Boony's Room - a contemplation of Free Will & Determinism

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Boony's Room - a contemplation of Free Will & Determinism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Name calling? I'm not really sure what you mean by that. Did I insult you?
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Boony's Room - a contemplation of Free Will & Determinism

Post by attofishpi »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:20 am
attofishpi wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:10 am
Sculptor wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:05 am
HOW??????

They are separate but they are the same. They will have the same random thought.


True.
There is no free will outside determinism.
And that is what the examples shows.
Unless you are trying to say that when people who believe in radical freewill are actually claiming that freewill is just random?

I don't think they really want that.

IN any event I'm not sure you can have a random event.
We know that things are caused. Maybe randomness is something so complicated that it is difficult to predict. When you toss a coin you would have to count the number of spins before it hits the table - but of you could you would be able to predict the result surely?
So the problem is; can there be a truly random event?
And even if there were; would that really satisfy those that want to believe in radical free will.
The point being if free will relies on a random event; what use is it??
Well then. You are a hard determinist - there is NO free will to be compatible within a determined universe.
Tutut - you resort to name calling!!

NO. I am a compatibilist. We all can act freely as long as no one is pointing a gun at our heads.
We are all in a state of change. We change according to many thing; exogenously and endogenously.
We partly make our own futures, through endogenous causes - that is the will.

..and yet I assure you, if I placed two IDENTICAL computers inside the room, and clicked a button for a random number between mmm 1 and a 1,000,000, they are extremely unlikely to have the same result!
Wrong.
They will have the same result.
Computers use a combination of a list of numbers and the time stamp to generate the RND function. The timestamp directs the computer to select from that list. If the computers are switched on at exactly the same time then they will pick the same number.
I know this because when I was a programmer we had to initiate a delay into the RND to get a new result. If the program used the RND at the first line of code then you could guarantee the same result each time.
Ah. Yes I knew the CPU clock cycle was used in some way, but wasn't certain that they would produce the same 'random' number if the clock was acurrately in sync. A determined machine after all!

attofishpi wrote:
Sculptor wrote: Yet you think, that two seperate conscious minds could not think anything different EVER within this thought experiment!

YOU ARE A HARD DETERMINIST - if that is your only conclusion.
You are avoiding answering the questions I set, because they challenge your own viewpoint: your desire to be free. You are determined to avoid the truth.
If you want to continue, then return to my previous post and answer it, rather than just call me names.
Calling you a hard determinist is name calling!? :D

No I am not avoiding the questions, I am answering them as best I can as we progress, since I am stuck on this bloody tablet its rather difficult compared to when I was on my PC, just cumbersome.

You asked HOW???
RE my statement: "Yes. We need to consider that although each conscious mind were instantiated identically within an identically mirrored situation, that they still have individual, seperate minds.
If they get to the stage of pausing, talking, pausing - realising something of a diabolical situation, they might decide to think of a random thought."


So to answer how...the two mind's are still individual. Consiousness is not-computable and is operating at the quatum level where quantum indeterminacy is at play. Compared to my computer analogy, where you were quite right to correct me, the computer is a determined machine, human consciousness is not. The notion that the two Boony's are locked into precisely the same thought patterns I find absurd.

I still don't understand how a gun being pointed at your head makes you a 'compatibilist' - because you are being compatible to someone else's demands? But still, did some more reading on compatibilism, seems there are many flavours to it, it all seems rather pointless.

Let's place a gun on a table precisely in the centre of the room with a voice that says, grab the gun and kill the other Boony to escape the mental hell. They both bang hands together..etc as if indeed there is a mirrored wall between them..on and on!! ...nah.
(the above doesn't fit, since the gun would not replicate symmetry)

Let's place two guns on a table precisely in the centre of the room with a voice that says, grab a gun and kill the other Boony to escape the mental hell. They both bang hands together..etc as if indeed there is a mirrored wall between them..on and on!! ...nah.
(they'd just kill each other at the same time - at best)

The voice says, kill each other with your bare hands. Ok, mirrored actions until they drop dead from starvation..or actually manage to strangle each other to death...nah.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Boony's Room - a contemplation of Free Will & Determinism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

attofishpi wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 1:29 am
Calling you a hard determinist is name calling!? :D
I don't think he uses the phrase "name calling" like everyone else. I also think he gets more pleasure out of creating a riled up and contentious conversation than he does out of creating clarity, which is why he responded to me the way he did.

In any case, I've explained I think fairly clearly why I think the word "hard determinism" is a stumbling block in this conversation (it's not name calling, it's just the incorrect word for what you're trying to say).
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Boony's Room - a contemplation of Free Will & Determinism

Post by Sculptor »

attofishpi wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 1:29 am
Sculptor wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:20 am
attofishpi wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:10 am

Well then. You are a hard determinist - there is NO free will to be compatible within a determined universe.
Tutut - you resort to name calling!!

NO. I am a compatibilist. We all can act freely as long as no one is pointing a gun at our heads.
We are all in a state of change. We change according to many thing; exogenously and endogenously.
We partly make our own futures, through endogenous causes - that is the will.

..and yet I assure you, if I placed two IDENTICAL computers inside the room, and clicked a button for a random number between mmm 1 and a 1,000,000, they are extremely unlikely to have the same result!
Wrong.
They will have the same result.
Computers use a combination of a list of numbers and the time stamp to generate the RND function. The timestamp directs the computer to select from that list. If the computers are switched on at exactly the same time then they will pick the same number.
I know this because when I was a programmer we had to initiate a delay into the RND to get a new result. If the program used the RND at the first line of code then you could guarantee the same result each time.
Ah. Yes I knew the CPU clock cycle was used in some way, but wasn't certain that they would produce the same 'random' number if the clock was acurrately in sync. A determined machine after all!

attofishpi wrote:
Sculptor wrote: Yet you think, that two seperate conscious minds could not think anything different EVER within this thought experiment!

YOU ARE A HARD DETERMINIST - if that is your only conclusion.
You are avoiding answering the questions I set, because they challenge your own viewpoint: your desire to be free. You are determined to avoid the truth.
If you want to continue, then return to my previous post and answer it, rather than just call me names.
Calling you a hard determinist is name calling!? :D

No I am not avoiding the questions, I am answering them as best I can as we progress, since I am stuck on this bloody tablet its rather difficult compared to when I was on my PC, just cumbersome.

You asked HOW???
RE my statement: "Yes. We need to consider that although each conscious mind were instantiated identically within an identically mirrored situation, that they still have individual, seperate minds.
If they get to the stage of pausing, talking, pausing - realising something of a diabolical situation, they might decide to think of a random thought."


So to answer how...the two mind's are still individual. Consiousness is not-computable and is operating at the quatum level where quantum indeterminacy is at play. Compared to my computer analogy, where you were quite right to correct me, the computer is a determined machine, human consciousness is not. The notion that the two Boony's are locked into precisely the same thought patterns I find absurd.

I still don't understand how a gun being pointed at your head makes you a 'compatibilist' - because you are being compatible to someone else's demands? But still, did some more reading on compatibilism, seems there are many flavours to it, it all seems rather pointless.

Let's place a gun on a table precisely in the centre of the room with a voice that says, grab the gun and kill the other Boony to escape the mental hell. They both bang hands together..etc as if indeed there is a mirrored wall between them..on and on!! ...nah.
(the above doesn't fit, since the gun would not replicate symmetry)

Let's place two guns on a table precisely in the centre of the room with a voice that says, grab a gun and kill the other Boony to escape the mental hell. They both bang hands together..etc as if indeed there is a mirrored wall between them..on and on!! ...nah.
(they'd just kill each other at the same time - at best)

The voice says, kill each other with your bare hands. Ok, mirrored actions until they drop dead from starvation..or actually manage to strangle each other to death...nah.
The mind is a field generated by brain matter. If the matter is the same, so is the field in the same state.
If they decide to have a random thought, then they are still bound to chose the same thought.

If there is such a thing as a truly random event, which I doubt, then you are saying that free will is just random.
I do not think those that promote the idea would be happy with that since they would still consider themselves to be powerless.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Boony's Room - a contemplation of Free Will & Determinism

Post by Sculptor »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:26 am Name calling? I'm not really sure what you mean by that. Did I insult you?
You put me in a box of your own construction.
It's a basic tool of prejudice; it makes me easier for you to deal with.

I do not have faith in "hard determinism" or any other dogma. I did not choose to belong to a camp. I thought the thoughts on this subject long before I had any contact with philosophy formally.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Boony's Room - a contemplation of Free Will & Determinism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

I never said you were a hard determinist. I also don't think you are using the word "prejudice" correctly.

If someone tells me they're a Christian, and I categorize them as a theist, that's not prejudice. That's POSTjudice. I'm categorising them based on information I've learned about them. I'm categorising them AFTER learning information, so the "pre" of "prejudice" simply doesn't fit.

You used that word on ILP towards me as well, in a situation that was also not fairly categorised as prejudice. I judged someone after 3 pages of interaction - that's not prejudice. That's not bigotry. That's seeing someone actively refuse opportunities to learn, and realising that they are going to continue to refuse. There's no world where that's what prejudice means.

"Name calling" is a phrase about insults, not incorrect categories. And I think you've also expressed that the category isn't incorrect anyway.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Boony's Room - a contemplation of Free Will & Determinism

Post by attofishpi »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 11:06 am The mind is a field generated by brain matter. If the matter is the same, so is the field in the same state.
If they decide to have a random thought, then they are still bound to chose the same thought.

If there is such a thing as a truly random event, which I doubt, then you are saying that free will is just random.
I do not think those that promote the idea would be happy with that since they would still consider themselves to be powerless.
The brain has more logical gateways than atoms in the universe (apparently) where a consciousness mind exists at the level of quantum indeterminacy that can guide (affect) the material brain with decisions it makes. I can't imagine that an individual conscious mind could not think of something different to the other mind, simply because both were instantiated some 5 mins earlier.
If our free will will does rely on something that is random at the quantum level, then our 'will' must reduce the parameters of the randomness until they whittle down to a point where the mind makes a decision.

Obviously I haven't a level of expertise on the subject. I'd love the likes of Penrose to have a gander at this thought experiment and wonder whether he'd be with you all the way...both Boony's would be mirrored until dead, or whether he could explain how they could diverge. Would he state that the fruit drawn on the wall would be identical in every way, and in the exact symmetrically opposite side of the walls?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Boony's Room - a contemplation of Free Will & Determinism

Post by Sculptor »

attofishpi wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:26 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 11:06 am The mind is a field generated by brain matter. If the matter is the same, so is the field in the same state.
If they decide to have a random thought, then they are still bound to chose the same thought.

If there is such a thing as a truly random event, which I doubt, then you are saying that free will is just random.
I do not think those that promote the idea would be happy with that since they would still consider themselves to be powerless.
The brain has more logical gateways than atoms in the universe (apparently) where a consciousness mind exists at the level of quantum indeterminacy that can guide (affect) the material brain with decisions it makes. I can't imagine that an individual conscious mind could not think of something different to the other mind, simply because both were instantiated some 5 mins earlier.
If our free will will does rely on something that is random at the quantum level, then our 'will' must reduce the parameters of the randomness until they whittle down to a point where the mind makes a decision.

Obviously I haven't a level of expertise on the subject. I'd love the likes of Penrose to have a gander at this thought experiment and wonder whether he'd be with you all the way...both Boony's would be mirrored until dead, or whether he could explain how they could diverge. Would he state that the fruit drawn on the wall would be identical in every way, and in the exact symmetrically opposite side of the walls?
Well indeed.
Oh um.

As they say in academia : "Discuss".

The larger the number of interconnections the more difficult it is to predict, but none of these necessarily implies a lack of determinism - only a lack of predictability.
Post Reply