Consciousness and free will.

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Mon Nov 30, 2015 12:45 am

alpha wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:I did not call you stupid. But since you mention it. ANY moron can cut and paste a passage from the Internet, but few are bright enough to be able to apply another persons work. YOU HAVE FAILED to show how this can be applied to the argument at hand TRY again.
it takes a special kind of moron to miss how my argument invalidates yours. i'll explain it to you very slowly: my statement that absolute prediction of absolutely deterministic systems is possible in principle implies no contradictions, making it logically possible, and making your statement "It is theoretically IMPOSSIBLE to know all the variables." necessarily false, because it contradicts my true statement.
.

FOR FUCKS SAKE. You are just repeating yourself. There is NO substance here. Are you a complete fucking idiot??
It does not get less wrong, the more you say it.

User avatar
alpha
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 3:48 pm

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by alpha » Mon Nov 30, 2015 1:48 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:FOR FUCKS SAKE. You are just repeating yourself. There is NO substance here. Are you a complete fucking idiot??
It does not get less wrong, the more you say it.
you give the word "retard" a whole new meaning. your severe comprehension disorder prevents you from apprehending fundamental concepts like:
Any description of a state of affairs that does not contain any implicit or explicit logical contradiction is logically possible.
https://sites.google.com/site/mccormick ... l-thinking
such as my statement: "it is logically possible to know all the variables of a deterministic system, and therefor make absolute predictions.". your idiotic statement, however:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:It is theoretically IMPOSSIBLE to know all the variables.
contains a logical contradiction, which is that "to know all the variables" contradicts some general proposition which is itself logically true (such as a logical principle);
"When we hold a proposition to be logically impossible, we are claiming that it is incompatible with some general proposition which is itself logically true.” - Ayer, Probability and Evidence
http://www.blackwellreference.com/publi ... 13_ss1-110

in other words, the burden of proof is upon the person claiming something to be logically impossible, not the person claiming that it is possible.

so, unless you can somehow produce some evidence to support that my statement "it is logically possible to know all the variables of a deterministic system, and therefor make absolute predictions" contradicts a general proposition that is logically true, you're finished.

The Inglorious One
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 8:25 pm

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by The Inglorious One » Mon Nov 30, 2015 10:07 am

Alpha, what Leo fails to make clear is that he's uses "chaos" in the context of chaos theory. Chaos theory is the mathematical study of the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions—a response popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. The unfolding of events are called "chaotic" because the initial conditions are indeterminate, which makes the outcome mathematically unpredictable. Calling it "chaos theory" is a misnomer because chaos is defined as "a state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order."

Leo manages to interject magic into his theories to arrive at the created order in which we live.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Mon Nov 30, 2015 11:29 am

alpha wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:FOR FUCKS SAKE. You are just repeating yourself. There is NO substance here. Are you a complete fucking idiot??
It does not get less wrong, the more you say it.
you give the word "retard" a whole new meaning. your severe comprehension disorder prevents you from apprehending fundamental concepts like:
Any description of a state of affairs that does not contain any implicit or explicit logical contradiction is logically possible.
https://sites.google.com/site/mccormick ... l-thinking
such as my statement: "it is logically possible to know all the variables of a deterministic system, and therefor make absolute predictions.". your idiotic statement, however:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:It is theoretically IMPOSSIBLE to know all the variables.
contains a logical contradiction, which is that "to know all the variables" contradicts some general proposition which is itself logically true (such as a logical principle);
"When we hold a proposition to be logically impossible, we are claiming that it is incompatible with some general proposition which is itself logically true.” - Ayer, Probability and Evidence
http://www.blackwellreference.com/publi ... 13_ss1-110

in other words, the burden of proof is upon the person claiming something to be logically impossible, not the person claiming that it is possible.

so, unless you can somehow produce some evidence to support that my statement "it is logically possible to know all the variables of a deterministic system, and therefor make absolute predictions" contradicts a general proposition that is logically true, you're finished.
You just don't have the mental capacity to bother with. sorry.

User avatar
alpha
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 3:48 pm

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by alpha » Mon Nov 30, 2015 3:14 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:You just don't have the mental capacity to bother with. sorry.
that means a lot, coming from an infamous retard.

User avatar
alpha
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 3:48 pm

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by alpha » Mon Nov 30, 2015 3:21 pm

The Inglorious One wrote:Alpha, what Leo fails to make clear is that he's uses "chaos" in the context of chaos theory. Chaos theory is the mathematical study of the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions—a response popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. The unfolding of events are called "chaotic" because the initial conditions are indeterminate, which makes the outcome mathematically unpredictable. Calling it "chaos theory" is a misnomer because chaos is defined as "a state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order."

Leo manages to interject magic into his theories to arrive at the created order in which we live.
i understand what he means by "chaos" and "chaos theory"; but i disagree that it's not even possible in principle to know the initial conditions of anything, including chaotic systems (as i have quoted from some sites), and qm (even qm is deterministic according to certain non-local interpretations). leo's and hobbes' utter refusal to accept that it's logically possible to know all the variables and make accurate predictions, is the epitome of ignorance and stupidity.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 2814
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

Post by henry quirk » Mon Nov 30, 2015 3:45 pm

Alpha,

It's my experience that I'm mired in countless causal chains, most which I have no control over. I, as individual, am a link in many of those chains. It's also my experience that I'm the intitator of causal chains and the director of causal chains. That is: I am both caused and a cause; I am acted upon and I act upon.

I'm an agent, not (just) a domino.

Again: deterministic is not the same as determined or pre-determined.

Also (and, again): 'free will', a placeholder, keeps getting in the way of the event it stands in for. Conversations like these would go better for every one if 'freewill', as placeholder, were taken off the table. There are so many better stand-ins: self-direction (self-director), self-determination (self-determiner), agency (agent), the will (the willer), etc.; none of these carry nearly as much baggage as 'freewill'.

#

Inglorious,

There are gross and subtle, physical connections/interactions, yes. Not seein' how this translates into overmind. In fact, the interior of my head is the most private place I have, accessible to you only as I allow, and only by way of my communicating (physically) my interior experience. If the the kind of interconnection you promote exists, it seems folks wouldn't have to just make do with language and physical cues.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Mon Nov 30, 2015 5:32 pm

alpha wrote:
The Inglorious One wrote:Alpha, what Leo fails to make clear is that he's uses "chaos" in the context of chaos theory. Chaos theory is the mathematical study of the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions—a response popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. The unfolding of events are called "chaotic" because the initial conditions are indeterminate, which makes the outcome mathematically unpredictable. Calling it "chaos theory" is a misnomer because chaos is defined as "a state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order."

Leo manages to interject magic into his theories to arrive at the created order in which we live.
i understand what he means by "chaos" and "chaos theory"; but i disagree that it's not even possible in principle to know the initial conditions of anything, including chaotic systems (as i have quoted from some sites), and qm (even qm is deterministic according to certain non-local interpretations). leo's and hobbes' utter refusal to accept that it's logically possible to know all the variables and make accurate predictions, is the epitome of ignorance and stupidity.
I'm sure you'll be happy with Ing1, you're on the same level.

The Inglorious One
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 8:25 pm

Re:

Post by The Inglorious One » Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:04 pm

henry quirk wrote: There are gross and subtle, physical connections/interactions, yes. Not seein' how this translates into overmind. In fact, the interior of my head is the most private place I have, accessible to you only as I allow, and only by way of my communicating (physically) my interior experience. If the the kind of interconnection you promote exists, it seems folks wouldn't have to just make do with language and physical cues.
In this forum, I consider the acknowledgment of subtle physical connection/interactions to be a major breakthrough, so I won't push it. Still, I don't think I need to remind anyone that I'm not suggesting anything new—I am, of course, referring to biblical passages that suggest the exact same thing minus the science. What I'm suggesting also goes a long way towards explaining phenomena often ignored as superstition or fraudulent in its very nature.

I agree that the interior of our heads is the most private place we have access to, but scientists have developed rudimentary machines that can “read” a person's mind. (see Nova) What's most private and may never be explained scientifically is the experience of being aware of the awareness of the experience of thinking.

User avatar
alpha
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 3:48 pm

Re:

Post by alpha » Mon Nov 30, 2015 7:56 pm

henry quirk wrote:Alpha,

It's my experience that I'm mired in countless causal chains, most which I have no control over. I, as individual, am a link in many of those chains. It's also my experience that I'm the intitator of causal chains and the director of causal chains. That is: I am both caused and a cause; I am acted upon and I act upon.

I'm an agent, not (just) a domino.

Again: deterministic is not the same as determined or pre-determined.

Also (and, again): 'free will', a placeholder, keeps getting in the way of the event it stands in for. Conversations like these would go better for every one if 'freewill', as placeholder, were taken off the table. There are so many better stand-ins: self-direction (self-director), self-determination (self-determiner), agency (agent), the will (the willer), etc.; none of these carry nearly as much baggage as 'freewill'.
henry, you're presuming that my problem is with the word "freewill" and not what it represents. this couldn't farther from the truth. my position is that everything in existence must either be caused (determinate) or uncaused (indeterminate/random). there's no third conceivable (logical) possibility. this means that our will (choices, decisions) is either caused or uncaused. when you say you're "the initiator of causal chains and the director of causal chains" this can either mean that you were caused to initiate/direct these causal chains, or you weren't caused to do so. if you were caused to do so, then everything you do (even what you think and feel) is determinate. if you weren't caused to do so, then what you do is random and indeterminate. as you can see, neither can entail any true accountability, no matter what "placeholder" you use. the fact of the matter is that you/we only think that we initiate and direct causal chains, but since it's logically impossible for us to causelessly initiate or direct anything, the only possible alternative is that we were caused (by countless forces) to initiate and direct stuff. in essence, we are very complex (and conscious) dominoes.

and another thing, deterministic is exactly the same as determined and predetermined (i'm not talking about any god).

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Re:

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Mon Nov 30, 2015 8:39 pm

alpha wrote:
henry quirk wrote:Alpha,

It's my experience that I'm mired in countless causal chains, most which I have no control over. I, as individual, am a link in many of those chains. It's also my experience that I'm the intitator of causal chains and the director of causal chains. That is: I am both caused and a cause; I am acted upon and I act upon.

I'm an agent, not (just) a domino.

Again: deterministic is not the same as determined or pre-determined.

Also (and, again): 'free will', a placeholder, keeps getting in the way of the event it stands in for. Conversations like these would go better for every one if 'freewill', as placeholder, were taken off the table. There are so many better stand-ins: self-direction (self-director), self-determination (self-determiner), agency (agent), the will (the willer), etc.; none of these carry nearly as much baggage as 'freewill'.
henry, you're presuming that my problem is with the word "freewill" and not what it represents. this couldn't farther from the truth. my position is that everything in existence must either be caused (determinate) or uncaused (indeterminate/random). there's no third conceivable (logical) possibility.
This is at first ambiguous and otherwise faulty.
Your position, from your statement, could be one of two things.
1) Either everything is caused, and therefore nothing is uncaused. or Everything is uncaused and therefore nothing is caused
OR
2) Things have to be caused, or not caused. i.e. any given thing is caused or any given thing is uncaused. This does not preclude the possibility that there can exist some things that are caused and others that are not.

Your lack of clarity might be the reason might be the reason that you keep getting upset.

Neither of these positions are relevant to logic.

User avatar
alpha
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 3:48 pm

Re: Re:

Post by alpha » Mon Nov 30, 2015 9:50 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:This is at first ambiguous and otherwise faulty.
Your position, from your statement, could be one of two things.
1) Either everything is caused, and therefore nothing is uncaused. or Everything is uncaused and therefore nothing is caused
OR
2) Things have to be caused, or not caused. i.e. any given thing is caused or any given thing is uncaused. This does not preclude the possibility that there can exist some things that are caused and others that are not.

Your lack of clarity might be the reason might be the reason that you keep getting upset.
actually, any of the three theories would prove my point. my position, however, is the first; that nothing is uncaused (this also seems to be your position as well as leo's).
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Neither of these positions are relevant to logic.
both (or rather, all three) are at the heart of logical/philosophical discussion (see principle of sufficient reason. for those who are definition-challenged, sufficient reason means adequate cause.).

btw, it's refreshing when you make -some- sense. :wink:

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Re:

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Tue Dec 01, 2015 12:05 am

alpha wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:This is at first ambiguous and otherwise faulty.
Your position, from your statement, could be one of two things.
1) Either everything is caused, and therefore nothing is uncaused. or Everything is uncaused and therefore nothing is caused
OR
2) Things have to be caused, or not caused. i.e. any given thing is caused or any given thing is uncaused. This does not preclude the possibility that there can exist some things that are caused and others that are not.

Your lack of clarity might be the reason might be the reason that you keep getting upset.
actually, any of the three theories would prove my point. my position, however, is the first; that nothing is uncaused (this also seems to be your position as well as leo's).
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Neither of these positions are relevant to logic.
both (or rather, all three) are at the heart of logical/philosophical discussion (see principle of sufficient reason. for those who are definition-challenged, sufficient reason means adequate cause.).

btw, it's refreshing when you make -some- sense. :wink:
Indeed, and as soon as you stop confusing this with "logic" we might be back on track. The Principle of sufficient reason is an axiomatic assertion derived not from an a priori position but from a long period of inductive reasoning. It is empirical, not logical. It is a posteriori and not simply based on reason.

The Inglorious One
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 8:25 pm

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by The Inglorious One » Tue Dec 01, 2015 12:21 am

Why must it be either/or, alpha?

User avatar
alpha
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 3:48 pm

Re: Consciousness and free will.

Post by alpha » Tue Dec 01, 2015 12:36 am

The Inglorious One wrote:Why must it be either/or, alpha?
because of the law of no contradiction and the law of excluded middle (which i believe some dispute, such as leo). caused absolutely contradicts uncaused. this means that the same thing (a simple thing) can't be both caused and uncaused at the same time. it also can't be not caused, and not uncaused at the same time. so it must be one or the other.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests