics prohibit free will. You have never shown any evidence that the universe is deterministic.

... and you have never showed me that the present is NOT based on the past. You have not demonstarted that the Buc's lost the Superbowl.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko


... and you have never showed me that the present is NOT based on the past. You have not demonstarted that the Buc's lost the Superbowl.
Slipping into non sequitur?

Can you answer my question? It's a binary response, your favorite kind.

Do you concede that even if a baseball game does not violate a single rule of baseball, that the outcome is uncertain?

[Akots]

Originally posted by Franko
So what are you claiming now Akots ... that the Laws of Physics don't exist?

Yeah ... very "scientific". :rolleyes:

Listen my little friend, if your religion requires you to deny the existence of the Laws of Physics, then it is time you seriously considered a new religion.

... next I suppose you will be telling me that TOAST is more complex than a HUMAN BEING?!?!!!

Would i be incorrect in stating that the laws of Physics are verry much like the laws of painting, perspective, color shading, and depth-perception? The Scientific Laws Of Physics allow us to paint a picture, however crude and imperct, of a certain partition of reality that we have defined through experience, observation, and probability

This is RLOP... Relative Laws of Physics.

If you refer to the actual, literal underlying reality upon which our subjective science is based, then you instead refer to the nature of the universe. And that, my friend, is subject to many, many things more than TLOP.

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by Franko
will be telling me that TOAST is more complex than a HUMAN BEING?!?!!!
Well, Franko, you're the one who insists that a toaster is more conscious than a piece of bread.

[Franko]

Tricky:
Do you concede that even if a baseball game does not violate a single rule of baseball, that the outcome is uncertain?

Uncertain from who's perspective?

Certainly not a bookmaker's, or a professional gambler's, or God's.

Say I put the Orioles up against a little league team made up of 12 and 13 year old kids? Like you said, no rules of baseball will be broken -- who would you predict gets the win?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
Uncertain from who's perspective?

Certainly not a bookmaker's, or a professional gambler's
Oh? and where are these bookmakers and gamblers who have never been wrong? Produce one for me and I will gladly admit my error in exchange for the unlimited wealth such a discovery would give me.

Or you could produce God. That would convince me.

[Franko]

Would i be incorrect in stating that the laws of Physics are verry much like the laws of painting, perspective, color shading, and depth-perception? The Scientific Laws Of Physics allow us to paint a picture, however crude and imperct, of a certain partition of reality that we have defined through experience, observation, and probability

This is RLOP... Relative Laws of Physics.

If you refer to the actual, literal underlying reality upon which our subjective science is based, then you instead refer to the nature of the universe. And that, my friend, is subject to many, many things more than TLOP.

Akots, I have had the argument where an A-Theist claims that not knowing the Laws of Physics means that we don’t actually obey them (and therefore have “free willy”) more times than I can count.

If you want to believe that the Earth was actually flat and motionless when people use to believe it was flat and motionless you go right ahead.

By the same token if you want to pretend that an incomplete understanding of TLOP means that you don’t actually OBEY TLOP then keep believing it. I love people who believe it, they are practically begging me to take complete and total advantage of them.

Moron-boy: (A-Theist Toadie)

Well, Franko, you're the one who insists that a toaster is more conscious than a piece of bread.

… Like I was saying …

[Franko]

Tricky: (Self-loving, God-hating, A-Theist)
Oh? and where are these bookmakers and gamblers who have never been wrong? Produce one for me and I will gladly admit my error in exchange for the unlimited wealth such a discovery would give me.

I know plenty of bookies who are right far more often then they are wrong!

Have you ever read a newspaper Trixy? Have you ever seen the point spread? Do a little empirical investigation and see how often the predictions for who wins are wrong.

Or you could produce God. That would convince me.

How about you produce some evidence for your magic “free will” powers first?

It is difficult for me to convince you that “God” exists when you have already convinced yourself that YOU are “god”.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by Franko
Brette,



Forget the syllogism!

All that really matters is the conclusion anyway:

YOU OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS!

Are you claiming that you do not ALWAYS obey the Laws of physics Brette???

When don’t you obey the laws of physics?

What is your EVIDENCE that You occasionally (or always?) disobey the laws of Physics?

Do you have any evidence? If not, then what happen to your Skepticism?

I thought you understood The Fallacy of Composition??? I thought you were gonna explain it to me in your own words? I still don’t see the invisible flaw whereby BOTH premises and the conclusion are correct, but one claims that the syllogism is Still flawed regardless. That sounds more like dogmatism then skepticism!

Don’t tell me that you can’t explain it Enchantress? I’ll be real disappointed if you have fallen under Whitefork and the Trickster’s spell so easily …



You mean you have a “normal interpretation” whereas Tricky and his A-Theists lackeys use every semantic trick in the book because they desperately don’t want this to be True?

I believe that for a hard materialist the jingle holds :)

I think most people on this thread would agree with that also :p

The few that wouldn't - well I hope they're maybe rethinking their belief systems now :D

Sou

[Akots]

I am simply saying that if "TLOP" is how things really are... and RLOP is our imperfect interpretation of how things are.

If i know TLOP, The ni can tell you how every atom in the universe will move... but if I know RLOP, then I can tell you what MOST atoms would do, under certain situations.

Can we agree on this? it is vital to me.

[Franko]

Akots,

I am simply saying that if "TLOP" is how things really are... and RLOP is our imperfect interpretation of how things are.

Okay, but how is that relevant to this discussion?

It doesn’t matter that we don’t know precisely what TLOP is (as opposed to RLOP). All that matters is that we know TLOP does exist in perfect form, even if we do not precisely understand that perfect form in the present.

If i know TLOP, Then i can tell you how every atom in the universe will move...

Yeah … that’s Laplace.

… but if I know RLOP, then I can tell you what MOST atoms would do, under certain situations.

Can we agree on this? it is vital to me.

Yes, I’d agree that your understanding of TLOP (imperfect RLOP) is far less than God’s understanding of TLOP (perfect TLOP). That is Why God controls YOU instead of it being the other way round.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
Tricky: (Self-loving, God-hating, A-Theist)
LOL. I love it when you start to foam at the mouth.
Originally posted by Franko

I know plenty of bookies who are right far more often then they are wrong!
Yes but you said they are "not uncertain". That doesn't mean usually right, Franko, that means never wrong. You know. Sort of the way you envision yourself?

Originally posted by Franko
Have you ever read a newspaper Trixy? Have you ever seen the point spread? Do a little empirical investigation and see how often the predictions for who wins are wrong.
Again, find me one who is 100% correct on all the point spreads. Even if they are 100% knowledgable about the Rules of Baseball, they cannot do it. Can you? Not even with the help of The Goddess?

Originally posted by Franko
{spam omitted}

[Franko]

I notice you skipped this one ... was that on purpose?

Tricky: (A-Theist)
Or you could produce God. That would convince me.

How about you produce some evidence for your magic “free will” powers first?

It is difficult for me to convince you that “God” exists when you have already convinced yourself that YOU are “god”.

[Akots]

Originally posted by Franko
Akots,



Okay, but how is that relevant to this discussion?

It doesn’t matter that we don’t know precisely what TLOP is (as opposed to RLOP). All that matters is that we know TLOP does exist in perfect form, even if we do not precisely understand that perfect form in the present.

Yes, I’d agree that your understanding of TLOP (imperfect RLOP) is far less than God’s understanding of TLOP (perfect TLOP). That is Why God controls YOU instead of it being the other way round.

But you see, that is the most important point of all...

If a concious being cannot distinguish the difference between a FATED action and a CHOSEN a
ction, then CONCIOUSNESS states there is no difference. They may not be the same, but they are EFFECTIVELY the same.

As long as our knowledge of a given situation is imperfect, then we cannot say with 100% certainty that we had no choice at all. If w elater discover that no, we really didn't have any choice, it doesn't negate the fact that we MADE that choice in the past. It simply means the choice was irellevant.

If we learn enough, we discover that ALL our decisions were irellevant.

But there are limits to human knowledge, Franko... thsi is where my previous defenition of Impossible comes into play. If there are things we CAN NOT KNOW under ANY circumstances, no matter HOW far the human race advances, then our knowledge of the universe is fundamentaly imperfect. The very knowledge human entities cannot comprehend serve as god's dice.

Perhaps if we COULD learn to predict the universe, we would be fated. But since some of it is off-limits to our conciousness, and always will be, there will laways be something to seed the random number generator. There will be a blindspot we cannot see.

Under those conditions, given the limitations of our conciousness, we cannot predict the universe, except in tiny, flickering fistfuls at a time.

[Loki]

Franko,

Forget the syllogism!

All that really matters is the conclusion anyway:
Hooray!!! Now that only took 18 months....

I still don’t see the invisible flaw whereby BOTH premises and the conclusion are correct, but one claims that the syllogism is Still flawed regardless.
Oh...well, I though for a moment we had made some progress. I guess not...

Perhaps you can see the invisible flaw in this ? :

Some Saudis are Muslims.
Some Muslims are terrorists.
Therefore some Saudis are terrorists.

Note : The premises are true. The conclusion true. The syllogism is flawed. Curse that damnable invisible flaw!!!

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
I notice you skipped this one ... was that on purpose?

How about you produce some evidence for your magic “free will” powers first?

It is difficult for me to convince you that “God” exists when you have already convinced yourself that YOU are “god”.
As always, I am willing to defend any claims I have made. Please indicate where I made these claims, for truly, I can't remember doing so.

[Franko]

Loki: (A-Theist nitwit)

Perhaps you can see the invisible flaw in this ? :


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some Saudis are Muslims.
Some Muslims are terrorists.
Therefore some Saudis are terrorists.

Yeah, loki, howz about you cutting to the chase and demonstrating your ability to DISOBEY TLOP???

If you can't DISOBEY TLOP then you don't have any "free will". But don't let that interfer with your fantasy play hour Loki. For all I care you can go on believing Santa Claus brings presents at Christmas and that the Earth is Flat.

Either put up or shut up Religious Fanatic.

BTW -- some Saudis are terrorists, In fact, most of the guys who hijacked the 9/11 planes were Saudi citizens, so your example isn't exactly making your point.

[Loki]

CNNNN : Dateline, February 12, 2003

In news just to hand, leading academics thoughout the world are alarmed by the spread of the world's first "logical virus". Known as the "Invisible Flaw", the virus has begun attacking syllogisms thoughout the world. Believed to have originated somewhere near Baltimore, the virus works by injecting a subtle and almost undetectable flaw into the logic of otherwise perfectly valid syllogisms.

The virus was first discovered by Ms Soubrette Kindamaterialist of Bristol, England, while surfing the Web. "It just sort of struck me as odd" she said, "the syllogism looks okay, and the premises and conclusion seem true, yet somehow I'm not sure..."

Logicians have expressed fears that, if left untrreated, the virus could lead to the complete collapse of logic with months. A failure of logic would potentially have disastrous consequences for humanity, with possible outcomes including a huge increase in the popularity of Country and Western music, an overwhelming desire by some polical leaders to invade Iraq, a widespread belief in the ability of former ballroom dancers to "talk to the dead", and
a dramatic rise in the number of teenagers with "Posh and Becks Forever" tattoos.

Dr. Stupid, an American physicist based in Germany, has dismissed the virus as "unlikely". Rather, he believes it's more a case of "some idiot on the internet failing to understand basic logic". This opinion was seconded by Professor Whitefork of Harvard, who insisted that logic can survive this crisis - "really, don't waste anymore time on this - it's pretty damn simple".

A spokesman for the Vatican offered the following brief statement on the spread of the "Invisible Flaw" :

"Woe to you, oh Earth and Sea,
for the Devil sends the beast with wrath,
because he knows the time is short...
Let him who hath understanding reckon the number of the beast
for it is a human number, its number is Six hundred and sixty six."

When asked to explain the significance of this, the spokesman replied "Damned if I know, but it sure has a nice ring to it."

UberCardinal Franko, from the Church of Logical Deism, has declared the existence of the Flaw to be "heretical nonsense - and believe me, I know nonsense when I see it". When asked what his exact position with the Church was, UberCardinal Franko replied "er ... I take out the trash."

Wiccan spokesman Great Elk Tricky was quick to add "personally, I don't care about Syllogisms - its a Full Moon tomorrow night, and my wife's gonna dance naked around a fire!" (CNNNN will bring you live coverage of the naked fire dance in our special "When Good Wives go Wiggan..." - see local guides for times).

CNNNN will continue to provide up to the minute coverage of this crisis - up until such time as something else interesting happens. Like a kid falling off a bike. Or something. Anything.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
BTW -- some Saudis are terrorists, In fact, most of the guys who hijacked the 9/11 planes were Saudi citizens, so your example isn't exactly making your point.
Duh. That is the point, logic man. A syllogism of the form SOME, SOME, SOME is always invalid, even if both of the premises and the conclusion are true. Don't tell me we have to send you to remedial class again.

[Loki]

Franko,

BTW -- some Saudis are terrorists, In fact, most of the guys who hijacked the 9/11 planes were Saudi citizens, so your example isn't exactly making your point.
Hmmm.. you appear confused. The point is that the conclusion *is* true, which you seem to be agreeing with.

Some Saudis are muslim - true
Some Muslims are terrorists - true
Therefore, Some Saudis are terrorists - true

The point being that the truth of the conclusion is *not dependant* upon the premises. So, the example DOES exactly make the point. Perhaps you get it now?

If you can't DISOBEY TLOP then you don't have any "free will".
Do to. I have the only kind of Free Will that makes sense - compatibilist Free Will. Care to discuss this?

For all I care you can go on believing Santa Claus brings presents at Christmas and that the Earth is Flat.

Coming from a retro Flat-Earther like yourself, that's funny!

Science : "The universe is no longer deterministic. QM rules!"
Franko : "Does not! I want it to be like it was before this new knowledge!".

[Franko]

Loki/Trixy:

Since its been over a year, and you STILL haven’t presented ANY evidence for your religious beliefs, and since you post NOTHING but the same spam over and over again, what do you want me to say? If you have an actual argument for your religious beliefs – some evidence – I’ll be happy to discuss it with you, but your spam doesn’t really require anything other than me restating the obvious. I realize you don’t like your hypocrisy exposed Loki/Trixy, perhaps you should run along then? I honestly don’t know why you keep non-responding to all of my posts?

Actually, I do know why … It’s because you are a severely brainwashed religious fanatic with no evidence for his beliefs.

Loki: (more fanatical by the day …)

Do to. I have the only kind of Free Will that makes sense - compatibilist Free Will. Care to discuss this?

Yeah, I have asked you about it 3 different times now. Each Time I have predicted that you will COP-OUT with your COP-OUT-ALISM (pretend “free will”), and each time JUST AS I HAVE PREDICTED you copped out, and declined to explain yourself. Will this time be any different … ?

I could care less. Keep embarrassing yourself Loki.

What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
Loki/Trixy, brainwashed A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
Loki/Trixy, brainwashed A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

--------------------------

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

[Loki]

Franko,

Actually, I do know why … It’s because you are a severely brainwashed religious fanatic with no evidence for his beliefs.

Easy for you to say - Flat Earther!

Yeah, I have asked you about it 3 different times now. Each Time I have predicted that you will COP-OUT with your COP-OUT-ALISM (pretend “free will”), and each time JUST AS I HAVE PREDICTED you copped out, and declined to explain yourself. Will this time be any different … ?

"Will this time be any different ... ?" - Doesn't appear so! Despite your attempts to distort the truth, we both now what has actually been said, don't we! I've offered (oh, maybe 4 times now?) to discuss compatibilism with you. Each and every time, with *one* condition - prove to me I'm not wasting my time by going first, and posting your understanding of compatibilism, and where you see it's flaws in terms of determinism and Free Will. Each and every time you simply respond with "Tell me why you have more Free Will than the Moon...".

Seems simple to me, Franko - you won't take up the challenge of a serious discussion. Instead, it's easier for you to cut and paste your silly little one liners. You want to engage in "debate by quip" then do it without me. You want to try and say something meaningful, then count me in - but *you go first*. Sorry, your track record counts against you here - I don't think you have it in you to discuss compatibilism in any meaningful way.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Peskanov

II
Specifically what I'm interested in is if we assume materialism, or indeed any materialist position to be incorrect (notwithstanding the merits or otherwise of that position), why is it still meaningless for libertarian free will to exist? If my understanding is correct people such as Win, Victor Danilchenko and Stimpy Cat all deny the intelligibility of libertarian free will no matter what metaphysical position we assume to be correct
---
P
I am in that position too. Or very near.
I have read several texts about idealism, dualism, and even the mental monism suggested by Hammegk.



Mental monism is I believe the same as subjective idealism. I myself am a subjective idealist/mental monist.


All of them work with causation to establish relations between his parts. IMO, they try to avoid explaining how free will works putting it on the center of their scheme. Still, free will is a visible complex phenomena, not a simple one like, for example, movement. It must be a complex system, or it must be a really lucky random chain.
No matter you put free will inside or outside a physical model, you still have a complex thing to explain. UCE sugested to me that it could a very simple source, without capabilities of reckoning, or memory. But then, what is the difference with a random source?


I admit I'm very tired but I really have no idea what you mean by describing free will as complex. I mean the concept of complexity can only legitimately be applied to physical things can't it?

Moreover with my intepretation of free will it is meaningless to ask how it works because it is a basic existent.

---

II
Maybe there's some confusion over the phrase "libertarian free will"? To clarify, I am not denying that the self partially determines ones actions (only partially because of human limitations and state of ones brain). And of course ones mood, purposes, previous experiences will influence ones actions. And indeed if one knew absolutely everything about a person at a given specific point in time, and knew absolutely everything about his environment, then one could predict his behaviour with complete confidence. So yes, my behaviour is determined by what I am . What I am denying is that ones actions are completely determined by factors external to oneself. Since I clearly have free will (in the broadest sense) since I can decide to scratch my nose right now or whatever, it seems that those who propose libertarian free will is meaningless must assert that what we intrinsically are is determined by factors external to oneself.
---
P
Let's see you, say:
1.- If one knew absolutely everything about a person at a given specific point in time, and knew absolutely everything about his environment, then one could predict his behaviour with complete confidence.
2.- My behaviour is determined by what I am.


Yep that's right.



With these two, you are saying that free will coul be deterministic, aren't you? Maybe outside the physical mode, but still deterministic, not?


I think that when people say our behaviour is determined they do not simply mean that a decision to act in a given way is causaully efficacious in bringing about the appropriate effect in the environment. The question is not the fact that my behaviour is determined by my desires or what I intrinsically am, but why I am what I am to have those desires in the first place. Er . . isn't it? As I say in my next sentence below . .


II
3.- Those who propose libertarian free will is meaningless must assert that what we intrinsically are is determined by factors external to oneself.

P
I think I get it. The key word here is "determined by external".
But in you view, a simple computer has free will, because the source of his behaviour is internal, not determined for external factors.
After all, I can program a computer to make all kind of decissions without external output...A computer can choose to "scratch his nose" by itself.
In both cases, human and computer, you could say that internal factors made the decission.



No, ultimately a computer just operates according to the physical laws of nature. Whether an android has kippers or porridge for breakfast is just ultimately a result of physical processes being played out. But even though I may really fancy having kippers, I can, maybe at the last second be perverse and decide to have porridge. So, assuming that physicalism is wrong, and the physical world is NOT closed, so that the totality of physical facts in the world cannot account for why I chose to eat porridge, then what has determined me to eat porridge if not just a sudden spontaneous decision to have it? And remember my decision isn't random.

Maybe a thought just suddenly acausally popped into my head thinking "Hey, I really fancy kippers, but I'm going to have porridge to prove I have (libertarian) free will" LOL. Of course maybe that thought needn't have arisen wholly acausally as perhaps I might be the sort of person prone to such sudden maverick thoughts. But this doesn't mean to say that my behaviour could be encapsulated by any algorithm. Even if it could be, the algorithm would just describe my behaviour, it would just describe what I freely choose to do. This is different from if physicalism/materialism is true because then the algorithm wouldn't just describe my behaviour, it would lead it.

Edited to add:

To make myself more clear, within compatibilism our free will is circumscribed by the physical laws of nature. So it seems to me to be a bit of a phony free will. Within the free will I have outlined, what is my free will circumscribed by apart from the type of person I am? And if the type of person I am is wholly determined, what is it wholly determined by? (given my belief that what I really am is non-physical).

[Franko]

Hey nitwit, if you are the one who believes in COP-OUT-ALISM then YOU are the one who has to argue it.

I'll argue the Fate side of the "debate".

But as it stands I see you fulfilling my prophecy (yet again) and simply coping out.

Like I said, you don't have any evidence for 'free willy" and if you did you would have presented it long ago.

A-Theists ... so f*cking easy ...

[Ed]

I wonder what the point was in the above post. Iss there one, Frank-O?

[Loki]

Franko,

I'll argue the Fate side of the "debate".
Good. Then do so.

A-Theists ... so f*cking easy
Logical Deists ... so f*cking repetitive.

[Akots]

NOW NOW, CHILDREN... :eek:

[SpaceLord]

Where are the Logical Deists? I know of only 1, Franko. I did a Google search on the Internet for this belief. One of them said that LD was abandoned in the early 19th century. Another just mentions LD in passing, in a book review. The third is a list of possible lecture topics. The passage is as follows:

if creation is a continual communication of being by God, how can he avoid having plans and intentions for his creatures? Why would he reward or punish them, as Paine thought, if he reveals no moral law?

Interesting question, I am not familiar enough with Paine to really discuss his ideas.

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by Franko
justsaygnosis,






You think Fate is that simple? You shouldn’t be so naïve JSG, just as a round Earth turned out to be far more complex than a Flat one, Fate turns out to be much more complex than the childish notion of “free will”.

I referred to the range of choices as lending to the 'perception of free will.'
I don't recommend anyone places their hand in fire without protective clothing or the result of the decision will affirm we are not free to will ourselves into being fireproof.
I'm not willing to entertain the notion that behavioralism should be entirely disregarded in favor of a map of the human psyche based entirely on physics.
There is very little that is simplistic with regard to human behavior opposed to its' complexity.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko
Okay … Here’s my syllogism:

Major Premise: Atoms obey TLOP (TLOP = The Laws of Physics)
Minor Premise: You are made of Atoms.
Conclusion: YOU OBEY TLOP!

Now you are conceding that the two premises are valid, and instead you are claiming that because of the logical error of The Fallacy of Composition that the Conclusion (YOU OBEY TLOP) is flawed – it is FALSE.

Little Frannie-Puh,

As usual, my zealous one, you have managad to completely miscomprehend the point.

I hardly think that anyone has ever claimed that the conclusion is false (although it is fair to examine what one means when one uses the term "obey" in this context).

The point is that the syllogism is not valid - it is in itself not an argument for anything. Stop using it as such. It is making you look more foolish than you have to.

Respecfully,
/CWLunatic

[whitefork]

It appears that there is really only one proposition that needs to be examined - that the universe is deterministic.

The argument for this appears to be

If the universe is not deterministic, then the moon has free will, Tricky wears a dress to work, and we eat goat-liver flavored ice cream.

Since the consequents are false, the universe is deterministic.

I'm sold.

[CWL]

Originally posted by whitefork
It appears that there is really only one proposition that needs to be examined - that the universe is deterministic.

The argument for this appears to be

If the universe is not deterministic, then the moon has free will, Tricky wears a dress to work, and we eat goat-liver flavored ice cream.

Since the consequents are false, the universe is deterministic.

I'm sold.

Ah yes! You mean like "If the universe is not deterministic we would all jump off tall buildings".

NOW I get it! You can count me in as well.

[Franko]

Whitebread: (A-Theist recruiter)
It appears that there is really only one proposition that needs to be examined - that the universe is deterministic.

The argument for this appears to be

If the universe is not deterministic, then the moon has free will, Tricky wears a dress to work, and we eat goat-liver flavored ice cream.

Since the consequents are false, the universe is deterministic.

I'm sold.

Whitey, what you and the other A-Theists can’t seem to get through your beady little brainwashed heads is that “free willy” is your god. And it doesn’t really matter that you pretend its not. Now I don’t have to disprove that your “free willy god” exist any more than the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the Christian god doesn’t exist.

If you claim “free willy”, then YOU have to prove “free willy”.

… so what is your evidence? I think you have a lot less evidence for YOUR god (“free willy”) then a Christian has for his. You certainly haven’t posted ANY evidence. So despite how “logical” you think you are, I find you far less rational and far more dogmatic than a fundamentalist Christian.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko

Whitey, what you and the other A-Theists can’t seem to get through your beady little brainwashed heads ...
Beady heads? How did he find out about my collection of bead earrings? They go with all my dresses.

[Franko]

Tricky:
Beady heads? How did he find out about my collection of bead earrings? They go with all my dresses.

Gee another Woo-woo post, but still no evidence for "free willy".

... how unpredictable of you Tricky.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko

Gee another Woo-woo post, but still no evidence for "free willy".

... how unpredictable of you Tricky.
More ha-ha than woo-woo. But thanks anyway.

I ask again. What evidence would you accept for free will?

[Franko]

I ask again. What evidence would you accept for free will?

I would need to know precisely what "free will" was before I could determine a test for it's existence.

It's just like the Randi test. The first thing he does is has the claimant define precisely the ability they are claiming. If the person cannot specify the exact ability they are alleged to have, then that is pretty good evidence that the ability is non-existent.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
I would need to know precisely what "free will" was before I could determine a test for it's existence.
If you don't know what it is, then how can you claim it doesn't exist? BTW, I have given you my definition many times, but you refuse to accept it. In order to show you evidence of free will that you will believe, I have to know how you define it.

Otherwise you are saying, "I don't know what it is, but I assure you it doesn't exist". That would be like an atheist claiming God doesn't exist, but refusing to define God.

[Franko]

If you don't know what it is, then how can you claim it doesn't exist? BTW, I have given you my definition many times, but you refuse to accept it. In order to show you evidence of free will that you will believe, I have to know how you define it.

Otherwise you are saying, "I don't know what it is, but I assure you it doesn't exist". That would be like an atheist claiming God doesn't exist, but refusing to define God.

I've asked you to define "god" on numerous occasions, You told me that you didn't need to define "god" to declare that "god" didn't exist.

Don't you remember me asking you to use your magic A-Theist powers to determine if "blitzendorf" existed or not (without a definition of "blitzendorf')?

Here's my definition of "God" ...

God = A Superior entity (a Graviton) capable of generating a Universe.

Universe = a shared reality (common frame of reference) occupied by two or more entities.

Now I'll ask again, what is your definition of "free will"?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
....the term "physical" refers to interactions. ...

Stimpy, again, this is crux of your argument. What is it you say is "interacting"?

Little spheres of "matter"? I don't think so.

Energy "fields"? And what did you say an "energy field" might actually be? Why do you apriori define the composition of one to be "physical"?

Were you not discussing "definitions"? How did you say you define "energy"?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko

I've asked you to define "god" on numerous occasions, You told me that you didn't need to define "god" to declare that "god" didn't exist.
You know that is untrue. I don't know why you keep saying it when every time you do I simply prove you wrong. I have
defined God (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=176134&highlight=define+creator+universe#post176134) many times as "The creator of the universe".

Originally posted by Franko
Don't you remember me asking you to use your magic A-Theist powers to determine if "blitzendorf" existed or not (without a definition of "blitzendorf')?
That's odd, because when I do a search on "blitzendorf", I only get your last post. Perhaps you used a different word. I don't recall. But I will tell you now that one can not give evidence for something undefined. If you want me to give evidence for free will, you will have to define it.

Originally posted by Franko
Here's my definition of "God" ...

God = A Superior entity (a Graviton) capable of generating a Universe.

Somewhat similar to my definition, although lots of extra stuff. However, Superior is a relative term. Is a God superior to the Progenitor Solipsist? Superior to Fate?

Here's my definition of "God" ...

God = A Superior entity (a Graviton) capable of generating a Universe.

Originally posted by Franko
Universe = a shared reality (common frame of reference) occupied by two or more entities.

So you agree the universe is real and not some projection in the mind of the Progenitor Solipsist or the Logical Goddess? If you are stating that solipsism is untrue, then I wholeheartedly agree.

Originally posted by Franko
Now I'll ask again, what is your definition of "free will"?
And I will tell you once again as I have
here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=202152&highlight=ability+choose+available+perceived+optio ns#post202152) and here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=238418&highlight=ability+choose+available+perceived+optio ns#post238418) and here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=240071&highlight=ability+choose+available+perceived+optio ns#post240071) and here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=250550&highlight=ability+choose+available+perceived+optio ns#post250550) and here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=269829&highlight=ability+choose+available+perceived+optio ns#post269829) and here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=296718&highlight=ability+choose+available+perceived+optio ns#post296718) and here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=323626&highlight=ability+choose+available+perceived+optio ns#post323626) that Free Will = the ability to choose between available, perceived options.

I cannot help it that you define "choose" as "no choice" . This is my definition, and it is the only one I am defending. I am not calling it magical. I am not calling it "Free Willy". I have given evidence many times for free will as I have defined it.

Now I ask for your definition so that I can see if there is any evidence for that. I cannot search for evidence if I don't know for what I require evidence.

[Peskanov]

Ian,

---
quote:
I admit I'm very tired but I really have no idea what you mean by describing free will as complex. I mean the concept of complexity can only legitimately be applied to physical things can't it?

Moreover with my intepretation of free will it is meaningless to ask how it works because it is a basic existent.
---

Not, complex is an abstract concept; you can aply it to mathematics, logic, art, whatever.
I mean, you can perceive the will has different parts. In fact, in your examples you are providing good examples about how many factors add to end in a decission.

---
quote:
The question is not the fact that my behaviour is determined by my desires or what I intrinsically am, but why I am what I am to have those desires in the first place. Er . . isn't it?
---

You are pushing my english level here... :(
I don't see the conection of free will with this question, sorry.

---
quote:
Maybe a thought just suddenly acausally popped into my head thinking "Hey, I really fancy kippers, but I'm going to have porridge to prove I have (libertarian) free will" LOL. Of course maybe that thought needn't have arisen wholly acausally as perhaps I might be the sort of person prone to such sudden maverick thoughts. But this doesn't mean to say that my behaviour could be encapsulated by any algorithm.
---

The problem of your example is:
It doesn't mean to say that your behaviour could be encapsulated by any algorithm.
But...
We know this kind of behaviour could be encapsulated in an algorithm because we got there from computers studying.

In other words, unexpected thoughs and decissions are not proof of an external free will. In a complex algorithm this kind of unexpected behaviour is pretty normal.
You have to think that a human brain is a huge system full of balancing mechanisms, chained. Impulses happens and you are not going to be capable of mentally rebuilding these process.
Why? Because a system can not have full knowledge of itself, this is and old & established principle...

---
quote:
Even if it could be, the algorithm would just describe my behaviour, it would just describe what I freely choose to do. This is different from if physicalism/materialism is true because then the algorithm wouldn't just describe my behaviour, it would lead it
---

I don't know too much about materialism, or your vision of materialism, but in modern neurology the mind is both the dinamic & static configuration of the brain.
BTW, an algorithm is a description of a process, not a description of the results of this process. An algorithm which draws a circle doesn't resemble the description of a circle (except in some implementations) and partial understanding of it can lead you easily to think in something different of a circle as a result.
In other words, an algo. which generates something similar to human will would be intuitively unrelated to human decissions. You would read it and you would't believe that piece of code could produce such results...

---
quote:
So it seems to me to be a bit of a phony free will. Within the free will I have outlined, what is my free will circumscribed by apart from the type of person I am? And if the type of person I am is wholly determined, what is it wholly determined by? (given my belief that what I really am is non-physical).
---

If we want to understand "human will" we will have to create an understable description of it. This is an universal problem which idealism, dualism, and some other models don't address despite its appearances. I would say these models are build to avoid addressing it, especially idealism.
About the type of person you are, it's determined by thousands of things (physical) which you already know...I don't understand which problem do you see there.(?)

PD: Edited to correct some silly error

[Franko]

You know that is untrue. I don't know why you keep saying it when every time you do I simply prove you wrong. I have
defined God many times as "The creator of the universe".

So TLOP and The Initial State (IS) are “God”?

Didn’t TLOPIS create this universe – even by your cosmology?

That's odd, because when I do a search on "blitzendorf", I only get your last post. Perhaps you used a different word. I don't recall. But I will tell you now that one can not give evidence for something undefined. If you want me to give evidence for free will, you will have to define it.

No … I don’t have to define it. I don’t believe in your magic indefinable powers.

I believe that “God” exist, but I can define “God”. But I don’t believe in “free will” any more than I believe in 4-sided triangles. The entire concept is logically flawed. It cannot be defined. If you are claiming otherwise, then YOU define it.

Somewhat similar to my definition, although lots of extra stuff. However, Superior is a relative term. Is a God superior to the Progenitor Solipsist? Superior to Fate?

Superior = Greater than (>) = Having more Mass (or Information or Energy) than

So you agree the universe is real and not some projection in the mind of the Progenitor Solipsist or the Logical Goddess?

Define “real”.

Like I said, the Universe is definitely less real than You or I, and that is because the Universe (and all the “matter” you perceive, including your physical body) is just a projection from the mind of the Logical Goddess to your mind.

If you are stating that solipsism is untrue, then I wholeheartedly agree.

If I am Not a figment of your imagination, then that would be evidence against Solipsism being True, but if I am just a figment of your imagination I would say that it is likely everyone is just a figment of your imagination. Maybe You are the PS and this is just your way of trying to make sense of “reality” … whatever that means?

[definition of “free will” …]And I will tell you once again as I have
here and here and here and here and here and here and here that Free Will = the ability to choose between available, perceived options.

And what is your evidence that you posses the ability to “choose” between “available” perceived options? In over a Years time you have not presented a single scrap of evidence that you actually have “available options”, and you have yet to explain precisely what you mean by the term “choose” (or “choice”).

If Determinism is True, and you decisions are made no differently then a computer program or an Atom makes “decisions”, then I would say your claim to possess “free will’ is nothing more then a semantic distortion of FATE.

Do Atoms or Computer programs have “free will”? What is it about your behavior that makes you believe your decision making process works any differently? Either you are obeying a set of rules when you makes “decisions” (in which case they are Determined by the rules), or you are NOT obeying a set of rules (which is what you are implying).

You have NEVER explained exactly and precisely what you mean when you claim that your consciousness DOES NOT obey an objective set of rules when it makes decisions.

I cannot help it that you define "choose" as "no choice" .

That’s right, but by the same token I don’t claim that computer programs have “free will’ just because they “choose between available, perceived options”. To me that is absurd and misleading. Computer programs don’t have “free will”.

This is my definition, and it is the only one I am defending. I am not calling it magical. I am not calling it "Free Willy". I have given evidence many times for free will as I have defined it.

Now I ask for your definition so that I can see if there is any evidence for that. I cannot search for evidence if I don't know for what I require evidence.

Either your decision making process is based on objective RULES – in which case it is Determined (FATED), or it is NOT based on rules. If it is NOT based on Rules, then I have no idea what you are talking about. Decisions not based on rules would be truly random which is exactly the same as saying they are based on nothing (Magical/Supernatural/Incoherent/Mystical/Not Comprehensible).

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Sou:

I find this whole "free will" debate rather sophmoric, frankly, right up there with the "how do you know that the tree is still there when you are not looking at it?"

If someone wishes to delude himself that he has no free will, very well.

--J.D.
I would have used the word "jejune" (vs. sophomoric) only because it has more panache.
Free will vs. determinism:
The ability to hold two opposite concepts is the sign of a healthy mind. (or something like that)----F. Scott Fitzgerald, and others.

Free will is like ability: if you think you have it, or you think you don't, you're right either way.

[Franko]

Logical Deists ... so f*cking repetitive.

Jesus Christ Loki! I've only heard the A-Theists recite that mantra about 10,000 times. Perhaps if you actually present some evidence for your beliefs for a change I won't have to keep reciting how you have presented NO EVIDENCE FOR THE THINGS YOU BELIEVE?

Aside from that you claim that Christians are crazy for believing in their god with no evidence, Yet you seem to have no problem believing in YOUR GOD ("free willy") based on NO EVIDENCE.

That makes you repetitive ... and a hypocrite.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
So TLOP and The Initial State (IS) are “God”?
My definition of God is "The creator of the universe", and I lack belief in a creator of the universe. My words mean what they say, not what you say.


Didn’t TLOPIS create this universe – even by your cosmology?
I have no evidence for any "creation", since that implies a creator. As far as I know, it just happened. I refuse to invent fairy tales for the things for which I have no evidence.


No … I don’t have to define it.
Then it is pointless to look for evidence, wouldn't you agree?


I believe that “God” exist, but I can define “God”. But I don’t believe in “free will” any more than I believe in 4-sided triangles. The entire concept is logically flawed. It cannot be defined. If you are claiming otherwise, then YOU define it.
As I have. I do not need your approval. Nor do I feel like a lecture on logic from you is particularly illuminating.


Superior = Greater than (>) = Having more Mass (or Information or Energy) than
Is the Progenitor Solipsist then superior to the Logical Goddess?


Like I said, the Universe is definitely less real than You or I, and that is because the Universe (and all the “matter” you perceive, including your physical body) is just a projection from the mind of the Logical Goddess to your mind.
An interesting hypothesis. Any evidence?


If I am Not a figment of your imagination, then that would be evidence against Solipsism being True, but if I am just a figment of your imagination I would say that it is likely everyone is just a figment of your imagination.
How would you propose a test to determine if you are a figment of my imagination? Surely you don't expect me to accept such a claim without evidence.


Maybe You are the PS and this is just your way of trying to make sense of “reality” … whatever that means?
Maybe. And maybe you are just playing a little game of internet D&D spouting incomprehensible stuff to see what reactions you can garner. That one makes a lot more sense.


And what is your evidence that you posses the ability to “choose” between “available” perceived options? In over a Years time you have not presented a single scrap of evidence that you actually have “available options”, and you have yet to explain precisely what you mean by the term “choose” (or “choice”).
I'm not going to play the "definitions" game with you, Franko. I believe all rational people who are fluent in English know the meanings of commonplace words. Besides, history has shown that no matter how many times I define something for you, you will claim I have not, as I showed in my previous post.


If Determinism is True, and you decisions are made no differently then a computer program or an Atom makes “decisions”, then I would say your claim to possess “free will’ is nothing more then a semantic distortion of FATE.
Ah, but there is a ton of evidence that determinism is not true, so your house of cards tumbles down.


Do Atoms or Computer programs have “free will”? What is it about your behavior that makes you believe your decision making process works any differently? Either you are obeying a set of rules when you makes “decisions” (in which case they are Determined by the rules), or you are NOT obeying a set of rules (which is what you are implying).
I am in fact claiming there is no evidence that I am obeying a set of rules when making a decision. For you to prove otherwise, you must show the existence of those rules by perfectly predicting everthing I will do. It is not enough to claim they exist. You have to show it. Can you? Do I need to define "perfectly" and "everything" for you?


You have NEVER explained exactly and precisely what you mean when you claim that your consciousness DOES NOT obey an objective set of rules when it makes decisions.
I have explained that if such an objective set of rules exist, then there is no evidence for them. I do withhold belief for things without evidence. I have just explained what I will accept as evidence.


That’s right, but by the same token I don’t claim that computer programs have “free will’ just because they “choose between available, perceived options”. To me that is absurd and misleading. Computer programs don’t have “free will”.
No they don't, because they don't perceive. If you claim they do perceive, then you are claiming that computers are conscious. I don't think you want to go there.


Either your decision making process is based on objective RULES – in which case it is Determined (FATED), or it is NOT based on rules. If it is NOT based on Rules, then I have no idea what you are talking about. Decisions not based on rules would be truly random which is exactly the same as saying they are based on nothing (Magical/Supernatural/Incoherent/Mystical/Not Comprehensible).
As we have shown (through the baseball analogy) adherance to rules does not predicate outcome. The presence of "rules" in the universe does not predicate fate.

[Franko]

My definition of God is "The creator of the universe", and I lack belief in a creator of the universe.

So you are claiming that the Universe was never created? If it wasn't created are you claiming that the Universe has ALWAYS existed?

My words mean what they say, not what you say.

You go out of your way to be confusing and unclear.

Franko:
Didn’t TLOPIS create this universe – even by your cosmology?
Tricky:
I have no evidence for any "creation", since that implies a creator.

So the “Big Bang” Theory is all wrong then? The Universe has ALWAYS existed in a “steady state”?

As far as I know, it just happened.

What does that mean? It sounds like you are claiming it is magical, you just aren’t saying the word magic.

I refuse to invent fairy tales for the things for which I have no evidence.

So what is your evidence for “free will”?

Tricky:
Is the Progenitor Solipsist then superior to the Logical Goddess?

It’s a moot point. The PS no longer exist.

But the LG is omnipotent. To my knowledge there is no entity which currently exist who is superior to Her.

An interesting hypothesis. Any evidence?

Coming from the guy who believes he has magic “free will” powers based on no evidence, I found this sentence rather hysterical.

TLOP (God) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR

How many times do you want to pretend you haven’t heard the evidence?

Start providing some evidence for the things you believe. Eventually you will realize that you don’t have any evidence. Then you will start to understand what I am telling you.

How would you propose a test to determine if you are a figment of my imagination? Surely you don't expect me to accept such a claim without evidence.

I am not claiming to be real Tricky. If You are the only entity that exist I would think you would want to know that information, but as you have demonstrated you really don’t seem that interested in what is actually True in reality.

I’ll tell you this, if Solipsism is False it can definitely be demonstrated to be False.

Maybe. And maybe you are just playing a little game of internet D&D spouting incomprehensible stuff to see what reactions you can garner. That one makes a lot more sense.

Sure … and I bet you have magic “free will” powers too!

Tell me Tricky, how much sense does it make for a Christian to claim that God exist unless you can prove that God doesn’t exist?

Does it make any more sense for You/MRC/CWL/UPCHIMP to claim that “free will” exist unless someone can prove that “free will” doesn’t exist?

Franko:
And what is your evidence that you posses the ability to “choose” between “available” perceived options? In over a Years time you have not presented a single scrap of evidence that you actually have “available options”, and you have yet to explain precisely what you mean by the term “choose” (or “choice”).

Tricky:
I'm not going to play the "definitions" game with you, Franko. I believe all rational people who are fluent in English know the meanings of commonplace words. Besides, history has shown that no matter how many times I define something for you, you will claim I have not, as I showed in my previous post.

Translation: Trixy can’t explain what he believes or why he believes it (magic “free will” powers of “choice”) so you should just take his word for it, because with a liberal interpretation of the divinely inspired inerrant dictionary (and Dictionary’s are not required to be logical according to Trixy) he is obviously correct. :rolleyes:

Franko:
If Determinism is True, and you decisions are made no differently then a computer program or an Atom makes “decisions”, then I would say your claim to possess “free will’ is nothing more then a semantic distortion of FATE.
Tricky:
Ah, but there is a ton of evidence that determinism is not true, so your house of cards tumbles down.

Where’s the evidence? What evidence do you have that demonstrates your decisions are not made algorithmically obeying a logical set of objective rules?

Are you once again claiming that the present is not based on the past? If that is True, then why is it that the Buc’s still are the Super Bowl champions?

Franko:
Do Atoms or Computer programs have “free will”? What is it about your behavior that makes you believe your decision making process works any differently? Either you are obeying a set of rules when you makes “decisions” (in which case they are Determined by the rules), or you are NOT obeying a set of rules (which is what you are implying).

Tricky:
I am in fact claiming there is no evidence that I am obeying a set of rules when making a decision.

NO RULES?!?

So you aren’t made of Atoms Tricky?

Are you claiming that the chemicals which make up your mind are not behaving according to the deterministic laws of Physics?

For you to prove otherwise, you must show the existence of those rules by perfectly predicting everthing I will do.

The Goddess is predicting everything you will do. And I am getting better and better at it.

But Tricky if Determinism is now False again, then how is it you are able to Determine anything? Have you given that ANY thought at all?

It is not enough to claim they exist. You have to show it. Can you?

Sure. But I hope you won’t mind if I embarrass you and your friends some more first? I want you to dig a really deep hole for yourself.

Franko:
You have NEVER explained exactly and precisely what you mean when you claim that your consciousness DOES NOT obey an objective set of rules when it makes decisions.

Tricky:
I have explained that if such an objective set of rules exist, then there is no evidence for them. I do withhold belief for things without evidence. I have just explained what I will accept as evidence.

Like I said the other day Trixy, when your religion demands that you deny the existence of the Laws of physics … it’s time for you to find a new religion.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by Franko
If it was created are you claiming that the Universe has ALWAYS existed?The fruits of 'logical deism'. :p

[Loki]

Franko,

But the LG is omnipotent. To my knowledge there is no entity which currently exist who is superior to Her.
Knowledge versus belief?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Tricky

Ah, but there is a ton of evidence that determinism is not true, so your house of cards tumbles down.

I don't recall the presentation of any such evidence. Would you refresh my memory?

I find as I contemplate the issues involved in the Stimpy et al position (that things are either deterministic, or random), it is more and more difficult to find "free will" under the loosest definition thereof. Any metaphysic ranging from hardest atheism/materialialism through the most basic idealism has the same problem at least to me; that is "free will does not, and actually cannot, exist".

A syllogism of the form SOME, SOME, SOME is always invalid,
I could use some help here as well. What does the some-some-some problem have to do with

"Atoms obey TLOP, you are made of Atoms, you obey TLOP".

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Hammegk,

I find as I contemplate the issues involved in the Stimpy et al position (that things are either deterministic, or random), it is more and more difficult to find "free will" under the loosest definition thereof. Any metaphysic ranging from hardest atheism/materialialism through the most basic idealism has the same problem at least to me; that is "free will does not, and actually cannot, exist".

Well, as long as you insist on defining free-will to be "freedom from determinism, but not just random", you are going to have that problem.

Define something in a self-contradictory way, and you should not be surprised to find that it can't exist.

The question of whether free-will exists isn't a metaphysical or philosophical one. It is a semantic one. Define the term "free-will" to refer to something that exists, and it does. Define it to refer to something that does not exist, or to something that is self-contradictory, and it does not. Go figure.

The only way for the question of the existence of free-will to be a philosophical one (or even a non-trivial one, for that matter), is to define the term in a coherent way, so as to refer to something which may, or may not, exist. All the coherent definitions of free-will that I know of either trivially do or do not exist.

Dr. Stupid

[Loki]

hammegk,

could use some help here as well. What does the some-some-some problem have to do with

"Atoms obey TLOP, you are made of Atoms, you obey TLOP".
The intention of the "some, some, some" problem is to demonstrate that it's possible for a syllogism to have two true premises, and a true conclusion, yet be an invalid syllogism.

One form of such an invalid syllogism is the "some, some some" problem.
Another form of such an invalid syllogism is the "fallacy of composition".

The "Saudis/Muslims/Terrorists" is an example of the first form. The "Atoms/Made Of Atoms/Humans/TLOP" is an example of the second form. In both examples, the premises and conclusion may all be true, yet the syllogism is invalid - has no weight as a logical argument.

[Peskanov]

Loki;

I think Hammegk is (strongly) sugesting that Franko's assertion does not fall into the some-some-some category.
And I think he is right. Franko says (implicit):

(ALL) atoms obey TLOP
(ALL) humans are (full) made of atoms

you can reject the premises, but still he did not make a some-some-some syllogism...

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Loki
"fallacy of composition".
.... the syllogism is invalid - has no weight as a logical argument.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html

1.Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
2.Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has characteristics A, B, C, etc.

This line of reasoning is fallacious because the mere fact that individuals have certain characteristics does not, in
itself, guarantee that the class (taken as a whole) has those characteristics.

It is important to note that drawing an inference about the characteristics of a class based on the characteristics of its individual members is not always fallacious.

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

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.

This is sniping to no purpose, in that (at least for materialists)

Atoms obey TLOP is true

You are made of Atoms is true

Do you (as a materialist) deny that you obey TLOP?

Originally posted by Stimpy
Well, as long as you insist on defining free-will to be "freedom from determinism, but not just random", you are going to have that problem.

I made no such definition, but do conclude -- under any metaphysic -- that absolute determinism is the logical conclusion. I'm hoping some idealist can explain why this is not true in every instance. I have no such expectation from materialists.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Soubrette

So to recap, and in the unlikely event that anyone is unaware of Frank's jingle here it is:

Atoms obey the Laws of Physics
People are made of Atoms
People obey the Laws of Physics.



It's a fallacy of equivocation. The context and use of the word "obey" in the 1st premise is an entirely different than the use of the same word in the conclusion.

When scientists say that atoms obey the laws of physics, they simply means that atoms cannot break any laws of physics, not that they are conscious worker bees that have to do everything that a conscious "LOP" tells them to do.

The use of the word "obey" in the conclusion is used as if the LOP are a sentient being giving out orders to be followed by humans.


Here is an example of another equivocation fallacy to demonstrate.


People that lie are liars.
Bob lies in bed to sleep.
Bob is a liar.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


It's a fallacy of equivocation. The context and use of the word "obey" in the 1st premise is an entirely different than the use of the same word in the conclusion.

When scientists say that atoms obey the laws of physics, they simply means that atoms cannot break any laws of physics, not that they are conscious worker bees that have to do everything that a conscious "LOP" tells them to do.
Sorry. You are talking about atoms & the current, imperfect math-physics map humans use.
TLOP is the territory, and science does not know the actual effect of that what-actually-is territory.

The use of the word "obey" in the conclusion is used as if the LOP are a sentient being giving out orders to be followed by humans.
Neither you nor anyone else knows the facts of that matter either.

People that lie are liars.
Bob lies in bed to sleep.
Bob is a liar.

More obfuscation.

Do you deny *you* *obey* TLOP?

[Loki]

hammegk,

This is sniping to no purpose ...
No, it's sniping to a very real purpose - it exposes Franko's "Proof" as "not a proof".

You seem to be interested in the following quote from the site you linked to :

If there is justification for the inference from parts to whole, then the reasoning is not fallacious.
You may have missed this when this was discussed at tedious length a few months back, but this was pointed out to Franko - that he needs to expand his "proof" to provide justification for why the behaviours he wishes to promote from "atoms" to "made of atoms" are valid. This requires him to explain both "TLOP" and "obeys". He refuese to do so. Minus any expressed justification, the proof is flawed.

Do you (as a materialist) deny that you obey TLOP?
No, I don't deny that I "obey" TLOP - for a reasonable set of definitions of "obey" and "TLOP". But since I'm a compatibilist, this has no relevance on the issue of Free Will.

I made no such definition, but do conclude -- under any metaphysic -- that absolute determinism is the logical conclusion. I'm hoping some idealist can explain why this is not true in every instance. I have no such expectation from materialists.
Well, now you have an explanation from a materialist (although I think you have had this available to you for some time).

1. Libertarian Free Will is incoherent under virtually any metaphysics - it just defines itself to be itself, which says exactly nothing.
2. True Free Will is bound to concepts such as "identity" and "coercion".
3. Such a definition of Free Will is both logical, and immune to "obey TLOP" arguments.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Peskanov,

I think Hammegk is (strongly) sugesting that Franko's assertion does not fall into the some-some-some category.
And I think he is right
No one has said that Franko's jingle falls into the some-some-some category. This only came about because Franko made that claim that *any* syllogism that contains 2 true premises and a true conclusion *must* be valid. He said this quite clearly. On a number of occasions, he has stated that the *only* way a syllogism can be invalid is if one of the premises is false. The point of introducing the some-some-some example was to demonstrate that he is wrong to equate "valid premises and conclsuon" with "valid syllogism".

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Peskanov
Loki;

I think Hammegk is (strongly) sugesting that Franko's assertion does not fall into the some-some-some category.
And I think he is right. Franko says (implicit):

(ALL) atoms obey TLOP
(ALL) humans are (full) made of atoms

you can reject the premises, but still he did not make a some-some-some syllogism...
You are correct, Peskanov. The "jingle" is not a "some some some" syllogism. That syllogism was presented to show a simple example of a fallacious syllogism with correct premises and conclusions. However, it is noteworthy that Franko also claimed the Saudi/Terrorist syllogism was valid, thus solidifying the claim that he knows nothing about logic. Or deism, for that matter.

[Peskanov]

Loki, Tricky, thanks for the correction.
It seems I got too late into the thread :)

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by hammegk


*snip*

This is sniping to no purpose, in that (at least for materialists)

Atoms obey TLOP is true

You are made of Atoms is true

Do you (as a materialist) deny that you obey TLOP?

*snip*

It is not sniping to no purpose because the topic of this thread is to discuss the structure and formal validity of the "syllogism". Whether it fits somebodys cosmology or not is really beside the point (that has been the topic of a zillion threads here).

Hans

[Franko]

Stimpson:

Well, as long as you insist on defining free-will to be "freedom from determinism, but not just random", you are going to have that problem.

Define something in a self-contradictory way, and you should not be surprised to find that it can't exist.

Why don’t YOU define “free will” for us then Stimpson. I don’t think it can be defined in a non-contradictory fashion. If you are claiming that it can be you will have to be the one to demonstrate this.

Can you draw us a 4-sided triangle while you are at it? (Tricky, if you are reading along feel free to embarrass yourself again!)

The question of whether free-will exists isn't a metaphysical or philosophical one. It is a semantic one. Define the term "free-will" to refer to something that exists, and it does. Define it to refer to something that does not exist, or to something that is self-contradictory, and it does not. Go figure.

So how about you demonstrate how to define “free will” in a logically consistent way such that YOU have it, but the MOON and COMPUTER PROGRAMS do not???

The only way for the question of the existence of free-will to be a philosophical one (or even a non-trivial one, for that matter), is to define the term in a coherent way, so as to refer to something which may, or may not, exist. All the coherent definitions of free-will that I know of either trivially do or do not exist.

You don’t want “free will” to be a metaphysical or philosophical question because that would be like conceding that it is the fundamental tenet of your RELIGION.

Why don’t you try honesty for a while “Scientist”.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
Why don’t you try honesty for a while “Scientist”.
As I recall, you promised to agree that free will exists if I showed you a four sided triangle. I kept my part of the bargain. I have a feeling that The Lexicon defines "honesty" much the same way as it does "choice": as the antonym of itself.

[Franko]

Prophecy:
Can you draw us a 4-sided triangle while you are at it? (Tricky, if you are reading along feel free to embarrass yourself again!)

prophecy fulfillment …
As I recall, you promised to agree that free will exists if I showed you a four sided triangle. I kept my part of the bargain. I have a feeling that The Lexicon defines "honesty" much the same way as it does "choice": as the antonym of itself.

So there you have it folks, even by Trixy's own words "free will" is JUST as logical as a 4-sided triangle!

[The Lord God Almighty]

WEASELBOY....

[hammegk]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
It is not sniping to no purpose because the topic of this thread is to discuss the structure and formal validity of the "syllogism". Whether it fits somebodys cosmology or not is really beside the point (that has been the topic of a zillion threads here).

Hans

Umm, I decode this to mean "logicians don't really care about the correctness of the premises or conclusions"; just set up a silligism, turn the crank and "the logical answer appears".

Maybe it would be more meaningful to discuss angels dancing on pins?

[Franko]

WEASELBOY....

Well well well, so Tricky has to log in with one of his sock-puppets to NOT defend his religious beliefs. How predictable!

What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
Trixy 30+ years dedicated to A-Theism: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
Trixy 30+ years dedicated to A-Theism: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

--------------------------

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
Well well well, so Tricky has to log in with one of his sock-puppets to NOT defend his religious beliefs. How predictable! [/B]
LOL. I admit I have one sock puppet, Franko, but you have not noticed it or accused it at all. Also I was posting to Ian at the time this went up.

I didn't want to have to break it to you, lad, but there are a number of people here who think you are dishonest. Besides, I lack belief in The Lord God Almighty.

[The Lord God Almighty]

I don't believe in you either, Tick-boy. Who do you think had your TV show cancelled?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by The Lord God Almighty
I don't believe in you either, Tick-boy. Who do you think had your TV show cancelled?
Because you didn't like Batmanuel?

[Franko]

LOL. I admit I have one sock puppet, Franko, but you have not noticed it or accused it at all. Also I was posting to Ian at the time this went up.

They're probably all your figments though ...

So are you ever gonna to present any evidence for your "god" ("free willy") Trixy? You sound more and more like a fundamantalist Christian -- just take Trixy's word for it that he has magic powers. You don't "obey" TLOP!

[Franko]

So Trixy ...

By Your definition of the term "OBEY", do you OBEY the Laws of Physics???

Can you Not OBEY them?

[The Lord God Almighty]

The Tick was too funny to be allowed to survive. People were going to die like they did as a result of that Monty Python funniest joke. That was an awful tragedy. We could not allow it to happen again. Bat Manuel was a big part of the problem.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
So Trixy ...

By Your definition of the term "OBEY", do you OBEY the Laws of Physics???

Can you Not OBEY them?
I cannot operate outside the laws of physics, however I can operate within them and still have free will.

Do you ever get tired of flagellating this deceased equine?

[Blue Monk]

Dear Lord,

All I ever asked for was a pony on my ninth birthday. Is that so much to ask.

Instead all I got was underwear from Aunt Martha. Thanks for nothing.

And while we're at it, have you ever seen me naked? Is this your idea of a joke?

Ha, ha, you are a real riot.

That was sarcasm but I guess you would know that.

Please don't kill me.

[The Lord God Almighty]

Monk, the pony died in transit. See Tricky's post above.

You should have changed Aunt Martha's underwear by now.

Are you a Dominican or a Franciscan? If you guess wrong I may have to kill you.

[Franko]

Franko:
So Trixy ...

By Your definition of the term "OBEY", do you OBEY the Laws of Physics???

Can you Not OBEY them?

Tricky: (A-Theist)
I cannot operate outside the laws of physics ...

CAN You DISobey TLOP -- YES or NO? (by YOUR definition of the term "OBEY/DISOBEY")

... however I can operate within them and still have free will.

Not unless YOU are claiming to be the entity that created TLOP (the rules that govern your actions).

TLOP is the rules that govern your action. TLOP (the rules) govern your action -- not YOU. The only way that YOU could claim to be governing your actions is if YOU are the Source of the Rules themselves.

Is that what you are claiming Tricky? ... that Solipsism is True and You created TLOP?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
They're probably all your figments though ...

Is THIS what you're referring to?

[J3K]

What is up with all of this stuff over the laws of physics? Can somebody give an example of a situation where any form of matter DOESNT obey these laws?
and please, what is really the point of getting so technical with the actual true hard definition of the words like obey? You know what is meant, use common sense.
It is acted like the laws of physics are some form of a god. then again maybe i have just read so many of franko's posts this is how it is always put.
but the point is, the laws of physics are in no way a form of god. It is science(which is neither a form of god or a religion.) It is methods of explaining how things work. And every actions that any form of matter in this universe makes, follows the laws of physics. so why the arguement??

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by J3K
What is up with all of this stuff over the laws of physics? Can somebody give an example of a situation where any form of matter DOESNT obey these laws?

No. But the arguement is confusing 2 different concepts of "obey" here. When physicists say that everything obeys the law of physics, it is more of a metaphorical statement. It doesn't mean that "LOP" are conscious entities that give out orders to be followed. It merely means that everything works withing a given set of "rules" that we've observed.


and please, what is really the point of getting so technical with the actual true hard definition of the words like obey? You know what is meant, use common sense.

Obviously some don't understand the different contexts of the word "obey".


It is acted like the laws of physics are some form of a god. then again maybe i have just read so many of franko's posts this is how it is always put.

Only a few think that LOP are a god, and they only treat "LOP" as a god for dishonest arguements.


but the point is, the laws of physics are in no way a form of god. It is science(which is neither a form of god or a religion.) It is methods of explaining how things work. And every actions that any form of matter in this universe makes, follows the laws of physics. so why the arguement??

You are correct, there is no real point in argueing except to let people know the fallacy if Franko's arguement.

CAN You DISobey TLOP -- YES or NO?

This question cannot be answered as TLOP have not given any orders.

[J3K]

Thanx there thaiboxerken. I see now.

[Franko]

Thaifoodkenny: (Moron)
CAN You DISobey TLOP -- YES or NO?

This question cannot be answered as TLOP have not given any orders.

The question cannot be answered???

Why because it will make your look like a Religious nitwit if you try and answer?

So TLOP doesn't control ANYTHING TFK? I know you don't believe that. I told you A-Theists were dishonest, disingenuous, deceitful ...

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko


The question cannot be answered???

Why because it will make your look like a Religious nitwit if you try and answer?

So TLOP doesn't control ANYTHING TFK? I know you don't believe that. I told you A-Theists were dishonest, disingenuous, deceitful ...
Showing off for the newbie again Franko? You needn't bother. Everyone figures you out pretty quickly without demonstrations such as this. Go ahead. Call us some more names.:rolleyes:

[Franko]

Tricky,

It's like I keep saying you want to post your same non-defense of A-Theism over and over I will be happy to point out the utter wasteland of your beliefs.

What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
Trixy 30+ years dedicated to A-Theism: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
Trixy 30+ years dedicated to A-Theism: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

--------------------------

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

[Tricky]

Actually, Franko, I admit to holding at least one irrational belief. I believe that some day you will stop talking smack and enter into polite, reasoned debate. This belief is irrational because there is absolutely no evidence to support it. Ah, but we atheists are incurable optimists.:)

[Tricky]

Tricky said:
Actually, Franko, I admit to holding at least one irrational belief. I believe that some day you will stop talking smack and enter into polite, reasoned debate.

Franko replied


Tricky you aren't intersted in "reasoned debate", you are a brainwashed fanatical A-Theism. A-Theism has become far more important to you than the TRUTH.

Why don't you demonstrate that by responding to points and actually telling us what YOU BELIEVE?

or are you so embarrassed by what you actually believe that you dare not speak it publicly?
http://www.click-smilie.de/sammlung/musik/musik024.gif To dreeeeeeeeam, the impossible dreeeeeeeam....

[Franko]

Actually, Franko, I admit to holding at least one irrational belief. I believe that some day you will stop talking smack and enter into polite, reasoned debate.

Tricky you aren't intersted in "reasoned debate", you are a brainwashed fanatical A-Theist. A-Theism has become far more important to you than the TRUTH.

This belief is irrational because there is absolutely no evidence to support it. Ah, but we atheists are incurable optimists

Why don't you demonstrate that by responding to points and actually telling us what YOU BELIEVE?

or are you so embarrassed by what you actually believe that you dare not speak it publicly?

[Franko]

Showing off for the newbie again Franko? You needn't bother. Everyone figures you out pretty quickly without demonstrations such as this. Go ahead. Call us some more names.

Why don’t YOU show off for all of the young impressionable A-Theists here Tricky? You have been an A-Theists for over 30 YEARS!!! Certainly you must have worked all of this out in ALL that Time?

So you are not obeying any rules or laws? The laws of Physics have no effect on you what-so-ever? You do not OBEY the Laws of Physics?

Or are you claiming that You are the Source of the Laws of Physics? You made up the laws of physics in your own mind, so therefore even if they control you, you control them?

Is that what you are claiming Tricky? Why are you trying to hide what you believe? Why all of this run around for so long? Why do you keep contradicting your self? Are you ashamed of your beliefs?

[Tricky]

Note to anyone trying to follow this thread (you masochistic bastiges) ;):

If the post order seems out of whack, that is because Franko is now using the tactic of deleting and reposting. He usually resorts to this when he is getting spanked so badly that he feels that sowing confusion is his best strategy.

Carry on.

[Franko]

You are just Blatantly trolling now Trixy.

Are you going to respond to points or just make more of your woo-woo A-Theist posts?

I guess you don't want to write off those last 30 years so quickly even if you are obviously wrong?

So are you going to tell us what you believe or is your shame to great?

[Franko]

Tricky: (fanatical A-Theist)
If the post order seems out of whack, that is because Franko is now using the tactic of deleting and reposting. He usually resorts to this when he is getting spanked so badly that he feels that sowing confusion is his best strategy.

How does your inability to explain what you believe amount to me getting “spanked”?

That looks more like YOU getting spanked Trixy. I can explain why I don’t believe in “free will” can you explain why you do?

CWL and MRC don’t seem to be able to, but I realize that you have dedicated most of your life to A-Theism so surely you must have given the matter some thought in all that Time?

Or are A-Theists just a bunch of brain-dead religious conformist like I have been saying all along?

[Franko's Goddess]

I have told all of you that I am the one who does the spanking here.

Frank, please pick up the Veuve Cliquot and the Luckies.

St. Valentine's Day, dear.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko
Trixy is getting his ass whupped and here comes his sock-puppet.

BZZZZT!! Wrong again. You will never guess who my sock puppet is.

[Franko's Goddess]

Frank - there are over 3600 members in this forum.

Tricky is wrong when he says that you will never guess his sock puppy.

If you ask Tricky one by one, which is his sock puppy, how many would you have to guess to have a fifty-fifty chance of guessing?

Valentine....

[Franko]

How unpredictable!!!

Trixy is getting his ass whupped and here comes his sock-puppet.

Honestly A-Theist i am touched that you would go to all the trouble of creating a login specifically to honor me.

And unlike the thread that was pulled as (yet another) A-Theist Spam/Troll/Flame earlier today, I doubt the Brette or Q-Source will be able to help you hide your embarrassment this time.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko's Goddess
Frank - there are over 3600 members in this forum.

Tricky is wrong when he says that you will never guess his sock puppy.

If you ask Tricky one by one, which is his sock puppy, how many would you have to guess to have a fifty-fifty chance of guessing?

Shaddup Goddess! Let him figure it out himself!

But I will say that if he guesses correctly, I will admit it. We atheists are well known for our honesty.

[Franko's Goddess]

Tricky, be nice.

[Franko's Goddess]

You be nice too, Frank. Typing all those question marks will wear out that key on your computer. Remember what happened last time.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Tricky
Note to anyone trying to follow this thread (you masochistic bastiges) ;):

If the post order seems out of whack, that is because Franko is now using the tactic of deleting and reposting. He usually resorts to this when he is getting spanked so badly that he feels that sowing confusion is his best strategy.

Carry on. Yeah, he started this over a week ago, hehe. I wonder how childish one can get.

Hans

[Franko]

Tricky: (he’s got nothing but diversions)
Shaddup Goddess! Let him figure it out himself!

I could care less. Why do you keep trying to divert the issue? Why are you ashamed to answer these questions Trixy? What are you hiding? Is this your idea of intellectual honesty?

So you are not obeying any rules or laws? The laws of Physics have no effect on you what-so-ever? You do not OBEY the Laws of Physics?

Or are you claiming that You are the Source of the Laws of Physics? You made up the laws of physics in your own mind, so therefore even if they control you, you control them?

Is that what you are claiming Tricky? Why are you trying to hide what you believe? Why all of this run around for so long? Why do you keep contradicting your self? Are you ashamed of your beliefs?

[thaiboxerken]

The laws of physics have never given me an order. How about yourself?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
The laws of physics have never given me an order. How about yourself?

Yeah, I seldom float up to the ceiling, and all the biochem that keeps *me* running seems to hum right along.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by hammegk


Yeah, I seldom float up to the ceiling, and all the biochem that keeps *me* running seems to hum right along.

I never heard TLOP tell me "thou shalt not create or destroy energy". The laws of physics are just an observation on the way things are, not a conscious entity in itself. Some people (Franko) will never understand the metaphorical meaning of the phrase "all obey the laws of physics". Oh well, good observations are lost on the irrational all of the time.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


....The laws of physics are just an observation on the way things are, not a conscious entity in itself. ...

Leaving aside for the moment "conscious", that is still not F's (or my) understanding of TLOP.

TLOP *is* the "way things are", not how we might currently understand them to be. I.E. TLOP is the territory itself, not our imperfect math-physics map thereof. :)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by hammegk


Leaving aside for the moment "conscious", that is still not F's (or my) understanding of TLOP.

TLOP *is* the "way things are", not how we might currently understand them to be. I.E. TLOP is the territory itself, not our imperfect math-physics map thereof. :)
It may be the territory doesn't match the map. Yet by your admission, you do not have a complete map. It is quite possible, even likely that the map has places that say "it is impossible to tell what is in here, because it changes constantly".

Determinists insist that somewhere is a perfect map of reality, and yet every single thing we encounter, every decision node, every roll of the dice, indicates that such a map does not exist.

It is extremely comforting to imagine that everything that happens has a cause, and extremely uncomfortable to concive that this may not be so. This is one reason why there are so few atheists. It is hard to live with no sky daddy/mommy who assures us that "everything will be okay in the long run".
-------------------
Everybody's just waiting to here from the one
Who can give us the answers
To lead us back to that place in the warmth of the sun
Where sweet childhood still dances
But who'll come along and hold out that strong
Yet gentle Father's hand?
Long ago I heard someone say something 'bout Everyman.
------Jackson Browne

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Tricky

... It is quite possible, even likely that the map has places that say "it is impossible to tell what is in here, because it changes constantly". ....

I doubt that Stimpy would agree; nor do I. Sounds too much like "magick" to me.

It is extremely comforting to imagine that everything that happens has a cause, and extremely uncomfortable to concive that this may not be so. This is one reason why there are so few atheists. It is hard to live with no sky daddy/mommy who assures us that "everything will be okay in the long run".
Cause is a topic we have certainly discussed. I didn't realize we had reached a conclusion that it would be an uncomfortable situation for effects without cause. It's not anything a materialist/atheist should be worried about anyway.

And when did I conclude sky daddy/mommy will make everything ok in the long run? FYI, I have no such thought.

[Darat]

Originally posted by hammegk

I doubt that Stimpy would agree; nor do I. Sounds too much like "magick" to me.

...snip...

Stimpy may not but certainly some scientists do. For instance many scientists seem to be quite agnostic about "before the big bang".

Why is there a seemingly “in-built” bias in us humans that makes us assume that this parasitical outgrowth of a spinal column (that evolved to survive in an environment that is almost totally unlike the vast volume of the rest of the universe) can ever “understand” the big “why”? Or perhaps even more tellingly why do we assume there is an answer to the “why”?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Darat


Stimpy may not but certainly some scientists do. For instance many scientists seem to be quite agnostic about "before the big bang".



Er, how do you fit the words "because it changes
constantly" into pre-BB?

And we need to be sure the universe is not closed too.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

hammegk,

... It is quite possible, even likely that the map has places that say "it is impossible to tell what is in here, because it changes constantly". ....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I doubt that Stimpy would agree; nor do I. Sounds too much like "magick" to me.

1) What difference does it make to Tricky's argument whether I agree with it or not? If I disagree with something that he, or anybody else, says, I will say so. Please don't put words in my mouth.

2) Just for the record, I don't know whether I agree with Tricky's point or not, because I am not entirely sure what he is trying to say.

Tricky,

Are you referring to the possible existence of systems for which it is impossible, do to physical constraints, to determine the exact current state? Or are you referring to physical laws that change with time so quickly, and erratically, as to make it impossible to determine what those physical laws are? Or maybe something else?

Dr. Stupid