Is Free Will Possible in a Deterministic Universe?

[brainstorm]

I'm the one who has studied the subject and provided the references to the literature.

You have waffled on about command protocols and algorithms but have not provided any back-up material to explain your position.

This is what you "cited:"

You can go on and on but your arguments are counter to the evidence. The references I provided track the development of self-regulation in children, its very different social framing across cultures, etc, etc.

It's just vague reference to the general topics of your research. You didn't put forth any reasonable argument based on what you've read or otherwise.

All you're doing is claiming to be more learned than someone else and therefore to be right by default.

Btw, command-control protocols and algorithms for decision-making are two prime examples of how mechanistic-thinking works. They are deterministic as long as they are running smoothly. It's when they encounter problems that freewill has to intervene. Isn't that clearly logical to you?

 

[nismaratwork]

This is what you "cited:"

It's just vague reference to the general topics of your research. You didn't put forth any reasonable argument based on what you've read or otherwise.

All you're doing is claiming to be more learned than someone else and therefore to be right by default.

Btw, command-control protocols and algorithms for decision-making are two prime examples of how mechanistic-thinking works. They are deterministic as long as they are running smoothly. It's when they encounter problems that freewill has to intervene. Isn't that clearly logical to you?

Your critique of apeiron's citations shouldn't prevent you from providing your own. Do you have any sources to back the many statements that you've made here?

 

[brainstorm]

Your critique of apeiron's citations shouldn't prevent you from providing your own. Do you have any sources to back the many statements that you've made here?

Look, I've played this game of demanding citations when I was in academia. It's posturing. Neither your credentials nor the work you cite is an adequate substitute for reasonable argumentation and evidence. What need is there to cite someone else's work relating to command-control protocols and algorithms. Do you understand what these words mean? If so, it should be self-explanatory that they are deterministic programs for reasoning and decision-making. Free-will, on the other hand, (if it exists that is) allows the agent to engage, apply, or disengage protocols and algorithms at will. This allows for semi-rational and irrational thought and decision-making. This is a direct argument I am making. What is it I need to cite. The logic explains the claim, or can't you follow the logic?

 

[apeiron]

Free-will, on the other hand, (if it exists that is) allows the agent to engage, apply, or disengage protocols and algorithms at will.

You have to convince that such-like exists before we can talk about its suspension. You are making it pretty clear that you have no specific body of argument or evidence in mind here otherwise you would have provided references by now.

I am quite familiar with the many varieties of computational analogies used in cogsci or philosophy of mind. I indeed referenced generative neural nets as the one that I like best. But command protocols is one I have never heard of as part of some kind of mechanistic approach to freewill. So just out of interest, I'd like to know whether this is something new in the literature. Googling only came up with its technical use in computer science.

 

[brainstorm]

You have to convince that such-like exists before we can talk about its suspension. You are making it pretty clear that you have no specific body of argument or evidence in mind here otherwise you would have provided references by now.

I am quite familiar with the many varieties of computational analogies used in cogsci or philosophy of mind. I indeed referenced generative neural nets as the one that I like best. But command protocols is one I have never heard of as part of some kind of mechanistic approach to freewill. So just out of interest, I'd like to know whether this is something new in the literature. Googling only came up with its technical use in computer science.

Some people either cannot or don't dare to simply think for themselves about things without consulting some form of authority for validation. You seem to be such a person. You don't have to be familiar with any literature on command-control protocols or algorithms in a formal sense to generally use these terms to describe general methods of reasoning and decision-making.

A command-control protocol is any recipe-type program for doing something. It basically involves following steps given to you from an external source. If you were a perfect robot, you could follow the recipe without reflecting on it or otherwise critically engaging it. If you completely lacked free-will, you could simply follow the protocol when told to do so. Humans aren't capable of this.

Algorithms generally refers to more active recipes for reasoning or decision-making. This is like "when the protocol isn't working, modify it according to earlier protocols." The agent still is not acting freely, except it is also not following commands step-by-step either. It is programatic thinking.

Free-will allows you to short-circuit these kinds of authoritarian structures. You can intuitively decide that you want to reason in an alternative way or make a choice other than what the algorithm suggests. You can choose between algorithms, modify them, or modify protocols. You can basically re-design authority according to your own authority. That is free will.

Now, I don't get what you're talking about with neural nets or the other things you cited. By neural nets, I'm guessing you're just talking about some kind of group-think, i.e. thought-interdependence. You also mentioned youth socialization and some other things that you didn't explain. It sounds like you're just trying to stack up evidence in favor of mechanization of cognition and decision-making. If so, I have said in earlier posts that at the subconsciouslevel, much associatiative thought and habitual reasoning may occur independently of free-will, but that doesn't mean it is immune to free-will if the subject becomes conscious of their subconscious cognitive habits.

 

[apeiron]

Some people either cannot or don't dare to simply think for themselves about things without consulting some form of authority for validation. You seem to be such a person.

That's probably the first time anyone has ever accused me of that .

But it's kinda one of the rules of the forum that when push comes to shove, you have to be able to sheet your opinions back to reputable publications.

Your explanation now seem to be straying into the territory of the halting problem. And you invocation of freewill has the unfortunate whiff of deus ex machina.

Here are the relevant references.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina

 

[nismaratwork]

Look, I've played this game of demanding citations when I was in academia. It's posturing. Neither your credentials nor the work you cite is an adequate substitute for reasonable argumentation and evidence. What need is there to cite someone else's work relating to command-control protocols and algorithms. Do you understand what these words mean? If so, it should be self-explanatory that they are deterministic programs for reasoning and decision-making. Free-will, on the other hand, (if it exists that is) allows the agent to engage, apply, or disengage protocols and algorithms at will. This allows for semi-rational and irrational thought and decision-making. This is a direct argument I am making. What is it I need to cite. The logic explains the claim, or can't you follow the logic?

I can follow what you're claiming is logic, now follow the rules you agreed to when you joined the website and source. There is original thinking, and there is synthesizing partial ideas from incomplete knowledge. These are the rules, not suggestions. I'm not asking for an appeal to authority, I'm asking for an ounce of support from a source other than your own head for your conclusions. What's the point of this site's structure if not to enforce a level of credibility? If you want to ramble about your personal take on life, maybe this isn't the place.

 

[brainstorm]

I can follow what you're claiming is logic, now follow the rules you agreed to when you joined the website and source. There is original thinking, and there is synthesizing partial ideas from incomplete knowledge.

What I'm claiming is logic? Is it logical or not? You fail to even assert your evaluation of my logic in favor of referencing the source of the logic? Are you a complete relativist?

All thinking is a synthesis of acquired knowledge and one's more or less original synthesis of it. All knowledge is necessarily partial and incomplete, which is why we engage in discourse to further it. Which part of the website rules do you believe I am violating?

These are the rules, not suggestions. I'm not asking for an appeal to authority, I'm asking for an ounce of support from a source other than your own head for your conclusions.

Rules are authority. You are appealing to them. That does not make you wrong or right by default, only authoritarian. How is it that you think that any support for a claim does not come from your own head? Even when you cite sources, you are only doing so as support for what your own head is doing. Don't try to flee from responsibility for your claims by pretending that it's not you doing the citing for your own reasons and interpretations.

What's the point of this site's structure if not to enforce a level of credibility? If you want to ramble about your personal take on life, maybe this isn't the place.

What is incredible about anything I have posted? You're assuming that the application of reason and logic without citation of someone else is automatically incredible. What makes you think the reverse isn't true, i.e. that citation of someone else's claim without reasonable validation is empty evidence?

You seem to think that once anything passes peer review, it has been eternally validated. That's simply not the case. Nothing is valid except to the extent it stands up to critical reason. No amount of peer-review exempts anything from that. You seem to think you can use the peer-review as a crutch and skip the critical reason.

Sorry to be somewhat rude, but you are accusing me of violating rules that you yourself are undermining with your superficial approach to academic grounding. To me you seem to be playing some kind of purely social post-structuralist citation game where you are relying completely on form/structure and eschewing substance. I don't tend to attack people, preferring to keep discussion constructive, but you keep attacking me without addressing the content of my posts, only assaulting me with accusations.

 

[nismaratwork]

What I'm claiming is logic? Is it logical or not? You fail to even assert your evaluation of my logic in favor of referencing the source of the logic? Are you a complete relativist?

All thinking is a synthesis of acquired knowledge and one's more or less original synthesis of it. All knowledge is necessarily partial and incomplete, which is why we engage in discourse to further it. Which part of the website rules do you believe I am violating?

These are the rules, not suggestions. I'm not asking for an appeal to authority, I'm asking for an ounce of support from a source other than your own head for your conclusions.

Rules are authority. You are appealing to them. That does not make you wrong or right by default, only authoritarian. How is it that you think that any support for a claim does not come from your own head? Even when you cite sources, you are only doing so as support for what your own head is doing. Don't try to flee from responsibility for your claims by pretending that it's not you doing the citing for your own reasons and interpretations.What is incredible about anything I have posted? You're assuming that the application of reason and logic without citation of someone else is automatically incredible. What makes you think the reverse isn't true, i.e. that citation of someone else's claim without reasonable validation is empty evidence?

You seem to think that once anything passes peer review, it has been eternally validated. That's simply not the case. Nothing is valid except to the extent it stands up to critical reason. No amount of peer-review exempts anything from that. You seem to think you can use the peer-review as a crutch and skip the critical reason.

Sorry to be somewhat rude, but you are accusing me of violating rules that you yourself are undermining with your superficial approach to academic grounding. To me you seem to be playing some kind of purely social post-structuralist citation game where you are relying completely on form/structure and eschewing substance. I don't tend to attack people, preferring to keep discussion constructive, but you keep attacking me without addressing the content of my posts, only assaulting me with accusations.

Your reason and logic are used to manipulate (I mean that in the most technical sense) facts and knowledge. It is not as though your logic produces conclusions like a Greek god from the blood of the slain. You have assumptions you're working with, and you're not giving any of us the source of them. I don't feel the need to list the past 3 pages and say "cite this, source that", I'm just asking for SOMETHING that doesn't just exist inside your head. Given the rules here, that is not only reasonable, it's required. I'm not going to drag this any further off-topic with an endless debate about your pristine logic and its virgin birth, just do what everyone else has to do here, or don't.

So, yes I am a complete relativist, and if you would be so kind, let's have the source of some of your "acquired knowledge" so that I may evaluate the quality and nature of your synthesis.

 

[brainstorm]

Your reason and logic are used to manipulate (I mean that in the most technical sense) facts and knowledge.

Could you please show, through analysis of cited statements I have made how this is the case?

It is not as though your logic produces conclusions like a Greek god from the blood of the slain.

I don't know what you mean by this.

You have assumptions you're working with, and you're not giving any of us the source of them.

What assumptions? That freewill is needed to intervene in an unending search from algorithmic closure, or to apply a command-control protocol when definitions are not perfectly defined? My assumptions are probably just based on reason and logic. If you give me an example of a specific assumption, I will try to ascertain whether it is borrowed from a source besides my own reasoning process at the moment I said it.

Why are you more interested in the source than in the defensibility of the claims themselves?

I don't feel the need to list the past 3 pages and say "cite this, source that", I'm just asking for SOMETHING that doesn't just exist inside your head.

Do reason and logic only exist inside my own head? It may appear so if they are absent in yours, but I don't think I was born reasonable and logical, so I presume they are not an original product of my brain. Nevertheless, I don't have any sources to cite saying what their origin is, so maybe my reasoning that they didn't originate in my head because babies are not born reasoning logically is baseless speculation. Should I go look for some research on baby logic and reason to defend my claim? Or should I not even dare to think about such a thing because I don't have a PhD in childhood philosophy? When do you see that all you're doing is avoiding discursive engagement by saying that no knowledge is possible without it emanating from an external source? You are trying to eliminate the very possibility of having an open discussion on a topic on the basis of reason, logic, and everyday knowledge.

Given the rules here, that is not only reasonable, it's required. I'm not going to drag this any further off-topic with an endless debate about your pristine logic and its virgin birth, just do what everyone else has to do here, or don't.

I don't claim by logic is either pristine or immaculately conceived, but I do subject it to critical scrutiny by explicating it. The fact that you fail to subject it to critical scrutiny, preferring to ask for citation, indicates that you wish to ignore it. Why then, I wonder, are you in discussion with me in the first place?

So, yes I am a complete relativist, and if you would be so kind, let's have the source of some of your "acquired knowledge" so that I may evaluate the quality and nature of your synthesis.

If you were a complete relativist, you would recognize your own position as an agent of truth-power and engage the reason of others with your own. Instead, you seem to be a semi-relativist who believes that claims are untenable except through citation of external sources, at which point they become infallible. Reason and logic may or may not be relative, but you have to engage them to validate or invalidate them. You can't invalidate claims by evaluation of their sources because you have no basis for assessing their sources as legitimate or not - unless you count peer-review and brand-recognition of titles, but if you have nothing more to go on than that, how can you possibly evaluate the actual content of knowledge independently of its source?

 

[GeorgCantor]

I can follow what you're claiming is logic, now follow the rules you agreed to when you joined the website and source. There is original thinking, and there is synthesizing partial ideas from incomplete knowledge. These are the rules, not suggestions. I'm not asking for an appeal to authority, I'm asking for an ounce of support from a source other than your own head for your conclusions. What's the point of this site's structure if not to enforce a level of credibility? If you want to ramble about your personal take on life, maybe this isn't the place.

This is called a court of law and they obviously don't accept the conclusions of some researchers on freewill:


http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/5017/cclcourtroom.jpg




Next time you go to a court of law for speed limit violation, take your no free will references with you and report back in this thread.(or more appropriately in the General forum, where humor and joking are welcome)

 

[GeorgCantor]

Well I asked you for references to support your belief that the brain employs command protocols and algorithms, and failed to get them.

But anyway...

Aitchison, J. (1994) Words in the Mind (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).

Bain, A. (1977) The Senses and the Intellect and The Emotions and the Will, edited by Robinson, D. (Washington, DC: University Publications of America).

Bartlett, F. (1932) Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1979) The Social Construction of Reality (London: Penguin).

Bickerton, D. (1995) Langauge and Human Behaviour (London: University College London Press).

Blackmore, S. (1999) The Meme Machine (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Burr, V. (1995) An Introduction to Social Constructionism (London: Routledge).

Buruma, I. (1984) A Japanese Mirror (London: Jonathan Cape).

Clark, A. (1998) 'Magic words: how language augments human computation', in Langauge and Thought, edited by Carruthers, P. and Boucher, J. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Clark, A. and Thornton, C. (1997) 'Trading spaces: computation, representation and the limits of uniformed learning', Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, pp. 57-92.

Condillac, E.B.de (1930) Treatise on the Sensations, translated by Carr, G. (Los Angeles, California: University of California Press).

Conway, M. (1990) Autobiographical Memory (Milton Keynes, Buckingham: Open University Press).

Cooley, C.H. (1912) Human Nature and the Social Order (New York: Charles Scribner).

Coulter, J. (1979) The Social Construction of Mind (London: Macmillan).

Danziger, K. (1997) Naming the Mind (London: Sage).

Deacon, T. (1997) The Symbolic Species (London: Allen Lane, Penguin).

Dennett, D. (1998) 'Reflections on language and mind', in Langauge and Thought, edited by Carruthers, P. and Boucher, J. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Dewart, L. (1989) Evolution of Consciousness (Toronto: University of Toronto Press).

Diaz, R.M. and Berk, L.E. (1992) Private Speech (Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum).

Donald, M. (1991) Origins of the Modern Mind (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press).

Elman, J., Bates, E., Johnson, M., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D. and Plunkett, K. (1996) Rethinking Innateness (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press).

Gergen, K.J. and Davis, K.E. (1985) The Social Construction of the Person (New York: Springer-Verlag).

Goffman, E. (1969) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (London: Penguin).

Graybiel, A.M. (1998) 'The basal ganglia and chunking of action repertoires', Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 70, pp. 119-136.

Harré, R. (1983) Personal Being (Oxford: Basil Blackwell)

Harré, R. (1986) The Social Construction of Emotions (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).

Harré, R. and Gillett, G. (1994) The Discursive Mind (London: Sage).

Hobbes, T. (1951) Leviathan (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).

Jahoda, G. (1992) Crossroads Between Culture and Mind (Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf).

Jackendoff, R. (1996) 'How language helps us think', Pragmatics and Cognition, 4, pp. 1-34.

Lane, H. (1976) The Wild Boy of Aveyron (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press).

Locke, J. (1975) An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, edited by Nidditch, P. (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

Luria, A. (1973) The Working Brain (London: Penguin).

Luria, A. (1976) Cognitive Development (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press).

Luria, A. (1982) Langauge and Cognition, edited by Wertsch, J. (Chichester, Sussex: John Wiley).

Luria, A. and Yudovich, F. (1956) Speech and the Development of Mental Processes in the Child (London: Penguin).

Lutz, C. (1986) 'The domain of emotion words on Ifaluk', in The Social Construction of Emotions, edited by Harré, R. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).

Lutz, C. (1988) Unnatural Emotions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

Mead, G.H. (1934) Mind, Self and Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

Mithen, S. (1996) The Prehistory of the Mind (London: Thames and Hudson).

Mueller, R-A. (1996) 'Innateness, autonomy, universality? Neurobiological approaches to language', Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, pp. 611-675.

Müller, M. (1888) The Science of Thought (Chicago: Open Court).

Neisser, U. (1967) Cognitive psychology (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts).

Neisser, U. (1976) Cognition and Reality (New York: WH Freeman, 1976).

Passingham, R. (1993) The Frontal Lobes and Voluntary Action (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Pulvermüller, F. (1999) ' Words in the brain's language', Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, pp. 253-336.

Singh, J. and Zingg, R. (1941) Wolf Children and Feral Man (New York: Harper).

Sokolov, A.N. (1972) Inner Speech and Thought (New York: Plenum Press).

Sorabji, R. (1993) Animal Minds and Human Morals (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press).

Vygotsky, L. (1986) Thought and Language, edited by Kozulin, A. (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press).

Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in Society, edited by Cole, S. (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press).

Vygtotsky, L. and Luria, A. (1994) 'Tool and symbol in child development', in The Vygotsky Reader, edited by van der Veer, R. and Valsiner, J. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).

de Waal, F. (1982) Chimpanzee Politics (London: Jonathan Cape).

Walker, S. (1983) Animal Thought (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul),

Wertsch, J. (1991) Voices of the Mind (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press).

Whorf, B. (1956) Language, Thought and Reality (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press).

Zivin, G. (1979) The Development of Self-Regulation Through Private Speech (New York: John Wiley).

What makes you take seriously research that is the effect of a mechanistic process resultant from the Big Bang? Why should I agree to what some detemrnistic pattern is implying? You don't have free will, all you are saying is not you, but the Big Bang + what looks like the environment. Your message is thus irrelevant, it's just background noise from the Big Bang.

Free will is a philosophical issue, no matter what certain researches might conclude. I can reference you researchers on existence and reality, would you agree with ALL their contradictory and contentious claims?


BTW, all those references on the lack(illusion) of free will, will make for a good laugh in a court of law. When the judges start laughing, tell them your research says their laughter is the result of the low entropy of the Big Bang(or possibly from the Big Crunch that preceded it).

 

[GeorgCantor]

What assumptions? That freewill is needed to intervene in an unending search from algorithmic closure, or to apply a command-control protocol when definitions are not perfectly defined? My assumptions are probably just based on reason and logic. If you give me an example of a specific assumption, I will try to ascertain whether it is borrowed from a source besides my own reasoning process at the moment I said it.

Don't pay attention to THEM. There is no "them", they are just background noise from the Big Bang.

 

[imiyakawa]

In my opinion, free will and self-awareness cannot be part of the physical realm and science will never account for them, except to deny their existence or provide a simple and sketchy description without actual explanation as to who/what makes the decisions.

Are you a not-materialist, a strong emergence proponent, or neither?

 

[GeorgCantor]

Are you a not-materialist, a strong emergence proponent, or neither?

Non-materialist...hmm that's hard, i am not sure on this, i don't have a coherent picture on the measurement problem, it's not obvious to me what this world is and how it is. You could say I've become a non-realist though.

 

[imiyakawa]

i don't have a coherent picture on the measurement problem, it's not obvious to me what this world is and how it is. You could say I've become a non-realist though.

I'm more asking about your views on consciousness :)

 

[nismaratwork]

This is called a court of law and they obviously don't accept the conclusions of some researchers on freewill:


http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/5017/cclcourtroom.jpg




Next time you go to a court of law for speed limit violation, take your no free will references with you and report back in this thread.(or more appropriately in the General forum, where humor and joking are welcome)

The visual aids really drive your point home, but it's good to see that you have another place to express your faith. While freewill is currently in the realm of philosophy, that doesn't mean that such thinking doesn't require a concrete basis. This is philosophy, not "ramblings". The amount of evasion which brainstorm has participated in would seem to indicate that he is in fact, rambling, as apeiron has pointed out. Do you really need to join him and kill another thread?

Imiyakawa: He believes in a creator, as he has made clear in other threads, and one that intelligently designed the universe. He believes he sees evidence of this in the very fact that there is existence. That, would seem to be incompatible with a coherent philosophy, as god can always step in an "tweak" things. Definitely not a materialist, and as you can see from his response, he didn't even know what you were talking about.


No wonder, the visual aids are required.

 

[nismaratwork]

Could you please show, through analysis of cited statements I have made how this is the case?

I don't know what you mean by this.


What assumptions? That freewill is needed to intervene in an unending search from algorithmic closure, or to apply a command-control protocol when definitions are not perfectly defined? My assumptions are probably just based on reason and logic. If you give me an example of a specific assumption, I will try to ascertain whether it is borrowed from a source besides my own reasoning process at the moment I said it.

Why are you more interested in the source than in the defensibility of the claims themselves?


Do reason and logic only exist inside my own head? It may appear so if they are absent in yours, but I don't think I was born reasonable and logical, so I presume they are not an original product of my brain. Nevertheless, I don't have any sources to cite saying what their origin is, so maybe my reasoning that they didn't originate in my head because babies are not born reasoning logically is baseless speculation. Should I go look for some research on baby logic and reason to defend my claim? Or should I not even dare to think about such a thing because I don't have a PhD in childhood philosophy? When do you see that all you're doing is avoiding discursive engagement by saying that no knowledge is possible without it emanating from an external source? You are trying to eliminate the very possibility of having an open discussion on a topic on the basis of reason, logic, and everyday knowledge.


I don't claim by logic is either pristine or immaculately conceived, but I do subject it to critical scrutiny by explicating it. The fact that you fail to subject it to critical scrutiny, preferring to ask for citation, indicates that you wish to ignore it. Why then, I wonder, are you in discussion with me in the first place?


If you were a complete relativist, you would recognize your own position as an agent of truth-power and engage the reason of others with your own. Instead, you seem to be a semi-relativist who believes that claims are untenable except through citation of external sources, at which point they become infallible. Reason and logic may or may not be relative, but you have to engage them to validate or invalidate them. You can't invalidate claims by evaluation of their sources because you have no basis for assessing their sources as legitimate or not - unless you count peer-review and brand-recognition of titles, but if you have nothing more to go on than that, how can you possibly evaluate the actual content of knowledge independently of its source?

I was being deeply sarcastic about the relativist comment, and casting me as an authoritarian figure is amusing, but unhelpful. I will make one comment on the last sentence of your post: you evaluate using your brain, but first you need the source of what it is you're evaluating so that you can make an informed judgment.

 

[brainstorm]

I was being deeply sarcastic about the relativist comment, and casting me as an authoritarian figure is amusing, but unhelpful. I will make one comment on the last sentence of your post: you evaluate using your brain, but first you need the source of what it is you're evaluating so that you can make an informed judgment.

Everything ultimately has a genealogy, including sources and processes of development that bring them to the point of functioning as they do. Where you seem to be confused is in the role of the source verses the processing. You seem to think that the fact that knowledge has a source automatically validates is as having functionality in terms of reason or truth. You cited two examples on wikipedia that were basically just drawn out explanations to contextualize definitions. One was an unresolvable feedback loop and the other was a plot device that doesn't connect with other elements in a story. Further, you made no arguments about them. You expressed no reasoning to GROUND your citation of them. You simply connected your words with external texts and assumed that this display of relational connectedness would win you credibility. You are not alone in this. Many academians operate in this way. There are few things more annoying than reading an article or lit review that is little more than a plotting of points in relation to each other. Without a functional argument and reasoning to the point of an explicit conclusion, you are just engaging in elaborate posturing.

You are right about needing to be informed, but you also need to be aware of what you're talking about and why. I don't know exactly how I became informed of what command-control protocols, algorithms, and freewill are but it's not really relevant to understanding the argument I am making with them. All you have to be able to do is understand the meanings of the words, and read the argumentation I put forth. You can then evaluate it using reason and logic, and if you have some known argument from another source that works for you, then you can cite it as long as you sum up the argument and your reason for citing it. The point is it is not the act of citation and tracing genealogy of ideas that is the point of discourse, it is the reasoning and arrival at conclusions. These should be grounded but as long as you can adequately explain your grounds for making a claim, the claim can be evaluated according to the grounds given. If the grounds contain information which are for some reason questionable, it may be necessary to seek sources to ascertain what is valid or not about the information. However, there is nothing valid or invalid about terms themselves. Deus ex machina is not inherently valid or invalid as a term. It simply refers to an idea. You need reasoning and an argument to make a point about the term(s), and then that argument can be critically evaluated for validity or not.

 

[nismaratwork]

Everything ultimately has a genealogy, including sources and processes of development that bring them to the point of functioning as they do. Where you seem to be confused is in the role of the source verses the processing. You seem to think that the fact that knowledge has a source automatically validates is as having functionality in terms of reason or truth. You cited two examples on wikipedia that were basically just drawn out explanations to contextualize definitions. One was an unresolvable feedback loop and the other was a plot device that doesn't connect with other elements in a story. Further, you made no arguments about them. You expressed no reasoning to GROUND your citation of them. You simply connected your words with external texts and assumed that this display of relational connectedness would win you credibility. You are not alone in this. Many academians operate in this way. There are few things more annoying than reading an article or lit review that is little more than a plotting of points in relation to each other. Without a functional argument and reasoning to the point of an explicit conclusion, you are just engaging in elaborate posturing.

You are right about needing to be informed, but you also need to be aware of what you're talking about and why. I don't know exactly how I became informed of what command-control protocols, algorithms, and freewill are but it's not really relevant to understanding the argument I am making with them. All you have to be able to do is understand the meanings of the words, and read the argumentation I put forth. You can then evaluate it using reason and logic, and if you have some known argument from another source that works for you, then you can cite it as long as you sum up the argument and your reason for citing it. The point is it is not the act of citation and tracing genealogy of ideas that is the point of discourse, it is the reasoning and arrival at conclusions. These should be grounded but as long as you can adequately explain your grounds for making a claim, the claim can be evaluated according to the grounds given. If the grounds contain information which are for some reason questionable, it may be necessary to seek sources to ascertain what is valid or not about the information. However, there is nothing valid or invalid about terms themselves. Deus ex machina is not inherently valid or invalid as a term. It simply refers to an idea. You need reasoning and an argument to make a point about the term(s), and then that argument can be critically evaluated for validity or not.

No brainstorm, I happen to agree with apeiron here, and believe that you are talking a load of ****. I believe you are willing to ramble instead of presenting a foundation for your beliefs because they are baseless and weak. I've tried to be polite, and also reasonable, from here we can let the mentors decide who is correct.

Oh yes, and Deus ex Machina as a term has its roots in theater, which is then generalized in many ways. See, I provided a source for the term without requiring endless meandering to do so. What you are attempting to engage in is not discourse, as apeiron has pointed out many times in this thread, which in my view, you are killing. If you want to sidetrack into the epistemology, then start a thread for that instead of dragging this one hopelessly off-topic to justify your refusal to comply with the rules you agreed to when you clicked "accept" to join.

 

[brainstorm]

No brainstorm, I happen to agree with apeiron here, and believe that you are talking a load of ****. I believe you are willing to ramble instead of presenting a foundation for your beliefs because they are baseless and weak. I've tried to be polite, and also reasonable, from here we can let the mentors decide who is correct.

Oh yes, and Deus ex Machina as a term has its roots in theater, which is then generalized in many ways. See, I provided a source for the term without requiring endless meandering to do so. What you are attempting to engage in is not discourse, as apeiron has pointed out many times in this thread, which in my view, you are killing. If you want to sidetrack into the epistemology, then start a thread for that instead of dragging this one hopelessly off-topic to justify your refusal to comply with the rules you agreed to when you clicked "accept" to join.

The only thing substantial you say in this post is that Deus ex machina has roots in theater. You give no reasoning why that is relevant to any point you have made or are trying to make. Your posturing and citation of rules and authority is empty without any substantive reasoning. It's really not fair of you to lack the ability to engage any of the actual substantitve discourse that was taking place on this thread and then accuse me or anyone else of lacking content because citations weren't provided. If there was a reason to seek a citation for a particular claim, I could understand you asking for such. However, you didn't even dispute a specific claim. You just began by insisting on citations to even justify posting a thought in the first place.

If you're not able or willing to discuss/debate at a substantive level, what is you point with all the citing of sources you seem to find so profound? Self-aggrandizement?

 

[GeorgCantor]

The visual aids really drive your point home, but it's good to see that you have another place to express your faith. While freewill is currently in the realm of philosophy, that doesn't mean that such thinking doesn't require a concrete basis. This is philosophy, not "ramblings". The amount of evasion which brainstorm has participated in would seem to indicate that he is in fact, rambling, as apeiron has pointed out. Do you really need to join him and kill another thread?

Untimately it's YOU who has faith, for i actually KNOW that I have free will. You can make up any nonsense theory you like, but if it denies MY OWN existence and my free choice, that theory is very certainly WRONG. I am willing to accept that you may not have freewill or that you may ultimately not exist, but if your theory denies my observations and the choices I make, your little theory is hopelessly wrong. Make up a theory that you don't have freewill and i will accept it right away.

Imiyakawa: He believes in a creator, as he has made clear in other threads, and one that intelligently designed the universe.

You also believe in a 'creator', you just call it random, dumb, coincidental "Big Bang", "Big Crunch", "quantum fluctuation", etc. But as you correctly imply, that's not my view of the so-called 'creation'.

He believes he sees evidence of this in the very fact that there is existence. That, would seem to be incompatible with a coherent philosophy, as god can always step in an "tweak" things. Definitely not a materialist, and as you can see from his response, he didn't even know what you were talking about.


No wonder, the visual aids are required.

That would ONLY become incoherent(if you actually know what you are talking about) ONLY if i defined in strict terms what i mean by "God".

The visual aids were meant for those who have lost their way in this "determinism FTW" delusion. Oh, i forgot i was talking to a pattern left over from the Big Crunch, Yucks!

 

[GeorgCantor]

If you're not able or willing to discuss/debate at a substantive level, what is you point with all the citing of sources you seem to find so profound? Self-aggrandizement?

He can't put up a single coherent, logical argument by himself, because his theory is nonsensical and full of contradictions. That's where the citations part comes into play, as materialism/determinism has hit the limit of its own applicability and even its own death as a possibility to explain everything. I guess he is not aware of the existence of emergent behavior and non-linear systems.

 

[GeorgCantor]

I'm more asking about your views on consciousness :)

Some of these "what is..." questions are not easy to answer(some are quite impossible). I could ask what is space, what is time, what is consciousness, what is an electron, what is reality, etc...so take whatever i say as a mere proposition. If you want truths, ask apeiron, nismaratwork, or the scientists whose opinion they appear to take as gospel.

A person(the "me" part, the self) in my view is not entirely a physical phenomenon. I think it's obvious in the examples i gave about people who can control their heartbeat, that there must be 'something', an agency/entity, that is influencing how the brain controls the heart rhythm, that is feeling dignity, that is feeling deep emotional pain, that is self-aware, etc. That 'something'(call it an emergent phenomenon, self, soul, whatever) together with the physical body makes up who you really are. It's the "Ghost in the machine" and i am much more certain that the ghost exists, than the machine. As you have probably noticed, I take seriously my own existence.


Without being too certain, this is the position that fits ALL the evidence in my opinion, incl. the notion of freewill.

 

[imiyakawa]

Without being too certain, this is the position that fits ALL the evidence in my opinion, incl. the notion of freewill.

Ok thanks for explaining.

Going back to my first question, some philosophers would say emergence from the brain falls under the semantic category of non-materialism (Chalmer's actually states "I am not a materialist" even though he thinks consc. is a property supervening on the brain).

Others would say that adhering to the category of non-materialism strictly leads you to an extra thing, not of the brain - using outdated jargon, substance dualism or idealism (consciousness monism).

I was asking which you thought more probable [so "(call it an emergent phenomenon, self, soul, whatever)" doesn't really help with that]. I already knew you weren't a reductive materialist (i.e. I knew you didn't think the level of explanation most appropriate was at the level of singular brain cells, or even "lower".)

 

[GeorgCantor]

I was asking which you thought more probable [so "(call it an emergent phenomenon, self, soul, whatever)" doesn't really help with that]. I already knew you weren't a reductive materialist (i.e. I knew you didn't think the level of explanation most appropriate was at the level of singular brain cells, or even "lower".)

Actually what you are asking me is what I ultimately wish to know too :).
It seems to me that the self is an emergent phenomenon. But this is mainly due to the past success of science and i am aware this position could be wrong or even naive in that it takes a certain leap of faith that a non-realist will always question. But i find more evidence in this "emergent self" position than in a soul that finds a body and supervenes on it(aka idealism). From what i know, this is how it seems, had i more information i may have had another opinion.

 

[nismaratwork]

He can't put up a single coherent, logical argument by himself, because his theory is nonsensical and full of contradictions. That's where the citations part comes into play, as materialism/determinism has hit the limit of its own applicability and even its own death as a possibility to explain everything. I guess he is not aware of the existence of emergent behavior and non-linear systems.

What theory is it that I have, other than a desire to see this conversation move along from the point where apeiron was requesting (as per PF rules) sources? For the rest, you're really going to kill every thread that doesn't conform to your religious beliefs, aren't you? How crude. I appreciate the wide ranging ad hominem from you and brainstorm, but my request remains the same: brainstorm, follow the rules. I was enjoying reading this thread until it became bogged down by his rambling, and inability to actually converse with apeiron.

 

[brainstorm]

Ok thanks for explaining.

Going back to my first question, some philosophers would say emergence from the brain falls under the semantic category of non-materialism (Chalmer's actually states "I am not a materialist" even though he thinks consc. is a property supervening on the brain).

Others would say that adhering to the category of non-materialism strictly leads you to an extra thing, not of the brain - using outdated jargon, substance dualism or idealism (consciousness monism).

I was asking which you thought more probable [so "(call it an emergent phenomenon, self, soul, whatever)" doesn't really help with that]. I already knew you weren't a reductive materialist (i.e. I knew you didn't think the level of explanation most appropriate was at the level of singular brain cells, or even "lower".)

First, I think your understanding of non-materialist approaches to consciousness are anchored in materialism in that they use materialism as a measuring tape for non-materialism, but that is really a parallel discussion for another thread.

The reason I reply was to note that materialism always contains the logic of determination underlying the very possibility of free-will and consciousness by virtue of the assumption that unconscious materials behave in a mechanistic, deterministic way. No one thinks that water flows in whatever direction it wants.

Whether consciousness and free-will emerge from material conditions or not, the fact remains that free-will and creative consciousness gives humans the ability to generate and operate according to non-materialistic ideologies. In fact, idealism is so advanced in human cognition that it allows materiality to be conceptualized according to idealized cognition. Ironically, utilizing idealism for the purpose of insisting on the inevitability of materialistic mechanics determining all human thought and behavior negates recognition of idealism as the very basis for materialist thought.

 

[nismaratwork]

Untimately it's YOU who has faith, for i actually KNOW that I have free will. You can make up any nonsense theory you like, but if it denies MY OWN existence and my free choice, that theory is very certainly WRONG. I am willing to accept that you may not have freewill or that you may ultimately not exist, but if your theory denies my observations and the choices I make, your little theory is hopelessly wrong. Make up a theory that you don't have freewill and i will accept it right away.


You also believe in a 'creator', you just call it random, dumb, coincidental "Big Bang", "Big Crunch", "quantum fluctuation", etc. But as you correctly imply, that's not my view of the so-called 'creation'.


That would ONLY become incoherent(if you actually know what you are talking about) ONLY if i defined in strict terms what i mean by "God".

The visual aids were meant for those who have lost their way in this "determinism FTW" delusion. Oh, i forgot i was talking to a pattern left over from the Big Crunch, Yucks!

Lets be clear, you have absolutely no idea what I believe, as I haven't discussed it on this site, or with you. You're just going on in the manner you always do when your faith is on the line in these threads, which is to characterize all things which do not agree with you, as being in fundamental agreement anyway. I didn't imply anything either, I stated it outright, based on what you said, also outright, in another thread. You seem to think I am pushing a theory here, when I haven't done anything but read this thread since, I think, page 1. You really need to actually read the material before you go spouting a diatribe like this.

 

[imiyakawa]

The reason I reply was to note that materialism always contains the logic of determination underlying the very possibility of free-will and consciousness by virtue of the assumption that unconscious materials behave in a mechanistic, deterministic way. No one thinks that water flows in whatever direction it wants.

I wasn't aware that materialism implied determinism. Searle, Dennet, etc. call themselves materialists but they fully acknowledge stochastic phenomena. It would've, a while ago, been used alongside the inherent implication of atomism and determinism. I don't think so today (see wiki). There has been greater use of the term "physicalism", though, perhaps because some perceive the category of materialism to subtly imply determinism.

In fact, idealism is so advanced in human cognition that it allows materiality to be conceptualized according to idealized cognition. Ironically, utilizing idealism for the purpose of insisting on the inevitability of materialistic mechanics determining all human thought and behavior negates recognition of idealism as the very basis for materialist thought.

When I say idealism, I meant the philosophical definition of it. The view that either consc is the antecedent cause of the material or that consc is building the material world up and it is actually illusory.
---
Oh well, enough of this, hijacking thread :D Thanks Georg for clearing up what you mean.