Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 9:13 pm
Right, you think "halts" means "stops working", you think something's broken.
I'm going to throw out a guess here that you're not a software developer, because you're not really using these terms right, and you don't really seem to have a solid grasp on the central point you're trying to make, that deterministic software can't "choose" in this way.
You're mistaken. Halting doesn't mean what you think it means, but regardless of that, you're mistaken about that anyway. You don't apparently have a good enough grasp of programming concepts to support that conclusion. You don't know what deterministic software is or is not capable of.
I know what I am talking about. I am also aware that deterministic software cannot resolve a situation when options are equally liked. I already argued that the code you wrote is already decided by you and that is not the code that decides when options are equally liked.
Deterministic software can't decide between equal options, but when I show you deterministic software that can, you say it's because a human wrote it, and humans have free will, and in order to prove that humans have free will, you rely on the fact that deterministic software can't decide between equal options.
The decision is made by you and not the software. That is my point.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 9:48 pm
You're arguing in circles. It's not coherent. Of course all software I can show you is going to be written by a human. You're trapped in a thought loop.
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 2:19 pm
I provided my argument against strong emergence several times. You mentioned that you are not qualified to provide a counterargument against it. Now we are in step one again, you claiming that insentient matter somehow becomes alive because of its configuration. You know, I really don't know how to deal with you.
That's because you confuse arguments with actual evidence.
Please note where I am "claiming that insentient matter somehow becomes alive because of its configuration".
What on earth does that even mean? Empirically for example.
Do you yourself have an accumulation of hard evidence that explains how non-living matter configured into living matter?
No, like all the rest of us, you note that there is non-living matter side by side with living matter. Science is grappling to explain it. Just as scientists are grappling to explain how living matter itself configured into conscious matter and then into self-conscious matter.
But even if one day they accomplish this, there's still the part where free will itself "somehow" comes into existence.
And what are the odds it will be resolved before all of us here are dead and gone?
What is your evidence that matter is insentient?
More to the point [on this thread] what is your evidence that the brain matter we use to assess such things either is or is not able to do so freely. Or, instead, is acting wholly in accordance with the laws of matter creating a reality that unfolds only as it ever possibly could.
So, is a rock sentient? Is this laptop sentient? Are the words you are reading now sentient?
How about providing us with, say, a mathematical equation that would allow us to calculate such things. The free will/determinism equivalent of e = mc2.
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 8:28 pm
I am arguing in favor of free agents. I am also arguing that a deterministic system halts on specific occasions.
promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 11:53 pm
Seek out this essay, bahman, and have your answer you will, hmmm?
rsz_1rsz_2page_1.jpg
I asked you once if you recall whether you have the power to decide against what you desire for no specific reason. Your answer was yes. Therefore you are free.
That's because you confuse arguments with actual evidence.
Please note where I am "claiming that insentient matter somehow becomes alive because of its configuration".
What on earth does that even mean? Empirically for example.
Do you yourself have an accumulation of hard evidence that explains how non-living matter configured into living matter?
No, like all the rest of us, you note that there is non-living matter side by side with living matter. Science is grappling to explain it. Just as scientists are grappling to explain how living matter itself configured into conscious matter and then into self-conscious matter.
But even if one day they accomplish this, there's still the part where free will itself "somehow" comes into existence.
And what are the odds it will be resolved before all of us here are dead and gone?
What is your evidence that matter is insentient?
More to the point [on this thread] what is your evidence that the brain matter we use to assess such things either is or is not able to do so freely. Or, instead, is acting wholly in accordance with the laws of matter creating a reality that unfolds only as it ever possibly could.
What do you think? Do you think that the brain acts according to the laws of matter so it is not free?
iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Aug 14, 2022 1:56 am
So, is a rock sentient? Is this laptop sentient? Are the words you are reading now sentient?
I asked you what is your evidence and instead of providing the evidence, you are asking questions.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Aug 14, 2022 1:56 am
How about providing us with, say, a mathematical equation that would allow us to calculate such things. The free will/determinism equivalent of e = mc2.
There is no mathematical equation that can explain free will.