God, gods, or none of the above?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Okay.

You can take your ball and go home.

It's been fun. No hard feelings.

Great run along home.
See you tomorrow.

[Hobbes' Choice]

...
Let me help you out there: real "determinism" means there IS NO free will. It means we are not actually "agents" of anything, but merely cogs in an impersonal universal machine, and are merely deluding ourselves that we have choices. ...

Not so, we have computational models that are deterministic but we cannot say how they got there, so choice is a possibility in a deterministic world, just not 'free-will'. But 'free will' is just a hang-over and hang-up of the godbotherers as they need to reconcile a 'God's' will with theirs and tie themselves in knots over it.

That's a good point I'll have to remember when the mystical idiots pretend free-will.
Computers are predictable and have massive consequences serious effects on all our lives. The choices they make can be understood by reverse engineering, and are the result of fixed algorithms which utterly determine their outcomes. Yet it is perfectly reasonable to talk of choice, and cause.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hello, Arising.

'free will' is just a hang-over and hang-up of the godbotherers as they need to reconcile a 'God's' will with theirs and tie themselves in knots over it.

Well, pardon my French, but I would characterize any such statement as simply facile and manifestly untrue.
]

It's bloody obvious.

All the philosophers with very few exceptions, who have wrestled over this question were theists of one stamp or another. Historically the only interest in this question is based on the fear of redemption and meaning in a confused world.

The Atomists from Epicurus though Hobbes to the atheistic Russell have taken the 'nothing escapes Physics" route, and seen free-will as a religious fantasy.
The fact that you think it is a viable question means that you are still hung over from your childhood religious indoctrination and have not yet matured.

PS. If I were you, I'd cut down on the hysterical hyperbole. The observation is neither facile and is certainly not manifestly untrue. You are just committing an abuse of language.

[Immanuel Can]

Hobbes...you're back! How I've missed you.

When a philosopher says, "I believe in determinism," that doesn't make it right or true. Nor does a foaming rant against Voluntarists invalidate their view. No light is shed by such assertions...but we all know that.

Review the "Appeal to Authority," "Ad Hominem," and "Reductio Ad Absurdum" fallacies.

[ReliStuPhD]

Computer models aren't exactly analogous to metaphysics. Even if they were, to refer to a computer "choosing" would be an error. Certainly, a choice might exist, but only because the programmer was aware of it. If the programmer was not aware that the computer would have to "choose" between B & C "if A," then the program fails because the computer cannot proceed without instructions (at least so far. "True" AI will change this, of course). Every "choice" the computer makes is determined. Pile on as many lines of code as you wish, but if you are able to hold them all in tension, you can predict the outcome 100 times out of 100. In fact, you would be so certain of your ability to predict the outcomes that a variance would lead you to start looking for the mistake in the line of code or look to your own misunderstanding thereof. There is a reason programs can be represented by flowcharts. In a deterministic world, choices do not exist. The only reason we speak of such is because we (or our programmers) know what choice is, and so impose that framework on the deterministic world.

Not so, neural-net computations do not work this way. In a complex computational neural-net the outcome is determined but the route is not.

But even along the route, the "choices" are determined by weights, with "bad" outcomes resulting in an adjustment of weights that are, in turn, determined by algorithms input by the programmer(s). Granted, neural nets are trying to approximate the way the human brain functions, so we may well be approaching something resembling true choice in those models, but if so, the outcome would not be determined. If the model can make an actual choice between two or more paths (i.e. a choice that is not determined by programmed algorithms), then we're no longer talking about deterministic models. But that's just still not the case. A perceptron is still just an example of complex code being run, the outcomes of which would be 100% predictable if we had the computational speed and "memory" of a computer. A neural net is still running x number of permutations in a given time, all of which are governed by complex code. Even where a perceptron guesses, that guess is governed by code.

All that to say, we need to be careful not confuse a computer that runs millions of permutations in a second according to rules set up by x lines of code to the computer actually making a choice. At best, it guesses its way to an outcome at that particular point that matches pre-determined parameters.

[Arising_uk]

But even along the route, the "choices" are determined by weights, with "bad" outcomes resulting in an adjustment of weights that are, in turn, determined by algorithms input by the programmer(s). ...

The newer ones adjust the weights themselves but I take your point.

Granted, neural nets are trying to approximate the way the human brain functions, so we may well be approaching something resembling true choice in those models, but if so, the outcome would not be determined. If the model can make an actual choice between two or more paths (i.e. a choice that is not determined by programmed algorithms), then we're no longer talking about deterministic models. ...

I disagree as the outcome is determined, the net does not have the choice not to try and achieve the outcome, just how it gets there.

But that's just still not the case. A perceptron is still just an example of complex code being run, the outcomes of which would be 100% predictable if we had the computational speed and "memory" of a computer. A neural net is still running x number of permutations in a given time, all of which are governed by complex code. Even where a perceptron guesses, that guess is governed by code.

I disagree but stand to be corrected as I think no matter how much power we had we'd not be able to compute how the process 'chooses' in a complex net.

All that to say, we need to be careful not confuse a computer that runs millions of permutations in a second according to rules set up by x lines of code to the computer actually making a choice. At best, it guesses its way to an outcome at that particular point that matches pre-determined parameters.

It appears to be how our neurons work, are you saying we don't make choices? If so even less for the idea of 'free-will'.

[ReliStuPhD]

It appears to be how our neurons work, are you saying we don't make choices? If so even less for the idea of 'free-will'.

That's an excellent question! No, I'm not saying we don't make choices. I guess the best reply I could offer at the moment is that neural net computing only approximates our decision-making processes. That said, I'm inclined to believe that a day will come when computers will move beyond their programming and becomes self-aware, able to make choiecs, etc. You know, the stuff of any number of sci-fi movies. When that happens, I think we'll have better insight into what distinguishes the way we think from the way a computer does (hopefully because the computer has enough insight to help us with the task).

tl;dr: Computrs don't make choices. Yet.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hobbes...you're back! How I've missed you.

When a philosopher says, "I believe in determinism," that doesn't make it right or true. Nor does a foaming rant against Voluntarists invalidate their view. No light is shed by such assertions...but we all know that.

Review the "Appeal to Authority," "Ad Hominem," and "Reductio Ad Absurdum" fallacies.

I am way ahead of you.
NB. The student does not give instructions to the Master, please revise your attitude.

[Immanuel Can]

Hobbes:
You're SO funny.

But, mindful as I am of the Scriptural dictum concerning the distribution of jewelry, I shall press you no further.

So I shall bid you an amused adieu....Genuinely, I mean, and to the God you don't believe in. May you come to know Him in spite of yourself.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hobbes:
You're SO funny.

But, mindful as I am of the Scriptural dictum concerning the distribution of jewelry, I shall press you no further.

So I shall bid you an amused adieu....Genuinely, I mean, and to the God you don't believe in. May you come to know Him in spite of yourself.

Yeah - for the second time- run along home to mummy!

BTW...

So here we see the beginnings of an argument for "god".

So by what evidence do you assert a male gender?

[thedoc]

So here we see the beginnings of an argument for "god".
So by what evidence do you assert a male gender?

The Bible refers to "God the Father", and usually a father is a male. You need to also remember that this was a patriarchal society where women were little better than property.

[Hobbes' Choice]

So here we see the beginnings of an argument for "god".
So by what evidence do you assert a male gender?

The Bible refers to "God the Father", and usually a father is a male. You need to also remember that this was a patriarchal society where women were little better than property.

I asked you about god, not the bible.
I believe the bible exists. I don't think this reflects or works towards an argument about "god", as there is no argument of any kind for god in the bible.

[thedoc]

So here we see the beginnings of an argument for "god".
So by what evidence do you assert a male gender?

The Bible refers to "God the Father", and usually a father is a male. You need to also remember that this was a patriarchal society where women were little better than property.

I asked you about god, not the bible.
I believe the bible exists. I don't think this reflects or works towards an argument about "god", as there is no argument of any kind for god in the bible.

The Bible would constitute evidence for God, that you reject it as evidence, does not change what is written, just your acceptance of it. In the same way the Bible presents evidence that God is male, due to the references in the Bible. Like it or not this is some of the evidence for God being male. However there is current thinking that includes the idea that God is either genderless or includes both genders.

[Hobbes' Choice]

The Bible refers to "God the Father", and usually a father is a male. You need to also remember that this was a patriarchal society where women were little better than property.

I asked you about god, not the bible.
I believe the bible exists. I don't think this reflects or works towards an argument about "god", as there is no argument of any kind for god in the bible.

The Bible would constitute evidence for God, that you reject it as evidence, does not change what is written, just your acceptance of it. In the same way the Bible presents evidence that God is male, due to the references in the Bible. Like it or not this is some of the evidence for God being male. However there is current thinking that includes the idea that God is either genderless or includes both genders.

If you think the bible constitutes evidence for god, then your standards of evidence are poor indeed.
Just because a story book says something is true does not make it evidence.
The bible is not a book of evidence in any reasonable definition of the word. It is no different in quality from you simply telling me that god exists.
I can tell you with as much conviction that you are mistaken. And so we each cancel one another.

[thedoc]

The Bible would constitute evidence for God, that you reject it as evidence, does not change what is written, just your acceptance of it. In the same way the Bible presents evidence that God is male, due to the references in the Bible. Like it or not this is some of the evidence for God being male. However there is current thinking that includes the idea that God is either genderless or includes both genders.

If you think the bible constitutes evidence for god, then your standards of evidence are poor indeed.
Just because a story book says something is true does not make it evidence.
The bible is not a book of evidence in any reasonable definition of the word. It is no different in quality from you simply telling me that god exists.
I can tell you with as much conviction that you are mistaken. And so we each cancel one another.

That could be true, but it is also true that evidence is often a pick and choose proposition, where the evidence is selected based on what is desired to be proven. I am reminded of a statement by my professor at the start of a statistics class, "Give a good statistician the raw data, and they will prove anything you want." So what are you starting out to prove? I really don't have a problem with whatever you choose to believe, just don't expect me to jump onto your wagon. I've got my own problems to deal with.