A free-will vs determinism thread

[Neverfly]

i INFLUENCED him into it

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

you are right.
i CANT prove that- and i wouldnt want to Try
because that simply isnt true.

i have Never stated that decisions are based out of a Vacuum. I have stated the opposite. And this is one of Many things you have said that shows me you are not reading about half of my argument.

I read it.

Because without influence , without conflict... There is NO REASON TO MAKE A DECISION. NO REASON TO DECIDE.

And with influence comes your decision. With the reason comes the likely decision. D'uh.

i have stated this Several times at this point.
Im asking YOU why it is- that i DID NOT, infact, make a decision- but rather was Decieved into THINKING i had?

You weren't deceived by anyone but yourself, but do I really need to go into a step by step basis with this? If so, it's easy enough to provide.

Give me a theoretical person, tell me his life, tell me his decisions. Have three key figures in the example (parents and a friend are a good example). Then give me a decision he makes. A good history of his life would be good.

I can provide a detailed list that shows what led to his decision, and how it could be predicted.

[Neverfly]

Yet you cannot predict ONE hundred PERCENT.
i can make that exact same claim too
But im humble enough to KNOW that he can SURPRISE me because he is CAPABLE of making choices- even if i dont expect it.
you yourself said a LIKELY decision. its not KNOWN what will REALLY happen- until he opens his mouth and announces..
.BUT if you REALLY want to make this challenge- ill accept it.

At this point you have gone beyond CT and are reminding me of that Hyperdimensional guy...

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Yet you cannot predict ONE hundred PERCENT.

Why not?

you yourself said a LIKELY decision. its not KNOWN what will REALLY happen- until he opens his mouth and announces..

*Sighs*

You really do think that every individual is only made up of only a handful of factors and influences, don't you? That there might not be other smaller influences.

At this point you have gone beyond CT and are reminding me of that Hyperdimensional guy...

Wow. Okay. I just have to disagree with you to be like that "Hyperdimensional" guy.

I'm going to wait for someone mature to make a point before responding, k? See ya.

[Neverfly]

Just because someone factors in many different influences- to Make a Choice
doesnt make the Making of the Choice- using his Brain- Invalid.

you are saying that we arent making choices but are making what SEEM to be choices.
Well WHAT ARE THEY then?
Imaginary Choices?
What does your pamphlet call them?

[Doodler]

When y'all are done wizzing for distance, remember to flush the thread and wash your hands.

There. How's that for free will? Me asking an arguement slowly devolving an otherwise interesting thread to stop.

Pattern schmattern. Patterns represent an equilibrium state in human behavior. Habits, traditions, things that we're comfortable with, a daily routine. It does not preclude the occassional shuffling of priorities when conditions demand change. Deteminancy is the rest state of human consciousness, it can remain constant, but its not immune to change when the will is there.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

you are saying that we arent making choices but are making what SEEM to be choices.
Well WHAT ARE THEY then?
Imaginary Choices?
What does your pamphlet call them?

Actually, it's called a philosophy book. For philosophy class. In college.

A class you sorely need to take.

Determinism states that nothing is random. Everything is cause and effect. I have yet to see this invalidated, at least for the human brain.

I'd say more, but this time I'm adhering to my "waiting for someone more mature" bit.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Why not?

well lets see why not...

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

You really do think that every individual is only made up of only a handful of factors and influences, don't you? That there might not be other smaller influences.

NOPE!!!
there are TOO many for you to account for.
Thats why not!

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Wow. Okay. I just have to disagree with you to be like that "Hyperdimensional" guy.

I'm going to wait for someone mature to make a point before responding, k? See ya.

Interesting...
I havent been the one worked up into a Vulgar language using sarcastic attitude that says he doesnt need to support what he says and using Ad Homs

maybe ill Choose to grow up a little...
Then again... Maybe i wont

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Actually, it's called a philosophy book. For philosophy class. In college.

A class you sorely need to take.

Determinism states that nothing is random. Everything is cause and effect. I have yet to see this invalidated.

I'd say more, but this time I'm adhering to my "waiting for someone more mature" bit.

I think i would enjoy that

You added to your statment- ill add a question based on it.
How does the fact that it is cause and effect- invalidate that a Choice was made?

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

I think i would enjoy that

Not really. YOu'd probably just say that the philosophy instructor is like the Hyperdimensional guy every time he disagrees with you.

You added to your statment- ill add a question based on it.
How does the fact that it is cause and effect- invalidate that a Choice was made?

Okay, what is a "choice"? Really, define it for me.

[Neverfly]

Many years ago- i visited the NASA Johnson Space Center.
Why?
well its funny
it was a weekend- Army Weekend- i was bored
My Roommate and i were discussing maybe going to a Club or Going to Austin..
Then i suddenly said- "Hey you know what?"
it SEEMED random and Arbitrary.
But it really wasnt- i was Influenced by factors that over time- led me to that decision.
So far we are in agreement. It was Not arbitrary that it Suddenly and spontaniously popped into my head to go do that- though it SEEMED that way.
Where we divurge is in you saying that the Decision itself is invalidated by that point..
because you see...
i could just have easily decided NOT to go...
for whatever reason Influenced me into it.
that is HOW a decision FORMS and Must be Made.
Without it- we wouldnt NEED to Choose.
But had you been there- you would have had NO WAY of predicting WHAT I (ME, MYSELF AND I) would have decided on.
That is the Responsibility that goes with making a choice.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Many years ago- i visited the NASA Johnson Space Center.
Why?
well its funny
it was a weekend- Army Weekend- i was bored
My Roommate and i were discussing maybe going to a Club or Going to Austin..
Then i suddenly said- "Hey you know what?"
it SEEMED random and Arbitrary.
But it really wasnt- i was Influenced by factors that over time- led me to that decision.

That's been my point all along.

So far we are in agreement. It was Not arbitrary that it Suddenly and spontaniously popped into my head to go do that- though it SEEMED that way.
Where we divurge is in you saying that the Decision itself is invalidated by that point..

Define "invalidated".

because you see...
i could just have easily decided NOT to go...
for whatever reason Influenced me into it.
that is HOW a decision FORMS and Must be Made.
Without it- we wouldnt NEED to Choose.
But had you been there- you would have had NO WAY of predicting WHAT I (ME, MYSELF AND I) would have decided on.
That is the Responsibility that goes with making a choice.

There would have been a way of predicting with sufficient data, is my argument.

"With sufficient data" being the key point here. That IS a lot of data we're talking about.

[ASEI]

Well, let me try another go at this:

A guy comes to a fork in the road and can go either left or right. On the free-will side of the debate, this is upheld as a prime example of a decision that the guy can make.

But what of the anatomy of this decision? There is some conditional process that the guy went through to make his choice about which path to go down. I think the free-will advocates just leave the person in the conditional without breaking it down any further.

if (you.decision == left)
{go left;}
else
{go right;}

My point is that your decision was made by some process (granted, it's an enourmously complicated process, with a great many inputs, state variables, and possibly (though by no means does this do anything but screw up repeatability) quantum level randomizers. I'm not pretending we can run a fully accurate simulation of your brain to get the same result twice. We're not at that level yet.

There are systems that are amazingly difficult to simulate, with very simple equations describing their physical laws. Turbulent fluid flow is one such system. However, that doesn't mean that there is a free variable in the system that can do whatever it "chooses" to do. Everything can be accounted for, it just takes way too much computing power to do it accurately.

However, to say that a choice is something elemental that "you" do, doesn't make sense if we're trying to look under your hood, so to speak. There can't be a proverbial guy in your head pulling proverbial levers, because then there would have to be a proverbial guy in his head pulling proverbial levers, and so on ad infinitum. It's a shell game.

[Lonewulf]

Thank you, ASEI. It is nice to have some support and someone trying to explain what I'm trying to explain.

[Neverfly]

Well he opened the thread LOL

And TY from me too- that DOES clarify somewhat...

you are saying that given a SUPER DUPER COMPUTER that has not only observed an individual his ENTIRE life, but ALSO is able to moniter the ABSOLUTE functions of body and Brain- it can then PREDICT what his next choice will be?

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

you are saying that given a SUPER DUPER COMPUTER that has not only observed an individual his ENTIRE life, but ALSO is able to moniter the ABSOLUTE functions of body and Brain- it can then PREDICT what his next choice will be?

If you have absolutely all factors, yes.

I did explain this before. Multiple times... but yes, that is effectively what I am saying.

Out of curiosity, if this news to you... then what did you think I meant when I said "all factors", and "enough factors" before?

[jimmy]

In Chauser's Canterbury Tales, there's a nice insight on that idea. It's in the Nun's Priest Tale if anybody's interested.

[Neverfly]

Ok then
THAT statement
By Itself.
i cant disagree with. i would be a fool to.
Because if you can moniter the ABSOLUTE functions of his brain then OF COURSE you can predict what he is about to Do!! as long as its IMMEDIATE.
given a short length of time- it scatters back into unpredictability.

Here is the Fundamental Disagreement:

Simply Outlining the PROCESS that a person goes through to make a choice- and ALL the factors that come INTO making a choice- Supports the idea of CHOICE.
Because WITHOUT those factors there is no choice to be made.

Simply because you could theoretically Outline the path followed to reach a decision- doesnt mean that a decision didnt occur.
it does not mean theres a Little man in my head. It means that I made a choice using ALL the factors as a process.

To say we are NOT making choices- on that evidence of MINUTE scale- is to say that the Criminal isnt guilty of commiting a crime.
He isnt to be blamed.. ( Tell it to the Judge- i dare ya) Oh WAIT- if his Mother Talks him out of it.. then hes all innocent again?
We- For ALL that we are- have the ABILITY to reason. Think. Use Logic to Make Decisions. We have a responsibility to do so.

Your argument is a Self Justifying Argument.
Because if another factor comes into a persons decision- you say"See? that PROVES im right!?