|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Do I have a choice? (determinism vs libertarianism vs compatibilism) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4784 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
nwr writes: Is the set of primes non-random? Yes. You can get the set of all primes by following a very simple recipe: Take the set of all numbers and remove everything that isn't prime.
nwr writes: I can't see how "random" or "nonrandom" applies to most sets Probably because all the ones you're thinking of are nonrandom.
nwr writes: Being able to model something is not the same as saying that it follows a formula. You're right. While the former contains the latter, it says some other things as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4784 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
nwr writes: We can apply "random" or "nonrandom" to the method we use to generate a set. But it doesn't make sense to apply it to the set. Ahhh... I see the problem. You're disassociating the set from the method. I'm not, as you should've gotten from, "expression of."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4784 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
nwr writes: You can setup rules which specify what will be considered pragmatic. And once you setup rules, you have managed to simulate pragmatic decisions in terms of truth/logic decisions. That's sufficient for simulations of evolution. It wasn't a simulation of evolution -- it was evolution itself. Kevin Kelly -- Chapter 15: Artificial Evolution
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4784 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
nwr writes: It is all done in an artificial environment, as part of an abstract computation. In that environment, "works" just means that the programmer says it works. I see you don't have a clue about self-replicating programs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4784 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
JavaMan writes: But why are you making the unwarranted assumption that the learned experience inevitably causes the final decision? That doesn't leave any room for the decision-making itself - so what's the point of having a decision-making apparatus? You're looking at this the wrong way. You're comparing two things -- the universe as it is and the universe as it is not; seeing that they lead to different places, and using that to support that the outcome isn't inevitable. The problem is that you're assuming that the universe can change. It can't, as it can only be what it is. It cannot be what it is not. So, if in order for the outcome to change, the impossible must occur, can the outcome actually change? Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4784 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
JavaMan writes: Correction: It can only be what it has been. Time is included in the universe.
JavaMan writes: It's precisely the point of disagreement between us that you think that the future is predetermined by what has happened previous to this moment, that nothing that happens in this moment can change what will happen in the future. Whereas I am claiming that my choice is an additional determining factor. What you will choose is already determined. Since its already included, there's no wait. (and what timestream would the universe be waiting in, anyway?) Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4784 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
JavaMan writes: I don't know about you, but time is a one-way street for me. I can't go back into the past, and I can only go forward into the future one step at a time. Your limitations are irrelevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4784 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
JavaMan writes: The fundamental flaw of hard determinism, as far as I'm concerned, is that it treats cognitive processes as a special case, purely as effects in a chain of cause and effect. In the real physical world, any phenomenon can have causal relations too. You don't understand the difference between hardware and software?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4784 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
JavaMan writes: Irrelevant to who? To who?Don't even know the meaning of 'relevant', eh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4784 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
JavaMan writes: Yes I do. What's your point? No you don't, or you wouldn't be asking that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4784 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
JavaMan writes: You're a bit rude, aren't you? More than a bit.
JavaMan writes: Do you want to engage in debate, or do you just want to make snide remarks? I want you to do better.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4784 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
JavaMan writes: Maybe you could explain why your analogy with hardware and software is relevant to my argument? Software - Wikipedia"Software fundamentally is the unique image or representation of physical or material alignment that constitutes configuration to or functional identity of a machine," Software is a representation of a segment of reality. You can leave the representation out without affecting anything, as it's not real. Software doesn't affect anything -- the physical state of the hardware does as it acts on itself.So, software is a special case, as it wouldn't be integrated into a deterministic model. That doesn't mean that a deterministic model of a computer that only includes what's really there is flawed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4784 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
JavaMan writes: So, I'd argue that we do have freedom to change our behaviour, that changing behaviour is no different to learning a language or learning how to drive a car. It's just a matter of re-programming ourselves. Don't confuse motion for freedom.
JavaMan writes: I have the ability to suspend choosing while I judge the merits of following one course of action or another Did you choose to do that? If so, do you have the ability to suspend choosing whether or not you will suspend choosing while you judge the merits of following one course of action (suspending choosing) or another (not to suspend)?If so, can you suspend choosing that? And that? And that? "I'm going to judge whether or not best course of action is to judge whether or not the best course of action is to judge whether or not the best course of action is to judge whether or not the best course of action is to judge whether the best course of action is to do A or B." Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4784 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
The difference lies in their reality. Hardware is real, software not. Understanding this should lead to an understanding of why software would be left out of a model of reality.
Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4784 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
nwr writes: But how does that connect back to JavaMan's comment. You seemed to think you were refuting that comment. He implied that it was improper to do such a thing by using it as his rationale for dismissal. By doing the same thing quite properly, I highlighted the hole.
nwr writes: You are probably making some unstated assumption about cognition and software. But it isn't easy to follow unstated assumptions. I never claimed to have your ease as a goal.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024