madmax2976

<strong> LOL. Well, I have been trying to avoid that, but I've also been trying to play devil's advocate for the hard determinist. That will cause the "arguments" because the hard determinist will say we don't really make choices, but of course most of us believe that we do. (Most hard determinists I've conversed with are theists attempting to interject "God" into the mix.)

<strong> Again, on this view, what is a law? Some kind of supernatural force? An energy pattern? A universal good feeling? How exactly does a "law" mandate that the charge of electron's will be -1.6E-19? What's the process? What is a "law" made of? Using this view, tell me as precisely as you can what a "law" is and how it functions.

<strong> The prescriptivist essentially argues that naturalism leads to absurdity. Humans couldn't possibly have the ability to choose in a universe "governed" by laws. Thus, this opens the door for the supernatural - God. I believe the prescriptivist view is itself absurd. I can't even comprehend what a "law" is under this view and no prescriptivist has yet been able to explain it to me.

<strong> Well, we do tend to digress a lot on these boards. However I do understand the issue and have debated it with prescriptive theists. It may be that I am not being a good devil's advocate however. It can be a challenge to argue for a position that you don't hold

<strong> I've explained this before. If determinism wasn't true, you couldn't predict the outcome of any actions. No matter what action you choose to do, it would be a random choice as you couldn't trust the outcome in any way. There could be no expected consequences.

<strong> No they are not. The way reality actually is and how it functions is what would be inviolate. Our descriptions of how reality works is obviously not. Newton's Laws, quantum physics, the theory of relativity, are all approximations of how reality works and don't always jive we each other. It would be exceedingly arrogant to think that we have absolute and perfect knowledge of any phenomenon such that we can call the scientific laws we've written in our books as "inviolate" or absolute.

I suppose you could say there are 2 sets of "laws" for everything. The way things actually are would be Law Set #1, and our descriptions of how we think things are would be Law Set #2. The laws in Set #2 would only equal the laws in Set #1 when/if we have absolute and perfect knowledge of any single phenomenon that the law covers. Perhaps this will happen some day.

<strong> What laws are "inviolate"? The laws we've written down to paper as we understand how things work? That would be ridiculously arrogant I think. If you mean the laws as described in Law Set #1, which is simply how things really are and how they really function - I agree.

The prescriptivist however wants to make Law Set #2 automatically the same as Law Set #1. They've yet to justify such a position. I'd challenge anyone to prove that our understanding of reality is "inviolate". When we talk about the laws in our science books, we're talking about our understanding.

Synaesthesia

excreationist -on road-trip- ,

Thanks for that article by Daniel Dennett and Christopher Taylor. Although the pictures used to represent logical connectives didn’t load, I found the text tremendously helpful in clarifying my thinking.

I encourage others to read the article itself because it is an elucidating synthesis of concepts. However, for those who haven’t the time/patience/inclination to read the article, I think it’s worthwhile to highlight one particular issue: counterfactuals.


Human beings are experts at determining what kinds of occurrences and choices are “possible” simply because we are experts at:

(1)Determining how various factors influence the relative likelihood of an effect or set of effects.
(2)Modeling possible consequences of these effects.

I use the qualifiers “relative” and “possible” because human beings do not live in rigid microdomains. We have to be able to adapt with imperfect knowledge under suboptimal conditions. This is true, especially true, in predicting our own thoughts and behavior. One way we deal with uncertainty is by modeling several likely courses of action that we (or someone else) can take. When we do this, we say we are imagining counterfactuals or different possible choices.

Interestingly, the very results we derive from examining different courses of action can change our course of action. The very ability to imagine choice gives us more choices.

The world can be understood, at least approximately, in terms of relatively simple rules acting upon matter. (For our purposes when I say “physics” I mean primarily our intuitive patchwork of understanding about how things in general work. This notion extends beyond physical laws to include theories like human motivation.) This gives human beings the capacity to imagine arrangements of matter that do not actually exist and to modify these arrangements using the rules of physics that can be shown to exist.

A clear advantage of separating states from the rules by which they evolve is that we can develop a more sophisticated understanding of the rules themselves. As Dennett and Taylor say, “Looking at precisely the same case, again and again, is utterly uninformative, but looking at similar cases is in fact diagnostic.”

The degree to which counterfactuals or experiments are effectively diagnostic depends in turn upon our understanding of how the similarities and differences between the situations are important. There is no general method for performing this task but humans are clearly apt at this task. “Our theories,” as Popper said, “die in our stead.”

Madmax,
My point was that machines, even a deterministic ones, can be meaningfully described as choice makers though obviously not all machines make choices.

I think the issue of consciousness has the potential to confuse the topic at hand. The precise way human beings make choices is functionally correlated with our capacity for reflexivity, but I don’t think that consciousness is really at the crux of choice. Choice, in my view is the examination of alternatives within a context of counterfactual machinery. We have to be able to model the potential consequences of alternative courses of action. The result of our analysis MAY BE predetermined but we still have the capacity to model with a high degree of accuracy what would have happened if we did take another course of action.

Regards,
Synaesthesia

Amos

Sorry no text

[ December 16, 2001: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Synaesthesia

Amos, to be totally frank, you're not making any sense. You should cut down on that reefer man, I know it's hard but it helps if your goal is to talk coherently. (I'm operating under the thus far baseless faith that such is the case.)

1)Eternal life is the OPPOSITE of mortality.
2)Mortality is SMALLER than eternal life.

Therefore

3) We know about mortality from immortality.

therefore

1a)Immortality is real.

therefore

2a)Mortality is NOT real

therefore

3a)Immortal people don't die.(Of course immortal people don't die, there is no THEREFORE.)


Good mother nature, I don't even know where to begin. Do you fail to see what is wrong with this argument? Don't you know that nothing follows from anything else. This is just an unconnected string of assertions, it's totally irrational.

Hell is a publicity stunt? I must admit, I've never heard THAT one before. I like the idea though, it's like nuking China to emphasize how great the west is.

excreationist

madmax2976:
I have already set out a definition of "select" for you!!! You need to remember what I've said before and not just look at a section on its own in isolation otherwise we're not getting anywhere!!!

These are some definitions for selection:
"Singled out in preference"
"Careful or refined in making selections; discriminating"

Also, I'll repeat an example to help explain what a selection is:
Now you could type these in a computer and ask it to tell you the largest volume or the smallest volume, or maybe the second largest volume.
It would evaluate these options according to that criteria and tell you about which option is the answer. This would be its "selection".
To evaluate the options involves a computer iterating through the list and keeping some values in its short term memory. A rock doesn't do this!! It doesn't iterate through a list of options to evaluate them, then return its selected option!!! It just acts using reflexes - it hits something then is deflected, etc.

(just to requote you)
It didn't evaluate all of the paths!!! A single path involves many different bumps. Before the rock goes down the path it doesn't evaluate all the potential paths, like a chess computer does and determine the optimal path to take and set about going there!! Do you think a rock looks into the future (like a chess computer does - it can check a few moves into the future) and it searches through all of its possible paths which one is the "correct" one? No, it doesn't predict the future at all - it is just blindly thrown around. It's like a chess computer that doesn't try and look into the future - one that just has simple knee-jerk reactions.

That isn't more precise - that is very simplified! The thing I'm interested in is what the algorithms are! And I'm saying that algorithms can involve evaluating a list of options and determining the result.

No, rocks just react in simplistic ways. They don't iterate through lists.

e.g. Say the problem was to find the second highest number in a list:
1) 3
2) 7
3) 8
4) 6

The answer is option 2: 7. For a computer to work this out, it would have to check every number in the list, and find the highest number, then the second highest. The simplest way to check through the list is sequentially although you could do it backwards or randomly.
In the short-term memory, I'll use these variables: CurrentIndex, Highest, HighestIndex, SecHighest, SecHighestIndex.
All of them initially equal n/a.
First we'll set CurrentIndex to 1 and look at the first option: 3.
This is the highest number, so Highest = 3. HighestIndex = 1.
Then check next option: (7)
CurrentIndex = 2
7 is larget than Highest (3) so Highest = 7, HighestIndex = 2, SecHighest = 3, SecHighestIndex = 1.

I hope you aren't too confused...
Then check next option: (8)
CurrentIndex = 3
8 is larget than Highest (7) so Highest = 8, HighestIndex = 3, SecHighest = 7, SecHighestIndex = 2.

Then check next option: (6)
CurrentIndex = 4
6 isn't largest than SecHighest or Highest, so they stay the same.

Anyway, do you see a difference between how that works and how a rock works?
That involved 5 temporary variables that could "freely" change their values and be compared with the other values. So they could be reused many times. But with rocks, they tend to just run out of momentum after a while and just stop moving. Computer programs on the other hand, can just go in "loops" where a process just repeats lots of times, then it suddenly halts. Rocks don't just suddenly halt when their calculations are complete. They just gradually lose momentum and come to a standstill.

But it still has to go through the process of evaluating all of the values in the list against its criteria since the computer doesn't already know the answer. In the same way, people need to go through the decision process to arrive at a decision, though it may have been inevitable.

Well those who believe in determinism, such as myself would be that our decisions are inevitable. But there still is a decision process even though it isn't free from determinism. So we're saying that decisions still are made, they just are constrained by the inputs - they aren't "free".

Well we have personalities and patterns of behaviour that are stored in our long term memories. And our brain constantly makes decisions. I think that's about all there is. There is no supernatural "soul".

Well chess computers just have a very narrow problem domain. But they still make decisions.

You are putting words into the mouths of determinists!!!! If you listen, you'd see that we are saying that people and chess computers still do make decisions. The point is just that these decisions are dependent on the environment - they aren't transcendent or independent of the environment.
Saying that there is no free will or truly free choices doesn't mean that selections and decisions are impossible. You are the one who is saying this, trying to put words into the mouths of determinists.
You are the one who is saying that the words "selection" or "decision" are only meaningful if there is free will. But it depends on the definitions of these words. And other people can have different definitions of words than you do. So it may be true according to your definitions of those words, but not ours.

No, there was no free choice or free will, but there still was a decision. There was a comparison between two different outcomes. One was determined to be preferable. If you just talk about things in terms of physics it all becomes uninteresting. e.g. just say that someone went to disney - you could say "that's just some atoms interacting". Or say they were being skinned alive - "that's just some atoms interacting" - or say we're talking about a block of ice - "that's just some atoms interacting".
Anyway, those situations can be described in other ways as well, and so can human behaviour and emotions.

Which hard determinist are you talking about. I think you're putting words into their mouths. They would agree that genuine choices or alternatives that aren't inevitable don't exist, but there can still be a set of unevaluated options that initially seem, to the system, to be possible options. You need to understand this distinction.

I'm sure that hard determinists would be happy to say that chess computers can make selections or decisions. In fact, "decision" is a standard term in AI, when talking about simplistic systems such as chess computers. Do you have any proof that all hard determinists disagree with the use of "decisions" when referring to computer software? I thought that only theists who believe in souls and free-will would have a problem for this term to be used to describe computers.

Well where are these hard determinists then? I think you're just inventing them. I don't think you understand them very well. They are just saying that transcendent, environmentally-independent choice doesn't exist. Sets of unevaluated data can be called options though, since to the system and people the alternatives haven't been evaluated yet and from *their* point of view, the answer isn't known yet since they don't know the answer yet.

I agree - so are you saying that hard determinists believe that intentions exist?

So meaningful choice exists for determinists, but not to "hard" determinists? Well even if those people exist, who believe that even the word "selection" is meaningless, I don't really care. I guess I'm just a sane determinist then, rather than a "hard" determinist.

crocodile deathroll:
I don't have access to a printer at the moment - I should be able to get to one in the next couple of days....

crocodile deathroll

I am not going to delve too much into the old church dogma about eschatology namely Heaven and Hell, as I have given up on that since puberty.

I feel before one asks any questions about immortality/eternal life and mortality/temporal life you have to consider how one emerged into this world in the first place.

Arguing that eternal life is the opposite to temporal life is rather like stating that infinity is the opposite to #1 or that the #1 is the opposite to the infinitesimal. I prefer to take it to the two extremes, the infinite is the opposite to the infinitesimal which is the two scalar opposites.

Now just assume you have never been born in the first place. That would give you an infinitesimal length of time in which you existed and if you were immortal then that would be an infinite length of time. Just the mere fact that you exist is infinitely greater than not existing at all. I felt that not existing at all, since I had not existed for approximately 10 to 15 billion years since time began should be the norm. And when you die, it would be a return to that natural status quo. Your existence as this moment should be an extremely rare exception to the rule, as there are far more ways of not existing than existing.

Well I about to toss a lot of that old dogma out the window. We can never possibly be aware of any condition in which we do not exist like as a skeleton or an pre-fertilized egg/sperm partnership. In is only through the emergence of complex structures like the human brain which endows us with us sense of time can we be aware of our existence. And since the universe is full of such self organizing structures, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that we will emerge somewhere else, with sensation of time and a feeling that we are once again ego-centered to one particular place and time in the universe. Just like you feel like you are now. So far from personal existence being a exception to the rule, it is the norm. As it is so necessary for a perception of time.

crocodile deathroll

madmax2976

<strong> I think what the hard determinist (HD) will do is say that there are important distinctions between the simple input matching that computers do and the actual choices based on possible consequences that humans do. When we examine exactly what a computer does when it selects something, the analogy between humans and computers breaks down. Of course all analogies break down at some point and they are only useful for explaining things that have already been proven to be true, not as a basis from which to argue.

The HD would argue that the whole computer “selection” process is simply a law based progression of pattern matching. Inputs #1-7 direct that function #26 (for example) gets executed. The function executes and based on Inputs #10 and #11 spits out some programmed output because a pattern is found and matched up. The “computer” doesn’t really make a choice because it is not a cohesive unit. No part of a computer is “aware” of the consequences nor is there any part that cares about the results. The inputs come in and the result is spit out - period. With this view the computer isn’t really any different than a rock. In the case of the rock, the laws of physics are what would do the selecting of how the rock got down the hill. The same would be the case with the computer even though it may have more variables.

As I think about it, I think the HD would say we’re just pattern selecting computers. We don’t make choices, we have no volition, we just spit out output based on input.

<strong> And the HD will say the computer doesn’t really do any “evaluating”. The analogy will keep breaking down when we look at exactly what a computer is and what it does. A computer is simply an extension of ourselves. It is we who do the evaluating ahead of time – assuming we’re different than the computer. It is we who do the decision making – again, assuming we’re different. It is we that care about and forsee the circumstances. The computer just contains a processor with bit registers and runs lines of code and carries out what we want it to do. It has no choice to do otherwise.

In comparison, the rock may not do any selecting of its path down the hill, but the laws of physics do determine the path it will take. That path is set and cannot be changed. The HD will argue that we are the same under a naturalistic view of reality.

<strong> The HD will say algorithms don’t evaluate anything. Algorithms are just line of code that do our bidding. They just match up outputs based on inputs and have no choice to do otherwise. We have evaluated how we want the outputs to come out based on inputs that exist before we even built the computer.

<strong> The HD will say that’s right. IF HD is true, we just iterate through lists based on the inputs we get. Choice is an illusion.. We can do no different actions than the inputs we receive dictate. We like to think we had alternatives and we try to picture them, but according to the HD we didn’t really have any choice at all – assuming there’s not something “special” about us.

<strong> The HD position: Computers do just what we tell them to do. They don’t have a choice. We do just what the laws of physics dictate we must do. We have no choice.

<strong> The HD will say that there is only an illusion of making a descision. The laws of physics mandate that you will do the particular actions that you will do. If we were smart enough we could even predict those actions. But whether we can or not the result is the same - you don’t really choose to do anything. Under naturalism, the laws of physics do it for you.

<strong> The HD will say that without a “soul”, we just move at the whim of the laws of nature. Our brains don’t make decisions, they just do what the laws of nature dictate all the little neurons and brains cells must do. Any sense of choice is illusory because of the complexity involved.

<strong>[/quote] You are putting words into the mouths of determinists!!!! If you listen, you'd see that we are saying that people and chess computers still do make decisions. The point is just that these decisions are dependent on the environment - they aren't transcendent or independent of the environment. Saying that there is no free will or truly free choices doesn't mean that selections and decisions are impossible. You are the one who is saying this, trying to put words into the mouths of determinists. ou are the one who is saying that the words "selection" or "decision" are only meaningful if there is free will. But it depends on the definitions of these words. And other people can have different definitions of words than you do. So it may be true according to your definitions of those words, but not ours. </strong>[/quote]

First of all there is a distinction between these hard determinists I am speaking of and just regular determinism. I am a determinist myself. Their version of determinism however is akin to fatalism.

Secondly, I am not putting anything into their mouths. I’ve had these people sitting in my living room and have engaged in extended debate with them. (The most notable one being a theistic philosophy professor of a nearby university - a friend of my brother, and both of whom are devoted Christians)

<strong> My brother’s professor friend would say “poppycock”. The universe is governed by the laws of nature. As such we are at its mercy and unable to truly make any decisions at all. Our very preferences and so-called choices can all be reduced down to the arrangement of molecules, cells, atoms that happen to exist at the moment – assuming naturalism is true that is.

<strong> Of course you may think as you wish. The hard determinists I speak of are the ones I’ve personally engaged in conversation with..

Of couse they would agree that there are genuine choices that humans make. Their argument is that a “soul” is necessary for this to occur and a God is needed to make it all happen.. A deterministic universe where Naturalism is true, doesn’t cut it in their view.

<strong> Quite right. Its the theists I’m referring to. They are the hard determinists – or at least they argue as such taking into consideration their view of naturalism. They wouldn’t say computers really make choices. Computers just do what we tell them to do. Under naturalism, humans just do what the laws of physics tells them to do.

<strong> Again, you may think as you wish. If you think I’m making them up then I fail to see why you bother to respond on this issue at all.

<strong> More succinctly, these hard determinists don’t believe we make meaningful choices if we’re atoms and molecules in motion underneath it all. A deity that endows us with the ability to choose and make us “persons” is what really gives us the human ability to choose. Something that no computer can touch or even come close to.

excreationist

Are you saying that HD believe that humans make "actual choices"? You're contradicting yourself. And will you stop talking about these HD's? Who cares what those insane people think.

Well computers can simulate neural networks and so work in pretty much the same way as our brains do. (On a much smaller scale, at present) Otherwise symbolic AI which involves symbol manipulation is very different.

Well neural networks can recognize patterns too, although they don't explicitly search through a list of known patterns sequentially. And neural networks can handle corrupted and incomplete inputs.
That example of selection I gave involved comparisons e.g. "is 6 greater than 8" and assignments where a variable is given a specific variable. It doesn't actually use any pattern matching. Eliza and similar programs do though.

So, it can still be making a selection or a decision.

Like I said before, a rock doesn't explicitly select the path its going to take. I mean in the case of a chess computer it can look at the possible move sequences up to say, 4 moves into the future. Then see which final outcome is the most preferable, then make the move that leads to that goal. (Although the opponent might ruin things)
A rock doesn't do this. Are you saying that it does, or are you saying that a HD would say that it does. I don't care what HD's think.

So now HD's say that we're very similar to computers? Make up your mind, and stop talking about HD's.

Do you know what "evaluating" is?
e.g.
if x+4 = 6, x = 2.
Or (4+5)*2 = 18.
That's called evaluating an expression. Computers can do that.
Although they do it like this: 10001000 + 00000001 = 10001001.

Get your story straight.

Yes, but we do go through a decision process where we can pause to ponder things and make decisions. Rocks don't do this - they just instantly react to their environment. Chess computers pause to make decisions though.

Could you give evidence of this claim? So now you're saying that HD's don't believe that computers can "evaluate" things? Who is a HD anyway? Or did you just make them up?

How is seeing if something is greater than something else "&gt;" matching up outputs?

So you mean we already know the answer? So if you use a supercomputer to work out the weather for next week, we already know exactly what answer it will give?

No, neural networks don't work like that. We look at our knowledge base simultaneously, not sequentially.

So if choice is an illusion, there is still a kind of choice there - illusory choice.

So they believe in predestination then...? Well if they are so easy to get in contact with, could you ask them about those examples e.g. that list of dimensions of 3D objects.

Poppycock?!? So is he saying that preferences exist then? And so-called choices are still a kind of choice... they are a kind of "apparent" choice.

So they are proponents of free-will, and so have a vested interest to make determinism look bad then? Creationists also misrepresent their oponents, the "evolutionists" to make them look bad. What matters is what the people who believe in determinism think - not those who just construct ridiculous things to try to discredit it think.

I'm just saying that I was starting to feel frustrated and that I might give up in the future. But now things have taken an interesting turn.

So they don't even believe in that concept that they talk about, "hard determinism"? It's like how creationists talk about "evolutionists" who are really dumb. The question is, are there people who actually believe that "hard determinism" is true? If not, then these theists are just using a straw man, and it is often futile to argue against a straw man.

madmax2976

<strong> Well thats nice. You go from calling me a liar to saying things have taken an interesting turn. I guess I could call this progress.

<strong> The battle between Necessitarians and Regulitarians is not limited to theists and yes there people in both groups and many on the borderlines. Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett are two popular individuals that view choice in humans as very limited.

As for the theists who argue that the naturalistic worldview necessitates a hard deterministic position, they are of course attempting to provide arguments for making the theistic position more reasonable than the atheistic position. While they don't believe the position themselves, they argue that it is an unavoidable conclusion if naturalism is true.

Since its clear to me you've never debated such issues with these types of theists, unless you have something constructive to add, I probably won't be responding to any more of your posts.

I don't find being called a liar constructive or worth my time to respond to.

Devilnaut

OK to weigh in here again...

I think the point here is that "choice" is just an artificial human definition. To those that invented the word, it didn't seem like rocks made choices, therefore they didn't. It seems like we do, therefore we do. According to the actual meaning of the word, computers do make choices.

Objectively speaking, and without arbitrary distinctions, a rock and a computer and a human all act in the exact same way in that they all are a part of nature and follow laws of cause and effect. If you want to get technical, and it seems you do, I don't think there is any non-arbitrary way to set the limits on what is a 'choice'. This seems to upset you greatly and i'm not sure why.

Also, the knowledge that the laws of nature are descriptive rather than prescriptive might be useful if we were debating the practicality of predicting human choices, but we're not. We're talking about it in principle, and I don't think that this distinction makes any difference. Whether or not our laws of physics are 87% accurate or 100% accurate doesn't matter, in theory they could certainly be 100% accurate and human choices would then be 100% predictable, again barring random quantum fluctuations and such.


devilnaut


This seems very simple, yet I have a feeling this post will get very convoluted very soon..


And edited to thank Lord Malin for his compliment

[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>