Free Will

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Free Will

#13561  Postby ughaibu » Aug 01, 2019 7:06 pm

GrahamH wrote:What the "living fuck" do you think is incompatible with deteterminism in:
taken to be of sound mind and not acting under coercion
So, you don't remember the argument that established the libertarian position for all defnitions of free will to which your objection was that there is a disembodied god with no sense organs but free will?
Well, to remind you:
ughaibu wrote:
zoon wrote:when exercising (compatibilist) free will.
Let's consider the following argument:
1. life requires irreversibility
2. a determined world is fully reversible
3. therefore, there can be no life in a determined world
4. free will requires life
5. therefore, incompatibilism is the case
6. therefore, if there is free will, the libertarian position is correct.
Pretending that you can't keep track of the discussion is not a reasonable way to justify your position. It is a way of demonstrating to your reader that one of three possibilities obtain, 1. you are too stupid to follow the discussion, 2. you are lying about what you remember has gone on in the discussion, or 3. you are plain crazy and living in your own fantasy world.
By some bizarre piece of internet political correctness it seems that none of these conclusions can publicly be drawn on this site.
My view is that denialists can be classed as insane, in the legal sense, because they can't distinguish P from not-P. Perhaps that gives us a reason to look forward to Zoon's distopian future in which mechanical scientists run around rearranging the human brains that they don't like.

Anyway, fuck off, you really are an unconscionable idiot.
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Free Will

#13562  Postby zoon » Aug 01, 2019 7:12 pm

ughaibu wrote:
zoon wrote:
ughaibu wrote:Do you or do you not accept that for there to be science, to be precise, empirical science, then it must be possible to both make observations and to accurately record those observations?
Empirical recordings are unlikely to be perfectly accurate, estimating the level of error is very often an aspect of experiments. Human mistakes and fraud are other sources of error. We need a reasonable level of accuracy in our responses to be able to cope with life in general, science isn't special in that respect.
Quite. To remind you, the examples of inaccuracy under discussion are recording "heads" when tails is observed or recording "minus x" when x is observed. Is this or is it not acceptable for the conduct of science?

Somebody recording “x” when they meant “minus x” isn’t going to bring science crashing down? If the point you are arguing here is that science as it’s currently practised assumes that researchers have free will, taking free will as defined in your minimal sense, then I’m happy to agree with you. Science in its present form is a cooperative activity, and I think the way humans have evolved to cooperate does involve the concept of a free-willed person: someone who is of sound mind and not acting under coercion. Free will as defined in this way seems to me to be real enough while humans cooperate as we do.

If you are arguing further that science can only ever be practised by cooperating humans, I would disagree, I think that would be too limiting a definition of science, especially in this context where I think you are taking “science” to cover any acquisition of knowledge about the world? I don’t see why acquiring knowledge should necessarily require the specific type of cooperation that humans evolved with, or why it would require cooperation at all. I don’t see free will (taking your minimal definition) as a prerequisite for acquiring empirical knowledge.


ughaibu wrote:
zoon wrote:
ughaibu wrote:But they would still be human brains, wouldn't they?
That would depend on what you define as human.
I guess you agree we're human now, how about before we were supplemented by mobile phones? Are those without phones non-human? Let's suppose the rich can afford your future technology, would humanity become an economic category?
I think these considerations are irrelevant to the present discussion, so I'm not going to pursue them, but notice that there are lots of problems with transhumanism, even at the level of definition.

Mobile phones include some impressive engineering, but they don’t involve any re-engineering of human brains. I do agree that changing the bases of our social lives may have less than desirable consequences, though I hope it would be successfully organised to improve the level of happiness.
Last edited by zoon on Aug 01, 2019 7:18 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 3214

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13563  Postby felltoearth » Aug 01, 2019 7:14 pm

ughaibu wrote:
GrahamH wrote:What the "living fuck" do you think is incompatible with deteterminism in:
taken to be of sound mind and not acting under coercion
So, you don't remember the argument that established the libertarian position for all defnitions of free will to which your objection was that there is a disembodied god with no sense organs but free will?
Well, to remind you:
ughaibu wrote:
zoon wrote:when exercising (compatibilist) free will.
Let's consider the following argument:
1. life requires irreversibility
2. a determined world is fully reversible
3. therefore, there can be no life in a determined world
4. free will requires life
5. therefore, incompatibilism is the case
6. therefore, if there is free will, the libertarian position is correct.
Pretending that you can't keep track of the discussion is not a reasonable way to justify your position. It is a way of demonstrating to your reader that one of three possibilities obtain, 1. you are too stupid to follow the discussion, 2. you are lying about what you remember has gone on in the discussion, or 3. you are plain crazy and living in your own fantasy world.
By some bizarre piece of internet political correctness it seems that none of these conclusions can publicly be drawn on this site.
My view is that denialists can be classed as insane, in the legal sense, because they can't distinguish P from not-P. Perhaps that gives us a reason to look forward to Zoon's distopian future in which mechanical scientists run around rearranging the human brains that they don't like.

Anyway, fuck off, you really are an unconscionable idiot.

You repeat that “argument” and you call GrahamH an idiot?
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 13703
Age: 53

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13564  Postby ughaibu » Aug 01, 2019 7:19 pm

zoon wrote:Somebody recording “x” when they meant “minus x” isn’t going to bring science crashing down?
You're posting pseudo-objections. Think about it, in my argument there was exactly one occasion on which an observation needed to be recorded, for there to be science.
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13565  Postby ughaibu » Aug 01, 2019 7:24 pm

felltoearth wrote:
ughaibu wrote:1. life requires irreversibility
2. a determined world is fully reversible
3. therefore, there can be no life in a determined world
4. free will requires life
5. therefore, incompatibilism is the case
6. therefore, if there is free will, the libertarian position is correct.
You repeat that “argument” and you call GrahamH an idiot?
Okay, I'll add you to the list of posters not worth taking seriously.
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13566  Postby felltoearth » Aug 01, 2019 7:25 pm

ughaibu wrote:
felltoearth wrote:
ughaibu wrote:1. life requires irreversibility
2. a determined world is fully reversible
3. therefore, there can be no life in a determined world
4. free will requires life
5. therefore, incompatibilism is the case
6. therefore, if there is free will, the libertarian position is correct.
You repeat that “argument” and you call GrahamH an idiot?
Okay, I'll add you to the list of posters not worth taking seriously.

Are you on the list?
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 13703
Age: 53

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13567  Postby ughaibu » Aug 01, 2019 7:28 pm

felltoearth wrote:
ughaibu wrote:I'll add you to the list of posters not worth taking seriously.
[ ]
Have you come up with any justification for denying the reality of free will?
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Free Will

#13568  Postby GrahamH » Aug 01, 2019 7:31 pm

zoon wrote:Somebody recording “x” when they meant “minus x” isn’t going to bring science crashing down?


I think you are missing the extraordinary scale of his claim. It's not that there will be errors. It is that accurate records would only occur as impossibly improbable coincidence.
If your actions are determined by prior events, such as experimental procedures then you could not record what actually happened.

If you can make any sense of that do let me know.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13569  Postby ughaibu » Aug 01, 2019 7:41 pm

One of the things that I found most puzzling was that the members here can easily identify the problems in thinking when it's a question of evolution denial and they can see examples of evolution deniers coming here and being convinced that evolution denial is irrational, so how was I to explain the same people denying free will for no better reasons that the evolution denier had?
It was just a few days ago that it occurred to me that evolution deniers coming here are on their away turf, they haven't got a bunch of other denialists patting them on the back whenever they post nonsense. So, I guess my next move is to visit a creationist site and see if the evolution deniers, on their home turf, display the same incorrigible imperviousness to reason that we find amongst free will deniers here.
Can anyone recommend a suitable site?
Mind you, that still won't explain why this site is so plagued by free will denialists. Anyone want to offer a conjecture on that one?
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13570  Postby felltoearth » Aug 01, 2019 7:59 pm

ughaibu wrote:
felltoearth wrote:
ughaibu wrote:I'll add you to the list of posters not worth taking seriously.
[ ]
Have you come up with any justification for denying the reality of free will?

No one, including yourself, has shown that it exists.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 13703
Age: 53

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13571  Postby ughaibu » Aug 01, 2019 8:04 pm

It's getting on for five in the morning, the higarashi are singing, I'm going to cycle down to the sea. Of course I'm going to be back in town by twelve to watch a video with my dental hygienist's daughter.
Now, as I have no idea how to describe the universe of interest, or even what the extent of that universe is, and I have no idea what the relevant laws of chemistry and physics, if there are any, are, or the computational ability to calculate the supposed consequences, how in the living ultra fuck can I reliably predict my future?
You know what the parsimonious answer is? There are no weird unobservable entities, laws of either nature or science, controlling my behaviour, but I have open to me different courses of action and I can think about which to undertake and, etc.
What on Earth do you find so frightening about this that you'd rather deny that human beings can do science? For the love of fuck, will one of you please explain why you deny that which you cannot avoid holding to be true?
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13572  Postby ughaibu » Aug 01, 2019 8:07 pm

felltoearth wrote:No one, including yourself, has shown that it exists.
When you signed the user agreement for this site, had you neither read nor understood it? Do you think that there are no members of this site who read, understood and signed the user agreement without being under threat?
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13573  Postby zoon » Aug 01, 2019 8:12 pm

GrahamH wrote:
zoon wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
zoon wrote:
Science doesn’t claim to be infallible. The characteristic procedures of science, such as peer review and repeating experiments, are designed to minimise various sources of error, but even the most basic reporting can go wrong.




I don't think ughaibu is saying science requires perfect zero-error recording of results. He has some as yet unexplained notion that free will is required to e able to do it at all. I think you can ignore this point unless he justifies it and he has evaded numerous requests for him to do that so don't expect much.
It looks like the same confusion that he assumes under hard determinism that human behaviour is predestined but not tied to the experimental results. (see also coins and dice). If thet were the case (and there is no reason to think it would be the case) then observers would be acting like zombies instead of having thier actions determined by the experimental results, which is what works for science.


Odd isn't it?

Yes, I think you are right, I was missing the point, ughaibu is talking about one individual reporting to another. Science is currently a matter of cooperation between human individuals using our various evolved methods of cooperation. In my view, it's fair to say that science as it's currently practised does indeed take the free will of the researchers for granted, they are taken to be of sound mind and not acting under coercion.


That is a weak compatibilist definition of free will. Granted we need a capability to follow a procedure and an absence of forcing into some other activity, but that isn't the point of the topic, is it?
For instance why couldn't a robotic apparatus deterministically record acurate experimental results?
You don't need free will. You need defined behaviour causally tied to the experiment.

Yes, I’m sticking to ughaibu’s weak compatibilist definition of free will – the one ughaibu describes as a minimal definition. On planet Earth as it is at the moment, a robot which records experimental results would be the property of some scientific team, and that team’s results would be subjected to peer review before publication? The collaboration which adds up to the scientific enterprise is still, so far, between humans with our evolved brain processes underlying our cooperation, and the robots are still essentially tools, not partners? It’s on this ground that I’m agreeing with ughaibu that science as it’s currently practised takes the free will (defined in the minimal way, in your words: “a capability to follow a procedure and an absence of forcing into some other activity”) of the human researchers for granted.

If science is defined broadly as the acquisition of empirical knowledge, then I’m agreeing with you that it doesn’t need free will, because I don’t think cooperation of the evolved human variety is essential for acquiring knowledge?

I’m also agreeing with you that ughaibu is deploying various definitions of free will to suit whichever argument is currently underway. I’m trying to stick to the minimal, weak compatibilist definition. (On second thoughts, looking at your post #13558 with various definitions of free will, I’m not sure how much of a compatibilist I am, since compatibilism tends to be defined in terms of strict determinism, and I don’t think the world’s all that determinate, what with quantum indeterminacy and suchlike. I think ughaibu’s minimal definition is compatible with our being determinate for practical, macroscopic purposes.)
Last edited by zoon on Aug 01, 2019 8:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 3214

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13574  Postby Cito di Pense » Aug 01, 2019 8:13 pm

ughaibu wrote:
felltoearth wrote:No one, including yourself, has shown that it exists.
When you signed the user agreement for this site, had you neither read nor understood it? Do you think that there are no members of this site who read, understood and signed the user agreement without being under threat?


The definition of coercion, ughaibu, is 'being subject to someone else's will'. That seems circular, also, because "someone else's will" is assumed, rather than demonstrated.

Every example you've tried to offer suffers from the same illness. See previous comments on how 'volition' is defined. It's defined in terms of the will, which latter is assumed.

It seems like you're on your way to suggesting that if there were only one human in the world, free will would be a fact. That singular individual still would not have any control over what he or she desired. I mean, there's always the 'sour grapes' strategy.

You rolled up here expecting to bowl us all over with your denigrations and insults, but all you have now is the taste of sour grapes in your mouth.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Aug 01, 2019 8:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29357
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13575  Postby ughaibu » Aug 01, 2019 8:19 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:Every example you've tried to offer suffers from the same illness.
No, as I pointed out in the first post in which I stated this definition, the details are subject to legal debate but we can construct contracts that nullify each other. Are you another who can't follow the discussion?
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Free Will

#13576  Postby Cito di Pense » Aug 01, 2019 8:21 pm

ughaibu wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:Every example you've tried to offer suffers from the same illness.
No, as I pointed out in the first post in which I stated this definition, the details are subject to legal debate but we can construct contracts that nullify each other. Are you another who can't follow the discussion?


Do you purport to be leading some sort of discussion? IF so, just fuck off, already, because that is not what you are here to do.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29357
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13577  Postby felltoearth » Aug 01, 2019 8:21 pm

ughaibu wrote:
felltoearth wrote:No one, including yourself, has shown that it exists.
When you signed the user agreement for this site, had you neither read nor understood it? Do you think that there are no members of this site who read, understood and signed the user agreement without being under threat?

I clicked a box.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 13703
Age: 53

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13578  Postby ughaibu » Aug 01, 2019 8:24 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:You rolled up here expecting to bowl us all over with your denigrations and insults, but all you have now is the taste of sour grapes in your mouth.
Actually I'd be happy if even only one of you were to take seriously the proposition that denialism is unacceptable, intellectually and socially. And the wine is still fresh in my mouth.
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13579  Postby Cito di Pense » Aug 01, 2019 8:26 pm

ughaibu wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:You rolled up here expecting to bowl us all over with your denigrations and insults, but all you have now is the taste of sour grapes in your mouth.
Actually I'd be happy if even only one of you were to take seriously the proposition that denialism is unacceptable, intellectually and socially. And the wine is still fresh in my mouth.


Aren't you happy? No, of course you're not, because nobody here but you has the delusion that he's leading a discussion of free will, as indicated by your peevish complaint that this or that participant isn't "following the discussion".
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Aug 01, 2019 8:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29357
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#13580  Postby ughaibu » Aug 01, 2019 8:27 pm

felltoearth wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
felltoearth wrote:No one, including yourself, has shown that it exists.
When you signed the user agreement for this site, had you neither read nor understood it? Do you think that there are no members of this site who read, understood and signed the user agreement without being under threat?

I clicked a box.
That's a non-answer. Just as a matter of form, I'm going to report you for possibly joining under false pretenses.
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest