22 Jan 06
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KSo your point on you putting a virus into my computer simply supports
Well lets examine your "interference means occupying the same space" theory.
Well, if i insert a virus into your computer, am i not interfering with you?
I should think (and hope) that we are not occupying the same space.
Interference is when something subverts the process of another thing. That is what will happen if i give you hallucinogens.
...[text shortened]... ysical world.
I also ask you, who exactly has free will according to your theistic logic.
my contention that consciousness is not chemical, as you proposed
just a few posts ago. You prove my point; your virus on my computer
does interfere with me, yet it does not even touch me, it simply
occupies the same universe (same space) and it could affect my
ability to communicate through my computer or play a game. Yet your
virus isn’t me nor made of the same things I am, just as I’m saying
that your contention that being aware of the environment has some
chemical elements to it, does not make consciousness chemical just
as when I use my computer to communicate with you, the
components within the computer are not part of me.
I do not know who said that freewill exists outside of the physical
realm since we exist in the physical realm, a huge part of our being,
what makes us, us, is our will. How free it is, is a matter of discussion,
I’m more incline to call us free moral agents than say I believe we
have free will. I believe can get free, can be set free, as I believe that
within the Kingdom of God is freedom. I also understand that many
would disagree with that too, but such is life; it is nothing new to have
disagreements.
I think those truly free are those closest to God, and God himself,
when we get further away from God the more things bind us, interfere
with our desires, our will.
Kelly
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
22 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI do not know who said that freewill exists outside of the physical
So your point on you putting a virus into my computer simply supports
my contention that consciousness is not chemical, as you proposed
just a few posts ago. You prove my point; your virus on my computer
does interfere with me, yet it does not even touch me, it simply
occupies the same universe (same space) and it could affect my
ability to communicate ...[text shortened]... get further away from God the more things bind us, interfere
with our desires, our will.
Kelly
realm since we exist in the physical realm, a huge part of our being,
what makes us, us, is our will. How free it is, is a matter of discussion,
I’m more incline to call us free moral agents than say I believe we
have free will.
Free will must exist outside the physical realms (i.e it cannot be chemical). If it were it could not be free at all. It would be determined by the reactions of chemicals or the behaviour of Quantum partcles. Thus, they [free will and chemicals] cannot "occupy the same space," but even if they did free will must be constrained. "Free moral agents" is a very difficult thing to swallow. What exactly is moral? If my family ingrain me with the belief that decadence is a good thing, will i be morally free if i commit murder?
If i am predisposed to commit muder am i morally culpable for my action?
If it is discovered that my brain activity during the time i committed the murder, suggests that i could not have controlled my self, am i morally free agent.
What exactly is so special about morals that separate them from the rest of beaviour?
I think those truly free are those closest to God, and God himself,
when we get further away from God the more things bind us, interfere
with our desires, our will.
Please answer the above.
By the way i am a devout Catholic. I consider myself close to God. But am constantly interfered with, isn't that part of the "carry your cross" ethos. Which by the way is utterly ridiculous.
23 Jan 06
Originally posted by Conrau KI will get into your post, but if you don't mind, what do you mean
[b]I do not know who said that freewill exists outside of the physical
realm since we exist in the physical realm, a huge part of our being,
what makes us, us, is our will. How free it is, is a matter of discussion,
I’m more incline to call us free moral agents than say I believe we
have free will.
Free will must exist outside the physical real ...[text shortened]... isn't that part of the "carry your cross" ethos. Which by the way is utterly ridiculous.[/b]
when you say, "free will"? So we are not talking past one another
what is it you refer to when you use the term?
Kelly
23 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KFollowing on this line of argument:
[b]1) "I did X because I found the arguments in favor of doing do reasonable."
A computer might do the same except with less sophistication and complicated proicesses. Reason does not presuppose freedom. Reason might be explained as the product of genetic determinacy and the environment.
Also, how would you define reason? Some people's reason mig ...[text shortened]... t be completely unreasonable. Think of the mentally ill. Does their "reason" imply freedom?[/b]
Computers do not find arguments reasonable. They do what they are programmed to do, no more and no less.
If the result of a computer program is reasonable, it is because we interpret it as such. The computer does no interpreting of its own.
Many would agree, however, that people genuinely do things for a reason at least some of the time. But perceiving the validity of, and acting upon, such reasons presupposes indeterminism. For, if people were deterministically compelled to do that thing, then they would not really be doing it for a reason, but merely because they were compelled to do so by unseen forces.
By definition, an unreasonable thought is not reasonable, and those who acutely display it are not being acutely reasonable. Hence, the mentally ill are seen as less free than the mentally well. This is not a problem for the argument.
23 Jan 06
Originally posted by Conrau KHow can consciousness be chemicals? Which ones? Why some but not others? How do you know?
[b]Really, you don't believe consciousness is causally dependent on chemistry?
Not, in the sense you do. I argue that consciousness is chemicals.
Believe me, if I were to fiddle with your brain, by altering its chemistry or biology, your state of consciousness would alter concomitantly.
I have been maintaining that argument for some time. No need to repeat.[/b]
Your claim is sweeping.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
23 Jan 06
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeComputers do not find arguments reasonable. They do what they are programmed to do, no more and no less.
Following on this line of argument:
Computers do not find arguments reasonable. They do what they are programmed to do, no more and no less.
If the result of a computer program is reasonable, it is because we interpret it as such. The computer does no interpreting of its own.
Many would agree, however, that people genuinely do things for a rea ...[text shortened]... ntally ill are seen as less free than the mentally well. This is not a problem for the argument.
What makes you thinks humans aren't programmed in a similar way.
By definition, an unreasonable thought is not reasonable, and those who acutely display it are not being acutely reasonable. Hence, the mentally ill are seen as less free than the mentally well. This is not a problem for the argument.
Can you define mentally ill for me. When does one thought suddenly become unreasonable? Where do you demarcate between mentally ill and mentally well? And on what grounds?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
23 Jan 06
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeHow can consciousness not be chemicals? How do you know?
How can consciousness be chemicals? Which ones? Why some but not others? How do you know?
Your claim is sweeping.
For free will to exist, it must be inferred that something else must exist (i.e.
soul) which is not chemical. Surely this claim is sweeping. Why don't we assume the exisence of various other things to make obscure theories plausible. Lets assume God exists so that we can enjoy the pleasure intelligent design and all the benefits it provides society. Lets assume you don't exist so that i can claim that i won this debate!
24 Jan 06
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeYou can program a computer to better follow our line of reasoning.
Following on this line of argument:
Computers do not find arguments reasonable. They do what they are programmed to do, no more and no less.
If the result of a computer program is reasonable, it is because we interpret it as such. The computer does no interpreting of its own.
Many would agree, however, that people genuinely do things for a rea ...[text shortened]... ntally ill are seen as less free than the mentally well. This is not a problem for the argument.
Conclusion {returns true or false}
[
Input: Set(X) {conclusion}
Input: Set(y1, y2, y3...) {the arguments}
IF the analysis algorithm shows (y1 and y2 and y3) = subset (Set (X))
THEN: Return (true) or else Return (false)
]
The argument and conclusions can be inputs to the computer, and the computer can reason if the arguments lead to the conclusion. Computers are always finding arguments reasonable. That's what "reasoning" means. Take inputs A, determine if they lead to B, or if the lead to a probability of B, and assign B either a true value or a probability of being true. Computers are always interpreting conclusions from data.
Determined and compelled are a little fuzzy. We do things because we decided (like a computer) which answer seems best (most probably correct) and we act accordingly. Computers do the same thing. What determines the decision is reason (metal calculations, comparisons, assignment of values based on prior knowledge). We go through iterations to check our answers (like computers do), we try different conclusions based on prior knowledge of possible answers. We are not forced to act against our wills any more than you can make a computer change it's decision without reprogramming it or changing the inputs.
The same program with the same inputs on the same processor will reach the same conclusions. The same mind, given the same environment and the same prior knowledge will reach the same conclusion. So either the computer and the person has free will, or neither has free will. It really depends on how you define free will.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
25 Jan 06
To Pawnokeyhole. Are you an existensialist? I only say this because your statement "reason presupposes freedom" seems awfully reminiscent of a phrase that recently occured to me, that is "reason is freedom" (i think Milton or Millon or Dostoevsky, I really can't remember who!).
Coming back to your "consciousness is not just chemical" theory. Are you asserting a kind of Holistic theory. That the man is something more than his individual components (i.e. chemicals)? I'm pretty sure you are, in which case you need not mention it. This has already been discussed. To some extent we cannot know if there is free will. We can only assume that if it exists it must be constrained (as i said, "like choosing a or b out of the entire alphabet).
As i told Halitose. The onus is on you to prove that free will exists (albeit restricted). There is significant evidence to suggest that free will does not exist (i.e. because of chemical predisposition and environmental influences). Can you provide testament to free will not in the form of some garbled metaphysical rheotic?
01 Feb 06
Originally posted by Conrau KDoes being free have to mean without pressure to do other than
[b]I do not know who said that freewill exists outside of the physical
realm since we exist in the physical realm, a huge part of our being,
what makes us, us, is our will. How free it is, is a matter of discussion,
I’m more incline to call us free moral agents than say I believe we
have free will.
Free will must exist outside the physical real ...[text shortened]... isn't that part of the "carry your cross" ethos. Which by the way is utterly ridiculous.[/b]
how one will's? If for example, we look at Jesus Christ, I believe
him to be free, then and now, but he faced temptations, which
is a pressure to do other than how he wanted to behave. If you
or I smoked and wanted to quit, we would face the pressure of
temptation to continue to smoke, in both the mental and the
physical areas of our life. Yet, to overcome those temptations
is acting on the will, in the face of forces against such an act of
will. Why would chemicals and will not be able to exist in the same
physical realm? The will to do has nothing to do with those powers
that would deny that will to act it wants. To believe that that
we are but chemical reactions is an excuse to say that we cannot
do as we should.
Kelly
03 Feb 06
People are too hung up on what they were tought in their lives.
If you want to find truth then seek it for yourself.
It starts by putting everything anyone has EVER told you out the door, including what your parents tought you.
Start seeking yourselves. Belive me if you go with a open mind you will find the GOD.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
03 Feb 06
Originally posted by KellyJayYes, but a very compelling one, as well. RTP.
To believe that that we are but chemical reactions is an excuse to say that we cannot
do as we should.
Kelly
However, I do not believe that evil is justified. I believe people afford sympathy and should not be accused of being monsters for their actions. But despite this wrong is still wrong and should still incur rehabilitation.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
03 Feb 06
Originally posted by KellyJayI do not dispute that a will exists. However, for it to be free it must not coincide with chemicals on a physical realm. Or otherwise it would be dictated by physical laws (everything in the universe is!). Unless of course the free will is just some nebulous substance that does not abide by the laws of the universe and is capable of choosing two mutually exclusive actions (I believe Schopenger [or something like that, excuse the spelling] argues that this is impossible).
Does being free have to mean without pressure to do other than
how one will's? If for example, we look at Jesus Christ, I believe
him to be free, then and now, but he faced temptations, which
is a pressure to do other than how he wanted to behave. If you
or I smoked and wanted to quit, we would face the pressure of
temptation to continue to smoke, in b ...[text shortened]... that
we are but chemical reactions is an excuse to say that we cannot
do as we should.
Kelly
With the smoking analogy there is no WHY the chemicals quit. They just do.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
03 Feb 06
Originally posted by MikeBruceOK. I believe Descartes argued this, so that we could establish what is actually true. He argued that we can't really know which is the true reality out of the one we experience now, and the one we experience in a dream. This is plausible. However, the only thing we can truly be sure of is our own existence. Because for us to call into doubt the existence of reality, presupposes our own existence (I think; I am).
People are too hung up on what they were tought in their lives.
If you want to find truth then seek it for yourself.
It starts by putting everything anyone has EVER told you out the door, including what your parents tought you.
Start seeking yourselves. Belive me if you go with a open mind you will find the GOD.
Now I can't even be sure of your existence. It requires faith to arrive at a believe in God. And faith means that there is uncertainty (as demonstrated above).
So with my "open mind" I have not found "the GOD."
03 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiI teach statistics to a class of students.
You can program a computer to better follow our line of reasoning.
Conclusion {returns true or false}
[
Input: Set(X) {conclusion}
Input: Set(y1, y2, y3...) {the arguments}
IF the analysis algorithm shows (y1 and y2 and y3) = subset (Set (X))
THEN: Return (true) or else Return (false)
]
The argument and conclusions can be inputs to the c son has free will, or neither has free will. It really depends on how you define free will.
I could tell my class to blindly follow a series of instructions to convert a set of inputs (questions) into a set of outputs (answers). Would it thereby follow that my class of students were reasoning or understanding?
Well, I don't think my Head of Department would agree. He would think I was not doing my duty as as a teacher.
So I think this establishes that, just because something (here, a class of students, but it could also be a computer) follows rules that correctly convert inputs into outputs, there is no automatic reason to suppose that reasoning or understanding is going on. Therefore, citing input-output relations in computer code doesn't suffice to prove your point.