Author Topic: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?  (Read 18693 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11134
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #435 on: January 03, 2012, 12:19:55 PM »
Anyway, who says machines don't have free will, Luci?  Can you prove they don't?

Completely irrelevant to the topic and a strawman. I didn't claim that machines didn't have free will, nor did I claim the opposite. I just said that that's what I thought Gnu meant.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12441
  • Darwins +292/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #436 on: January 03, 2012, 12:23:31 PM »
Touchy.

I'm just pointing out that constructed automatons might as well have free will.  Who's to say they don't?  How would anyone go about deliberately creating one that doesn't have free will?

EDIT:  I'm asking about this from your perspective, since you're the one who believes in free will.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2012, 12:26:09 PM by Azdgari »
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11134
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #437 on: January 03, 2012, 12:39:28 PM »
Touchy.

Actually I'm just getting bored with our discussion on free will versus determinism.

I'm just pointing out that constructed automatons might as well have free will.  Who's to say they don't?  How would anyone go about deliberately creating one that doesn't have free will?

Automatons are non-sentient.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12441
  • Darwins +292/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #438 on: January 03, 2012, 01:28:55 PM »
Hmm.  So if someone created an automaton that processed information like a human being does, it wouldn't be sentient?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11134
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #439 on: January 03, 2012, 01:33:07 PM »
Hmm.  So if someone created an automaton that processed information like a human being does, it wouldn't be sentient?

Automatons are mechanical, in the sense that they don't work without a sentient being controlling them, like puppets.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline dloubet

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1404
  • Darwins +82/-1
  • Gender: Male
    • Denisloubet.com
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #440 on: January 03, 2012, 02:08:31 PM »
How about the classic thought experiment where you replace -- one by one -- each and every neuron in your brain with a tiny mechanical device that does exactly the same thing as the original neuron.

At the end you will have a completely mechanical brain. Will your behavior be any different from when you had the biological original?

Should this have any effect on any supposed "free will"?
Denis Loubet

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12441
  • Darwins +292/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #441 on: January 03, 2012, 02:09:53 PM »
Automatons are mechanical, in the sense that they don't work without a sentient being controlling them, like puppets.

I thought you'd meant some sort of AI.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11134
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #442 on: January 03, 2012, 02:55:23 PM »
How about the classic thought experiment where you replace -- one by one -- each and every neuron in your brain with a tiny mechanical device that does exactly the same thing as the original neuron.

At the end you will have a completely mechanical brain. Will your behavior be any different from when you had the biological original?

This question is illogical. How can it do exactly the same thing as the original (including all its side-effects) and still be different?

I thought you'd meant some sort of AI.

No. I would, except I don't have a concrete definition of what a sentient being is. I can tell you if something is sentient or non-sentient most of the time, but when we get to mechanical beings that perfectly mimic life forms, I cannot.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #443 on: January 04, 2012, 02:55:23 AM »
So all this belief in responsibility and morality isn't for normal people, it's just for psychopaths and sociopaths? I don't believe you.

No. It's not "just" for psychopaths and sociopaths, but the belief in responsibility does keep some of them at bay.

Using serial killers as an example (not that they are the only psychopaths/sociopaths but they are fairly representative) they are driven by such deep seated compulsions that it becomes effectively impossible to resist them. Having grown up in our society they have learned how one is supposed to behave even if they might not understand or want to behave that way. They do understand on an intellectual level that their 'desires' are not acceptable which is why they hide them. They also intellectually understand responsibility and try to abide by it in order to remain free – to be able to continue and because they don't wish to be locked up either. Sometimes the conflict between their 'desires' (the compulsions) and their social responsibility gets to be too great and they decompensate (fall apart) making mistakes that get them caught.

Please don't misunderstand – when I refer to "their social responsibility" I am referring to the construct that informs them of how to blend in to society rather than a genuine sense of responsibility which they do not have. But, no matter how artificial, that 'social responsibility' functions as well, if not better, than some normal people's genuine sense of responsibility. Most serial killers hold down jobs, often menial, and blend in quite well even while they are active. Thus the "such a nice boy" stereotype.

Personally I'd rather be locked in a room full of randomly selected serial killers than a room full of randomly selected religious fanatics with each group knowing I'm a gay atheist since I'd have a much better chance of walking out of the room full of serial killers. Now, in a secluded place with a serial killer for whom I match their victimology, the survival rate drops massively as you would expect.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #444 on: January 04, 2012, 03:06:28 AM »
How about the classic thought experiment where you replace -- one by one -- each and every neuron in your brain with a tiny mechanical device that does exactly the same thing as the original neuron.

At the end you will have a completely mechanical brain. Will your behavior be any different from when you had the biological original?

Should this have any effect on any supposed "free will"?

If the mechanical device does exactly the same thing as the neuron then the behavior would not be any different and the person would have as much free will as before. The very huge problem is the "exactly".

My main interest in the workings of the mechanical brain would not be in the conscious mind as much as in the dreaming brain where random (as far as we know at this point) firings of neurons occur to shift the dream.

If you claim a mechanical brain would not need sleep then it fails in exactly reproducing the neurons. And we start the stop watch to see if there is any difference between the mechanical and organic brains in how fast the mind goes psychotic.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12441
  • Darwins +292/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #445 on: January 04, 2012, 03:11:28 AM »
If the mechanical device does exactly the same thing as the neuron then the behavior would not be any different and the person would have as much free will as before. The very huge problem is the "exactly".

The question then becomes, what specific funciton(s) must be replicated in order to reproduce "free will"?  Can we even test for this?  What would a non-free biological brain look like?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #446 on: January 04, 2012, 05:32:53 AM »
Quote from: Anfauglir
The whole "argument" behind free will as opposed to determinism is that - given the same circumstances - we have the ability to act differently in a way that is not simply random.  All the save-game-universe model does is ask them to explain how that works.....even to try to explain how it would work.  And nobody ever even tries.
I think you'd better check your memory.  People can and do try to explain it; the fact that they have a hard time of it is no cause to pretend that they don't even attempt to.

Honestly, I don't recall - can you link for me please?  Or give me one?  Hand on heart, I can't recall any.

Quote from: Anfauglir
Clearly it is impossible to prove the save-game-universe model one way or the other, since we have no way of saving the universe for reload and retry!  So all we can do is look at everything we DO know about the way the brain works, and say "yes - this model would accurately portray that".
You think it's impossible?  You don't have to reset the whole universe, you just have to make a model of what you're testing.  For example, model a human brain (and body, naturally) inside a computer, with an environment to provide stimuli.  Pick an arbitrary point to start from, which will be the save state.  Let it run for some length of time, then reset and let it run again for the same length of time.  Do this a few dozen or hundred times, and see if the actions ever differ in ways that are clearly not random.

Trouble is - as Lucifer seems to be saying - a computer simulation of a brain will NOT be an appropriate model, because it will not be "sentient" in the same way.  What I believe he is saying is that even if you modelled every process of my brain in the computer, it would still not be the same as my brain, even if we could feed it exactly the same inputs.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5063
  • Darwins +584/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #447 on: January 09, 2012, 04:34:45 PM »
Honestly, I don't recall - can you link for me please?  Or give me one?  Hand on heart, I can't recall any.
I'm reasonably sure that I at least attempted to, a few months back when you first threw the idea at me.  I'll admit that I didn't come up with anything novel, but that's not the same as simply not trying.

Quote from: Anfauglir
Trouble is - as Lucifer seems to be saying - a computer simulation of a brain will NOT be an appropriate model, because it will not be "sentient" in the same way.  What I believe he is saying is that even if you modelled every process of my brain in the computer, it would still not be the same as my brain, even if we could feed it exactly the same inputs.
Right now, we don't have the technology to do it, not even close.  A computer simulation of a human brain, even made using the best computers available today, simply couldn't accurately model the reality.  But we've only had computers for some few decades, and the first models were little more than fancy calculators.  Compare those to what we have today, and consider where we might be some centuries from now; I don't think it'll always be impossible to create a virtual brain that accurately simulates a human brain, provided the virtual environment is big enough to hold it and powerful enough to run it.

Anyway, a while back I believe I brought up the idea of the structure of the brain being deterministic, but the mind itself not being deterministic in the same way.  While I couldn't explain it at the time, I've thought it over some and can probably describe what I'm talking about better.  The brain processes far more sensory input than the mind can deal with, even leaving aside purely subconscious info.  The brain automatically filters out most of this input and prioritizes it for the mind to handle.

What keeps the mind from being locked into the brain's determinism is the other input that doesn't make it into the highest level of priorities, that the mind can still examine despite it not being deemed important enough to pay particular attention to.  I think it is this that keeps the mind from being deterministic like the brain is, the fact that the mind can and does look over some of the extraneous input that would otherwise be ignored by the deterministic filtering process of the brain.  A person who looks at something that isn't very important and doesn't matter to whatever they're dealing with can make an intuitive leap that they wouldn't have made normally.  In other words, the future path of something isn't fixed the way its past path is, without being dependent on entropic probability (ala, random chance).

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #448 on: January 09, 2012, 05:28:00 PM »
If the mechanical device does exactly the same thing as the neuron then the behavior would not be any different and the person would have as much free will as before. The very huge problem is the "exactly".

The question then becomes, what specific funciton(s) must be replicated in order to reproduce "free will"?  Can we even test for this?  What would a non-free biological brain look like?

Oh, bugger! You had to go that extra step didn't you?     :P

On the one hand I know what "free will" is supposed to be but there is a realistic limit to free will. Plus, on an abstract level, I think that with omniscience – where you can know where every particle is and what its momentum/direction is without affecting those things – you could predict quite well how everyone in the world would act both alone and when interacting with others. So someone with omniscience would know what is going to happen beforehand and be able to manipulate things with miniscule changes. But things don't go well for us so god doesn't exist or is malevolent. And to claim the world is deterministic when such omniscience is not achievable is a cop-out IMO.

But we are constrained by many things in life: getting a job not only requires the right skills but also the right interviewing skills (and they rarely go together which is why the best person for the job isn't the one hired); getting a date with the hottie[1] depends upon more than just what you want; travelling around the world requires money and time. These are just a few examples of how we don't really have free will to start with.

Plus, at times it feels like discussing free will is like beating off by beating your little head against a wall: it hurts but is stimulating but also feels like something is wrong.     :o


... The brain processes far more sensory input than the mind can deal with, even leaving aside purely subconscious info.  The brain automatically filters out most of this input and prioritizes it for the mind to handle.

What keeps the mind from being locked into the brain's determinism is the other input that doesn't make it into the highest level of priorities, that the mind can still examine despite it not being deemed important enough to pay particular attention to.  I think it is this that keeps the mind from being deterministic like the brain is, the fact that the mind can and does look over some of the extraneous input that would otherwise be ignored by the deterministic filtering process of the brain.  A person who looks at something that isn't very important and doesn't matter to whatever they're dealing with can make an intuitive leap that they wouldn't have made normally.  In other words, the future path of something isn't fixed the way its past path is, without being dependent on entropic probability (ala, random chance).

This is logical and well thought out – and it makes it hurt less. You give good free will. Thank you.    ;D
 1. spellcheck wants this word to be hogtie
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #449 on: January 10, 2012, 08:53:53 AM »
The brain processes far more sensory input than the mind can deal with, even leaving aside purely subconscious info.....

Okay, let's pause there.  Can you first define "mind" and "brain" for me please?  With particular reference to the interactions between the two. 

I would also be interested in the non-deterministic mechanism by which the "mind" chooses what information to consider.  What process does it use to decide which pieces to examine, and which to discard?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5063
  • Darwins +584/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #450 on: January 10, 2012, 12:06:08 PM »
Anfauglir:  Perhaps you should first explain what distinction you make, if any, between the brain and the mind.

As for the second question, the answer is that the information is prioritized by the brain.  For example, if I'm driving, I had better pay attention to objects in my path, or that look like they might be crossing my path.  However, I can notice other things above and beyond the stuff that got assigned the highest priority by my brain.  Some of that is going to be based on the prioritization scheme, some of it depends on circumstances, and some of it depends on whim.  It isn't something that is necessarily predictable, though you might be able to predict the relative chances of me paying attention to one thing over another, but you can't guarantee that I'll pay attention to that one thing instead of the other.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #451 on: January 11, 2012, 06:22:27 AM »
Anfauglir:  Perhaps you should first explain what distinction you make, if any, between the brain and the mind.

You're the one drawing the distinction, shouldn't you be clarifying how you use them?  But no worries: if you like, "brain" is the physical organ, "mind" the outputs of same.

For example, if I'm driving, I had better pay attention to objects in my path, or that look like they might be crossing my path.  However, I can notice other things above and beyond the stuff that got assigned the highest priority by my brain.  Some of that is going to be based on the prioritization scheme, some of it depends on circumstances, and some of it depends on whim.  It isn't something that is necessarily predictable, though you might be able to predict the relative chances of me paying attention to one thing over another, but you can't guarantee that I'll pay attention to that one thing instead of the other.

My bold - how is your "whim" arrived at?  Is it a decision, or is it (as you intimate) a random or stochastic chance?

This is my point - if you like, I'm not restricting the "save game" to just the purely physical.  By all means extend it to any dualstic, spiritual, or other level....but the same question applies.  How does the mind/soul/whatever come to its decisions in a way that is neither determined, or random?

When the "whim" you mentioned occurs, was that a choice that was reached independantly of any past influences, independant of any circumstance?  In which case I struggle to see how it can be called anything other than random.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5063
  • Darwins +584/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #452 on: January 11, 2012, 01:02:58 PM »
You're the one drawing the distinction, shouldn't you be clarifying how you use them?  But no worries: if you like, "brain" is the physical organ, "mind" the outputs of same.
To me, the brain is hardware and the mind is software.  The mind does not just receive input from the brain, it outputs to the brain as well.  For example, that's why a person who consciously focuses on catching and correcting errors in something they're practicing will be able to do it correctly much more quickly than someone who doesn't.

Quote from: Anfauglir
My bold - how is your "whim" arrived at?  Is it a decision, or is it (as you intimate) a random or stochastic chance?
Depends on the whim.  Some whims are more random than others.  I think the only way a whim can be truly random is if it depends on something random to pick it, like rolling a dice.  Whims incorporate randomness; they also incorporate the determinism of the brain, and possibly something else as well.  For example, I have a habit of standing up and pacing when I get upset about something.  But I don't always stand up and pace when I'm upset.  It's a habit - deterministic - but it's also influenced by randomness (I don't always feel like standing up and pacing, even if I'm upset), and I can override it even if I feel like doing it.  What causes me to decide to override my habit?  It isn't just deterministic, even complex determinism, because I don't always choose to override it.  It also isn't just randomness - I (probably) didn't happen to have a gamma ray strike my brain and trigger a reaction that convinced me that I shouldn't stand up and pace, and certainly not every time I decide not to.

Quote from: Anfauglir
This is my point - if you like, I'm not restricting the "save game" to just the purely physical.  By all means extend it to any dualstic, spiritual, or other level....but the same question applies.  How does the mind/soul/whatever come to its decisions in a way that is neither determined, or random?
And who says that it is neither determined nor random?  It incorporates both in a way that is too complex to be considered deterministic, in my opinion.  Because even if the override I described arises as a result of the deterministic processes of the brain, I don't think you can predict beforehand which way it will go - before the issue even comes up, as it were.

Quote from: Anfauglir
When the "whim" you mentioned occurs, was that a choice that was reached independantly of any past influences, independant of any circumstance?  In which case I struggle to see how it can be called anything other than random.
Of course it's not independent of those.  I'm not at all trying to claim that determinism doesn't influence our choices, even the ones affected by random chance.  I'm saying that it doesn't determine them in the kind of inescapable manner that your save state suggests.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12441
  • Darwins +292/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #453 on: January 11, 2012, 01:43:04 PM »
And who says that it is neither determined nor random? ...

The people who are proposing objectively-free will are saying this.  If you are not one of those, then Anfauglir's argument is not directed at you.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #454 on: January 11, 2012, 10:30:58 PM »
You feel tired,  you admit this is a sign you need to sleep.   Yet, if you feel a sense of responsibility for a degree of your actions,  you dismiss this sense as an illusion.   

Nope.  I can look at the cause and effect - I can see the actions, and compare them to the societal norms that I identify with.  No illusion there at all - its analagous to "feeling sleepy".

What YOU have been claiming is that you can "intuit" things as true without any definable and verifiable evidence.  And you have been trying to claim that such claims should be given equal weight as other claims that CAN be verified.  That's a very dishonest way of doing things.  The two claims are not alalogous for precisely that reason.

I can, simple.  I can intuit right now how hungry I am.   I don't need verification to know this.   Applying some sort of logical reasoning to it is also unnecessary.

So when talking about a concept like free-will,  I think many times it's just that people over-think the issue.  It's not an issue of rational as much as it is just tuning into the senses.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #455 on: January 11, 2012, 10:43:32 PM »
This whole logic of things must either be determined by past events or random is limiting too.

Consider, people can project into the future, what they think may happen.  Then they can make a choice based on that projection.   But since the projection of what may happen, hasn't happened, nor may it be accurate, the choice is not being determined wholly by past realities but ideas which are not even real at all.   And since the projection is meaningful in some ways, it is not random.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2012, 10:47:25 PM by Gill »

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #456 on: January 12, 2012, 05:51:29 AM »
To me, the brain is hardware and the mind is software.  The mind does not just receive input from the brain, it outputs to the brain as well. 

How does that work then?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #457 on: January 12, 2012, 05:53:10 AM »
You feel tired,  you admit this is a sign you need to sleep.   Yet, if you feel a sense of responsibility for a degree of your actions,  you dismiss this sense as an illusion.   

Nope.  I can look at the cause and effect - I can see the actions, and compare them to the societal norms that I identify with.  No illusion there at all - its analagous to "feeling sleepy".

What YOU have been claiming is that you can "intuit" things as true without any definable and verifiable evidence.  And you have been trying to claim that such claims should be given equal weight as other claims that CAN be verified.  That's a very dishonest way of doing things.  The two claims are not alalogous for precisely that reason.

I can, simple.  I can intuit right now how hungry I am.   I don't need verification to know this.   Applying some sort of logical reasoning to it is also unnecessary.

So by your logic you can intuit how hungry I am at this point, since your intuition does not come from any internal evidence.  How hungry am I?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5063
  • Darwins +584/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #458 on: January 12, 2012, 10:13:16 AM »
The people who are proposing objectively-free will are saying this.  If you are not one of those, then Anfauglir's argument is not directed at you.
I'm not exactly sure what objectively free will is supposed to be.  If I had to guess, I'd say that it's the ability to make decisions independent of past experiences, and if so, you're right - I don't think that's correct.  I know better than to think that a person can snap their fingers and suddenly change their behaviors.  The mental inertia of experience is hard to overcome, and it becomes harder still as a person gets older.

How does that work then?
For example, memory revision; a person revisits their memories and modifies them based on current experience or knowledge, or to make themselves look better in their own eyes.

I can, simple.  I can intuit right now how hungry I am.   I don't need verification to know this.   Applying some sort of logical reasoning to it is also unnecessary.
So you don't have evidence from your own body that tells you you're hungry when you intuit that you're hungry, then?  It's true that you don't have to use formal logic to determine that you're hungry, but it's still a process of using evidence to draw a conclusion.

Furthermore, applying conscious reasoning to "obvious" intuition can be beneficial, say if you're trying to lose weight; you feel hungry because you're not eating as much as you're used to, and you can revisit the conclusion and decide that you're not as hungry as you think you are.  Of course, it's not as simple as that, you have to work hard in order to keep overriding your habit of eating too much.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12441
  • Darwins +292/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #459 on: January 12, 2012, 10:19:54 AM »
The people who are proposing objectively-free will are saying this.  If you are not one of those, then Anfauglir's argument is not directed at you.
I'm not exactly sure what objectively free will is supposed to be.  If I had to guess, I'd say that it's the ability to make decisions independent of past experiences, and if so, you're right - I don't think that's correct.  I know better than to think that a person can snap their fingers and suddenly change their behaviors.  The mental inertia of experience is hard to overcome, and it becomes harder still as a person gets older.

"Objectively free will" is the kind espoused by the likes of Gill, Lucifer, and Gnu - the ability of our minds to break the laws of physics in such a way that physical causality does not hold in our brains the way it does in other matter.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5063
  • Darwins +584/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #460 on: January 12, 2012, 10:38:22 AM »
"Objectively free will" is the kind espoused by the likes of Gill, Lucifer, and Gnu - the ability of our minds to break the laws of physics in such a way that physical causality does not hold in our brains the way it does in other matter.
Well, as I said, we can't just ignore the inertia of our past experiences.  But we can work to redirect or change it.  The point is that it takes real work and effort to accomplish this; the fact that it's mental work instead of physical doesn't make it any less real.

For example, someone who's never done anything but janitorial work could get a degree in physics and become an accomplished rocket scientist.  It would be difficult, hard work, and it would be easier - potentially a lot easier - to just stay a janitor, but they certainly could do it.  That's why habits are so hard to break, and New Year's resolutions seldom get accomplished, because it's easier to go along with the habit than it is to change it.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12441
  • Darwins +292/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #461 on: January 12, 2012, 10:39:36 AM »
I agree with all of that.  I suspect Anfauglir would as well.  What I don't get is what it has to do with "free will" as discussed in this thread.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5063
  • Darwins +584/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #462 on: January 12, 2012, 11:08:41 AM »
I was actually arguing with Anfauglir about his "save state" idea, which I don't agree with.  Basically, you save the state of a brain at an arbitrary point, observe its electrical impulses moving forward from that point, then reset and observe them moving forward again.  His proposition, as I understand it, is that the electrical impulses of the brain will always move forward in the same path regardless of how many times you reset and watch again.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12441
  • Darwins +292/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #463 on: January 12, 2012, 12:26:13 PM »
His idea is that if absolutely everything is the same at time X + 0, then the result will be the same at any time X + Y.  Which is not necessarily true, if quantum-mechanical randomness creates any differences, but barring those - is there another way for it to be different?

Free willers say yes.  I'm not convinced.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.