patrick.net

www.youtube.com/embed/WDZaUu-st0Y

www.youtube.com/embed/vCGtkDzELAI

Notes: Determinism does not require reductionism. Effects have causes, not necessarily "one single thing" but rather a collection of conditions. Also determinism doesn't mean morality and ethics are irrelevant. They are still important. In fact morality and ethics are both effect by the fact that free will does not exist. It is unjustifiable to punish a person, not as a deterrent or to prevent future crimes, but simply because the person deserves it. Our entire legal system is based on this false belief that people deserve punishment. So this is not simply an academic question.

www.youtube.com/embed/joCOWaaTj4A

Notes: Dennett is basically saying that free will doesn't exist, but we can use the term to refer to something that does: the ability to make conscious decisions, albeit ones that are deterministic, that are based on our values, which are also deterministic.

I have no problem with that, but it's not what philosophers, priests, popes, and the average person means by free will. So I wouldn't use the term "free will" for it, but rather "freedom". We are free from coercion to make decisions, but not free from determinism to make those decisions. Also, I agree that not having free will doesn't matter. What really matters is freedom.

Also Dennett is right that we have to give up the idea of moral blame, which is what I proposed when saying that punishing a person because he deserves it is wrong. I suspect that morally justifying inflicting pointless pain on another person is a primary reason people like to believe in free will. It justifies their bloodlust for vengeance.

Another great video...

www.youtube.com/embed/MzW-r_vPf50

Daniel is a student deeply engaged in brain science and philosophy of mind. He is an aspiring neuroscientist, writer, educator, and science communicator. In his free time, he enjoys biking, meditating, composing music, reading books, debating with his friends and family, and being alone with his thoughts.

Another advocate of what I've been saying...

www.youtube.com/embed/rfOMqehl-ZA

Dan8267 says

Heraclitusstudent says

No it isn't. Otherwise show me the statistic on what people think free will is or is not you used to determine it is a fact.

Do you even know what an opinion is? An opinion is not a fact that has not been proven. An opinion is a judgement that cannot be right or wrong even in principle. For example, people like the taste of shit is a factual statement, an incorrect fact, but nonetheless a factual statement not an opinion.

We are considering 2 assertions:
A - "People believe freewill means that they could go back in time in exactly the same situation and make a different choice."
B - "People believe freewill means that they could go back in time in the same situation knowing what they know after the 1st try, and make a different choice".

Since most people don't spend time thinking very deeply about the nature of freewill, nor about what the hell going back in time could possibly mean and entail, they don't have a very clear opinion of whether A or B is in fact true. Most people do not make though experiments for the purpose of clarifying what they mean in every day life. All people feel about free will in everyday life is "I'm choosing what I'm doing".
To claim A is true and not B is as far away as could be from a "Shit doesn't taste good" kind of fact. It is your opinion, not a fact. Period.

All these videos do no answer anything I said above.
Dennett basically agrees with me that there are 2 layers: the physical where there is no choice, and a layer above that (biological in his case), and that this 2nd layer functionally makes a choice.

Daniel Do makes exactly the same misguided claims as Harris based on looking at only the physical layer. Just because we can observe decisions in a brain before we become aware of them doesn't mean no choice is made. It's like saying that you can see a chess program make the choice before the piece is moved on the chess board. Only the last step registers consciously as a decision but there is a large number of mechanical steps before that are necessary but unseen. This doesn't refute the fact that a choice is made by the computer.

The moral argument is even worse. It completely ignores how reentrant the logic is: we can absolutely deliberately choose to give more weight to concern for others and this affects our future decisions. This parameter and others represent who we are as individuals. And we choose that.

Harris is a moral philosopher but he takes a stand on freewill that denies the very existence of moral. Criminal justice is not moral. Can we blame a computer for having a bug? No. Why? Because a computer (at least so far) doesn't have a routine that looks constantly at what he is doing and evaluate it against who an idea of who it is as individual computer and what his morality is. But we do have that routine. Whether the routine itself is deterministic is irrelevant to the fact that it exists.

Dan8267 says

Heraclitusstudent says

I'll repeat again: they never consider alternatives and pick one.

Computers clearly consider alternatives and pick actions. Yet computers are composed of nothing but atoms doing nothing but following the laws of nature. Both light switches and humans are also composed nothing but atoms doing nothing but following the laws of nature. Complexity doesn't magically introduce supernatural factors.

This is silly because no one is talking about supernatural factors. All we are talking about is whether functionally alternatives are considered and 1 is chosen.
This is what "making a choice" means. People make choices about what they are going to do next. THAT is a fact.

Heraclitusstudent says

We are considering 2 assertions:

A - "People believe freewill means that they could go back in time in exactly the same situation and make a different choice."

B - "People believe freewill means that they could go back in time in the same situation knowing what they know after the 1st try, and make a different choice".

Since most people don't spend time thinking very deeply about the nature of freewill, nor about what the hell going back in time could possibly mean and entail, they don't have a very clear opinion of whether A or B is in fact true. Most people do not make though experiments for the purpose of clarifying what they mean in every day life. All people feel about free will in everyday life is "I'm choosing what I'm doing".

To claim A is true and not B is as far away as could be from a "Shit doesn't taste good" kind of fact. It is your opinion, not a fact. Period.

You are completely fucking wrong. The following statements are facts, true or false, not opinions.
1. The world is round.
2. The world is flat.
3. Most people today think the world is round.
4. Most people today think the world is flat.

It is not an opinion that "most people today think the world is round". This can be verified or disproved. You are simply wrong.

Heraclitusstudent says

A - "People believe freewill means that they could go back in time in exactly the same situation and make a different choice."

This is exactly what every priest, philosopher, criminal judge, and moral or religious text has meant when talking about free will.

Heraclitusstudent says

B - "People believe freewill means that they could go back in time in the same situation knowing what they know after the 1st try, and make a different choice".

This is not what any priest, philosopher, criminal judge, and moral or religious text ever has meant when talking about free will. Furthermore, the following computer wholly and clearly meets this standard.

According to Heraclitusstudent, I have free will. Teleport me back in time and give me different data, and I will make different decisions.

Well, so would I. Change the pressure of the magma below me, and I'll choose not to erupt.

Heraclitusstudent says

Dennett basically agrees with me that there are 2 layers: the physical where there is no choice, and a layer above that (biological in his case), and that this 2nd layer functionally makes a choice.

No he doesn't, and appeal to authority means nothing anyway. What matters is the justification Dennett gives.

Dennett clearly states that the biological layer is a physical layer and is every bit deterministic as such. He is saying that choice is deterministic, and that's OK. Free will doesn't exist, but you could use the term to refer to deterministic choices if you wanted to. It would not mean remotely the same thing, but deterministic choices are all the freedom your will has, so deal with it.

A virus makes choices. An ameba makes choices. A computer makes choices. Choices do not require free will. Choices are deterministic. If you want to define choice as non-deterministic, then you do not make choices.

Heraclitusstudent says

This is silly because no one is talking about supernatural factors

If you are saying that choices are influenced by anything other than blindly following the laws of nature, then you are, by definition, talking about supernatural factors. And if you are not talking about supernatural factors, then every choice you made is really made by atoms following those laws of nature.

Dan8267 says

The following statements are facts, true or false, not opinions.

1. The world is round.

2. The world is flat.

3. Most people today think the world is round.

4. Most people today think the world is flat.

You seem to be confused about what a fact is. A fact is not a proposition that can be true or false. A fact is true by definition: google it:

fact: fakt/ noun: fact; plural noun: facts
a thing that is indisputably the case.
"the most commonly known fact about hedgehogs is that they have fleas"
synonyms: reality, actuality, certainty; More

"The world is flat" is simply not a fact. Sorry.

Having cleared that: The following propositions are not facts, they are opinions. You "think" A is true. This doesn't mean it is until you prove it.
A - "People believe freewill means that they could go back in time in exactly the same situation and make a different choice."
B - "People believe freewill means that they could go back in time in the same situation knowing what they know after the 1st try, and make a different choice".

Dan8267 says

This is not what any priest, philosopher, criminal judge, and moral or religious text ever has meant when talking about free will.

Says who? What people mean in every day life is that they can make a choice about what to do next.
People including priests, philosophers, criminal judges do not have complex definitions of free will based on time travel.

Heraclitusstudent says

You seem to be confused about what a fact is. A fact is not a proposition that can be true or false.

Let me explain how language works. Words have multiple definitions. Chosing one nomeclature over another does not change whether or not statements are true; it simply changes how you word statements that are true or not.

So you could use two nomenclatures in this discussion. The first is
- A fact is a statement that is either true or false. Use the terms true facts, false facts, and disputed facts (which are either true or false, but not both, regardless of whether or not it's known which ever)
- An opinion is a statement that is neither true of false.

That nomenclature is damn useful and easy to use. But hey, if you want to bitch and moan about it, we'll switch to nomenclature two, but it's not going to make anything you say true.
- A fact is a true statement.
- A falsehood is a false statement.
- An opinion is a statement that is neither true of false.

Using that nomenclature
1. Fact: The world is round.
2. Falsehood: The world is flat.
3. Fact: Most people today think the world is round.
4. Falsehood: Most people today think the world is flat.

Again, none of the four statements are opinions. Here are some more examples. I'll keep them simple so you can follow.
1. Fact: I like ice cream.
2. Falsehood: I hate ice cream.
3. Opinion: Ice cream tastes good.
4. Unknown Fact: Bob likes ice cream.
5. Unknown Falsehood: Joe thinks ice cream tastes good.
6. Unknown Falsehood: I would like avocado ice cream.
7. Unknown Opinion: Avocado ice cream tastes good.

Is this use of language beyond your capabilities? We can always talk in terms of see Dick and Jane.

Heraclitusstudent says

Having cleared that: The following propositions are not facts, they are opinions. You "think" A is true. This doesn't mean it is until you prove it.

A - "People believe freewill means that they could go back in time in exactly the same situation and make a different choice."

B - "People believe freewill means that they could go back in time in the same situation knowing what they know after the 1st try, and make a different choice".

Do you ever get tired of being wrong. Even using your nomenclature, neither statement is an opinion. Statement A is a fact, and statement B is a falsehood.

Why is first grade grammar so difficult for you? It is not an opinion that life exists in the Wolf 359 system. Either the statement is true or it is false, and it doesn't matter that you don't know which. Right now I may or may not have a marble in my pocket. The statement "I have a marble in my pocket" is either true or false; it is not an opinion. You are either right or wrong in your guess.

Heraclitusstudent says

Says who? What people mean in every day life is that they can make a choice about what to do next.

Have you ever read a religious book in your life? Sorry, I can't teach you reading comprehension. Frankly, you should have mastered this already. I'm not telling you anything that should be surprising if you have any grasp on reality.

Dan8267 says

you could use the term to refer to deterministic choices if you wanted to. It would not mean remotely the same thing

Yes I'm talking of deterministic choice. It may not mean the same as YOU mean, but there is nothing in the definition of choice that says the only way to make a choice is to violate the laws of physics. This is a silly requirement for anyone to add. It has nothing to do with the fact that a choice is made.

Dan8267 says

Choices are deterministic. If you want to define choice as non-deterministic, then you do not make choices.

Jeezz.... Let's go back to basics: Google definition of choice:
choice: CHois/ noun noun: choice; plural noun: choices
1. an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.

Obviously the act of selecting an alternative doesn't require non-determinism. Once again you are trying to redefine the language to fit your argument.
Silly.

Dan8267 says

A virus makes choices. An ameba makes choices. A computer makes choices. Choices do not require free will. Choices are deterministic. If you want to define choice as non-deterministic, then you do not make choices.

No a virus doesn't make a choice, as by the definition above.

As usual you are unable to acknowledge what was already said and adapt your argument. A virus doesn't consider consider alternatives nor pick one.
A computer can do it, though most of the time, it doesn't.

Oh, and since you'll probably bitch about word usage some more, the term "false facts" is used commonly in English.

False facts and the conservative distortion machine: It’s much more than just Fox News
14 Completely False Facts That Most People Believe To Be True.
10 false facts most people think are true
What's the best false fact you can come up with?

So quite getting hung up about nomenclature. It's what is meant that is important, not what diction you use.

Dan8267 says

Words have multiple definitions. Chosing one nomeclature over another does not change whether or not statements are true; it simply changes how you word statements that are true or not.

Well you are simply redefining the word "fact".
But I can certainly use your definition: Claiming the following assertion "People believe freewill means that they could go back in time in exactly the same situation and make a different choice." is true is your opinion. There is no proof it is true.

Unless you provide evidence, 10 of your posts above are just garbage.

Heraclitusstudent says

It may not mean the same as YOU mean, but there is nothing in the definition of choice that says the only way to make a choice is to violate the laws of physics.

So then, the only thing you are bitching about is that you want to use the term "free will" to refer to will that is not free. This does not change the fact that free will doesn't exist any more than if you renamed gorillas to "big foot" would mean that the big foot of all those photos exists.

Dan8267 says

Have you ever read a religious book in your life? Sorry, I can't teach you reading comprehension.

Very well Einstein show me a religious book that defines freewill as requiring non-deterministic choice.
I'll be waiting.

Dan8267 says

It is not an opinion that life exists in the Wolf 359 system. Either the statement is true or it is false, and it doesn't matter that you don't know which.

If you claim that, positively, there is life on the Wolf 359 system, it's an opinion. Until you prove that it is a fact.
11 of your posts above are just garbage.

Heraclitusstudent says

Jeezz.... Let's go back to basics: Google definition of choice:

choice: CHois/ noun noun: choice; plural noun: choices

1. an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.

Yes, and computers and amebas and viruses and volcano all make choices according to this definition. Unless you want to argue that there is one only possibility for whether or not a volcano explodes on a given day, in which case nothing makes choices, not even human beings.

Heraclitusstudent says

No a virus doesn't make a choice, as by the definition above.

Do amebas? If so, then show me the distinction between viruses, which you say don't, and amebas which you say do.

If not, then do earthworms? If so, then show me the distinction between amebas, which you say don't, and earthworms which you say do.

If not, then do flies? If so, then show me the distinction between earthworms, which you say don't, and flies which you say do.

If not, then do lizards? If so, then show me the distinction between flies, which you say don't, and lizards which you say do.

If not, then do dogs? If so, then show me the distinction between lizards, which you say don't, and dogs which you say do.

If not, then do monkeys? If so, then show me the distinction between dogs, which you say don't, and monkeys which you say do.

If not, then do chimps? If so, then show me the distinction between monkeys, which you say don't, and chimps which you say do.

If not, then do humans? If so, then show me the distinction between chimps, which you say don't, and humans which you say do.

If not, then you concede this argument.

Heraclitusstudent says

A virus doesn't consider consider alternatives nor pick one.

Of course viruses consider options and execute choices, just like computers do. A virus does this with the information processing power of its genetic code. It's genetic code is the decision maker. Same for every cell, both single celled organisms and cells part of multi-cellular organisms. Every cell in your body chooses whether or not to pump sodium out of itself. That requires decision making, even if not intelligent decision making, and, by definition, some degree of self-awareness. Not a mind like yours or mine, but definitely awareness of the self and the separation of the self from the environment. The fact that this is all automated is irrelevant. Your consciousness and decision making is also automated by the same laws of physics driving the atoms of the same elements of the periodic table. Your atoms, your parts, may be arranged in a different way, but they are obeying the exact same laws of physics.

Dan8267 says

Heraclitusstudent says

Jeezz.... Let's go back to basics: Google definition of choice:


choice: CHois/ noun noun: choice; plural noun: choices


1. an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.

Yes, and computers and amebas and viruses and volcano all make choices according to this definition.

Can we all agree that amebas viruses and volcano do not consider possibilities and pick one?
It's like talking to a door knob. Do you have 2 neurons capable of understanding a sentence?
Humans do consider and evaluate possible choices and pick one. Viruses don't.
Get it? They don't consider alternatives. They just don't. Therefore they are not making a choice.

Heraclitusstudent says

Well you are simply redefining the word "fact".

Honey, both definitions can be found in the dictionary and in common usage. And which definition we use for this conversation doesn't make a fucking difference. The truth remains that the statement "there is a marble in my pocket" is not an opinion simply because you don't know whether the statement is true or false.

Dan8267 says

Honey, both definitions can be found in the dictionary and in common usage. And which definition we use for this conversation doesn't make a fucking difference. The truth remains that the statement "there is a marble in my pocket" is not an opinion simply because you don't know whether the statement is true or false.

A truth claim about something you cannot know is an opinion. The claim above like checking there is a marble in your pocket.
12 of your posts above are just garbage with 0 impact on the argument I made.

Heraclitusstudent says

Unless you provide evidence, 10 of your posts above are just garbage.

I can make the statement men are more interested in one-night stands than women. You can choose not to believe that fact, but it doesn't make it any less true. You can also bitch that I'll never have a way of proving that statement beyond certainty because I can't directly access a person's thoughts. And the fact is, since you have decided that you don't want to accept the fact that people mean "supernatural, non-deterministic decision making" when they say "free will", there is no evidence that I or anyone else, even in principle, could present to you to convince you otherwise.

You cannot convince a person of a truth he chooses not to accept. Fox News watchers prove this every day. But that's your deficiency, not mine.

Heraclitusstudent says

Very well Einstein show me a religious book that defines freewill as requiring non-deterministic choice.

What are you expecting? A religious book with a glossary? Are you saying the only evidence you'll accept is if the fucking Bible has a glossary written in modern form that gives an explicit definition of the term written in a precise, modern manner?

If you cannot accept context as an indication of meaning then there is no hope for you.

However, I did find a page of the Bible that said,

This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, businesses, places, events and incidents are either the products of the author's imagination or used in a fictitious manner. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental.

Heraclitusstudent says

A truth claim about something you cannot know is an opinion.

Bullshit. You cannot know whether or not there is a marble in my pocket. That still does not make the statement "there is a marble in my pocket" an opinion. The statement is either true or false, and not both.

Dan8267 says

Of course viruses consider options and execute choices, just like computers do. A virus does this with the information processing power of its genetic code.

You are quite simply delirious.
The genetic code does NOT is not a representation of the world around the virus, nor the possible alternatives offered to it. There is no algorithm at work to consider the alternatives and likely consequences, nor to evaluate the desirability of these consequences. Therefore the virus is simply not making a choice according to the definition I gave, nor according to any commonly accepted definition of choice.

Humans can make choices, or computers, but not inanimate objects. Certainly not volcanoes or viruses.

Dan8267 says

I can make the statement men are more interested in one-night stands than women. You can choose not to believe that fact, but it doesn't make it any less true.

Bad analogy. We all know men are more interested in one-night stands than women. On the other we absolutely don't know for sure what people think on average about freewill in the context of time travel. You don't know it. I know you don't know it. Claiming this or that is not an argument, unless you can support it.

Just one more post of garbage non-reason thrown into a debate to refuse conceding a minor point and save your big ego.

Dan8267 says

What are you expecting? A religious book with a glossary?

You are the one that implied it would be obvious if I had read any religious book. So please enlighten me.

Heraclitusstudent says

Humans can make choices, or computers, but not inanimate objects. Certainly not volcanoes or viruses.

Any decision making apparatus that exists in any neural network, including your brain, can be replicated in a Turing machine. That Turing machine does not have to be an electrical computer. It could be completely mechanical, composed of gears and levers. Such a mechanical clockwork machine would make the exact same decisions you do and change those decisions when given different inputs in the exact same way you would. Whether or not it's practical to build such a machine is irrelevant. The fact that it's theoretically possible indicates that it has every bit as much free will as you. Either the clock has free will or you don't.

One could also use viruses or bacteria to implement logic gates and thus make a similar machine out of viruses or bacteria. This machine would also have every bit as much free will as you do.

Heraclitusstudent says

We all know men are more interested in one-night stands than women. On the other we absolutely don't know for sure what people think on average about freewill in the context of time travel. You don't know it. I know you don't know it.

I could just as easily assert that you don't know men are more interested in one-night stands and that I know you don't know it.

Dan8267 says

I could just as easily assert that you don't know men are more interested in one-night stands and that I know you don't know it.

If you know it then by all mean show me how you know it. Show me articles, studies, polls. Even testimonies and anecdotes.
Of course you don't have any of that.
You are just making a claim point blank and expect a free pass.
Garbage. The opposite of reason.

Heraclitusstudent says

You are the one that implied it would be obvious if I had read any religious book. So please enlighten me.

So in other words, you need me to show you someone else saying the same thing I'm saying because you just don't want to believe me.

www.youtube.com/embed/zC13itBJ_dM

www.youtube.com/embed/2wa3SRX0_DA

www.youtube.com/embed/dGd6g9041CI

www.youtube.com/embed/ZZMZSp2rgfM

Every person in the above videos use the term as I have, not as you are trying to. You might as well prove god by defining god as a harry asshole. Yes, many gods exist by that definition, but it's not the gods worship by anyone.

Dan8267 says

Any decision making apparatus that exists in any neural network, including your brain, can be replicated in a Turing machine. That Turing machine does not have to be an electrical computer. It could be completely mechanical, composed of gears and levers. Such a mechanical clockwork machine would make the exact same decisions you do and change those decisions when given different inputs in the exact same way you would. Whether or not it's practical to build such a machine is irrelevant. The fact that it's theoretically possible indicates that it has every bit as much free will as you. Either the clock has free will or you don't.

So now you are claiming that because 1 mechanical machine has a quality, then all machines have it.
Is that your level of logic?

Obviously, in your argument above, the machine emulating the brain has a representation of the world and the possible alternatives, and also has a process to evaluate these alternatives and pick the most desirable one. A clock doesn't have that. Your argument end there.

And another guy. If your thoughts and actions are controlled by forces, you don't have free will. In his case, he thinks those forces are directly created by his god, but his statements would apply to deterministic laws of physics.

www.youtube.com/embed/s4E7az5u-pQ

Dan8267 says

So in other words, you need me to show you someone else saying the same thing I'm saying because you just don't want to believe me.

I don't have time to watch 15 videos. Trying to baffle people by bombing the thread is not an argument.
If it says any about deterministic or non-deterministic choice, then by all means, quote it.

Heraclitusstudent says

So now you are claiming that because 1 mechanical machine has a quality, then all machines have it.

Do you really fucking believe I'm saying that, or are you just making a dishonest straw man argument?

Heraclitusstudent says

Obviously, in your argument above, the machine emulating the brain has a representation of the world and the possible alternatives, and as a process to evaluate these alternatives and pick the most desirable one. A clock doesn't have that. Your argument end there.

A deterministic (clock-like) computer can certainly have a representation of the world. You are still a deterministic decision maker. There is no freedom in you decision making. You are not free to choose any decision that the atoms in your body, brain, and environment didn't cause you to decide simply by following the laws of nature.