Consciousness and free will.

[Obvious Leo]

this is the position of the non-newtonian science on this matter,

Agreed. Biology is a non-Newtonian science because all living systems are naturally occurring and thus self-determining. So are the non-living ones but physics is a pre-Darwinian procedure of thought and thus a bit slow to catch on.

i'm not saying society can necessarily function without the notion of some sort of responsibility, but that doesn't make anyone truly responsible, because of the causa sui problem.

Once again this is a pre-Darwinian and creationist construct and also a signature non-problem in a non-Newtonian reality. No philosopher worthy of the name wastes his time on first causes because such a concept only has a meaning in a universe where such a first cause can be ascribed to an external casual agent which by definition is first placed beyond the scrutiny of either scientific or philosophical enquiry. It's a completely circular argument and a rather transparent cheat which Spinoza exposed centuries ago.

As an animal-lover I quite appreciate your point about the animals. Higher-order mammals certainly have a certain freedom of conscious action but we must be very cautious about anthropomorphising this. Once again this is why I dislike the use of the adjective "free" when referring to the will because obviously not all conscious beings have an equal freedom in their actions. However a spider is free to choose whether to build his web on the northern or the western side of the house, depending on which way the wind is blowing. He can and does learn from his mistakes, as long as such mistakes are not fatal, so in this particular sense the notion of will is applicable to the spider since it relates to his learning. This is basically what neural networking and modelling with evolutionary algorithms is all about.

[alpha]

i'm not saying society can necessarily function without the notion of some sort of responsibility, but that doesn't make anyone truly responsible, because of the causa sui problem.

Once again this is a pre-Darwinian and creationist construct and also a signature non-problem in a non-Newtonian reality. No philosopher worthy of the name wastes his time on first causes because such a concept only has a meaning in a universe where such a first cause can be ascribed to an external casual agent which by definition is first placed beyond the scrutiny of either scientific or philosophical enquiry. It's a completely circular argument and a rather transparent cheat which Spinoza exposed centuries ago.

i'm gonna let the insults to me and the philosophers (who "aren't worthy of the name") slide... however, saying that a first cause is beyond philosophical enquiry, is inexplicable. and again, a first cause is not required for this argument. if you know of anyone who chose (or even had any say in) how they were made, when and where they were born, etc., i sure as hell would like to have a chat with this person.

As an animal-lover I quite appreciate your point about the animals. Higher-order mammals certainly have a certain freedom of conscious action but we must be very cautious about anthropomorphising this. Once again this is why I dislike the use of the adjective "free" when referring to the will because obviously not all conscious beings have an equal freedom in their actions. However a spider is free to choose whether to build his web on the northern or the western side of the house, depending on which way the wind is blowing. He can and does learn from his mistakes, as long as such mistakes are not fatal, so in this particular sense the notion of will is applicable to the spider since it relates to his learning. This is basically what neural networking and modelling with evolutionary algorithms is all about.

as you said yourself, we won't get anywhere like this; and since you keep evading certain questions, and are terrified of the word "free", i have an idea; i'll ask you point blank: are you a compatibilist or a libertarian? please don't give me biology lessons, or address irrelevant issues; just give me a straight answer to the simple question. i simply wanna know what exactly your position is.

[Obvious Leo]

saying that a first cause is beyond scientific enquiry, is inexplicable.

No it isn't. It's a doctrinal position in applied metaphysics and this means that you are defending a minority position. The convention in philosophy is that this means the burden of proof lies with you. Explain what you mean by first cause.

if you know of anyone who chose (or even had any say in) how they were made, when and where they were born, etc., i sure as hell would like to have a chat with this person.

I don't understand what you're asking here. Are you claiming that you weren't caused to come into existence or have just got shit on the liver about this fact? If the former then you're even nuttier than you seem to be and if the latter then tough shit, suck it up! The universe is not all about YOU.

i have an idea; i'll ask you point blank: are you a compatibilist or a libertarian?

I don't like attaching labels to myself but if you insist you may consider me a CONTRARIAN. That means in the world according to Leo if it sounds like bullshit it probably is.

[alpha]

saying that a first cause is beyond scientific enquiry, is inexplicable.

No it isn't. It's a doctrinal position in applied metaphysics and this means that you are defending a minority position. The convention in philosophy is that this means the burden of proof lies with you. Explain what you mean by first cause.

i meant philosophical enquiry, not scientific. i just corrected it.

if you know of anyone who chose (or even had any say in) how they were made, when and where they were born, etc., i sure as hell would like to have a chat with this person.

I don't understand what you're asking here. Are you claiming that you weren't caused to come into existence or have just got shit on the liver about this fact? If the former then you're even nuttier than you seem to be and if the latter then tough shit, suck it up! The universe is not all about YOU.

you're starting to get unpleasant again. watch it!

i wasn't talking about myself. we're discussing freewill and determinism and "causa sui", and you shoved "first cause" in the middle of the discussion, so i was explaining what "causa sui" meant, and that it's not about a first cause. it's about not having any actual freewill, and not being truly responsible for anything due to the simple fact that no one chose any of their initial characteristics or circumstances, and since characteristics and circumstances determine a person's "life", it's only logical to conclude that we have no actual control over anything in our lives.

i have an idea; i'll ask you point blank: are you a compatibilist or a libertarian?

I don't like attaching labels to myself but if you insist you may consider me a CONTRARIAN. That means in the world according to Leo if it sounds like bullshit it probably is.

do you think you're funny? or do you think you're so smart by "not attaching labels"? i asked a simple and direct question, and as usual, you couldn't even answer that. what exactly sounds like bullshit? strict determinism? compatibilism? libertarianism? because there really is no other position on this matter, so you really gotta choose one if you're not really full of it.

[Obvious Leo]

Define "strict" determinism. I've made it perfectly clear that I regard the doctrine of causality as a universal metaphysical first principle but I'm not quite sure what the adjective "strict" is intended to mean.

[alpha]

Define "strict" determinism. I've made it perfectly clear that I regard the doctrine of causality as a universal metaphysical first principle but I'm not quite sure what the adjective "strict" is intended to mean.

my take on the matter is that compatibilism (aka soft determinism) and strict/hard determinism are essentially the same thing, except compatibilists try to redefine freewill in order for it to be true under determinism. this basically means that compatibilists (dan dennett seems to be one himself) don't believe in genuine freewill, but an artificial notional type of free will. in contrast, libertarians believe in true freewill that's incompatible with determinism, yet failing to explain how their version of freewill is not indeterministic will.

[Obvious Leo]

If you can only understand determinism as a Newtonian construct then I'm afraid I don't fit into any of your neat little categories. The world I live in is self-determining, which means that as a Self I qualify as one of its determining agents, exactly as such things are commonly understood. Certain aspects of the future will be irrevocably affected by the choices which I make, which encourages me to consider them carefully. Surely you're not denying this?

[alpha]

If you can only understand determinism as a Newtonian construct then I'm afraid I don't fit into any of your neat little categories.

these are the only constructs of which i know, newtonian or otherwise. so you wouldn't fit in the non-newtonian crowd either.

The world I live in is self-determining, which means that as a Self I qualify as one of its determining agents, exactly as such things are commonly understood. Certain aspects of the future will be irrevocably affected by the choices which I make, which encourages me to consider them carefully. Surely you're not denying this?

everything in the universe affects aspects of the future, even a grain of sand. you are confusing "considering", "evaluating", "weighing", "learning", "neural networking and modelling" and "deciding" with freeness. "free" means uncaused; as you and i both know, nothing is uncaused, hence, nothing is really "free". we all have wills; even animals have wills, but neither their will, nor ours, are truly free, because they all have causes. what we think (every thought) is caused. what/how we consider, weigh things, learn, etc., and decide, are all caused. so every so called choice that results from all of that is also caused, and therefor unfree.

[Obvious Leo]

Easy fixed. Just ditch the adjective "free". It doesn't mean uncaused at all, as you seem to be claiming. In fact it doesn't mean anything at all when applied as a referent to the will. However if you want to regard yourself as a mindless automaton I'd have to congratulate you on certainly presenting a very strong case.

[alpha]

Easy fixed. Just ditch the adjective "free". It doesn't mean uncaused at all, as you seem to be claiming. In fact it doesn't mean anything at all when applied as a referent to the will. However if you want to regard yourself as a mindless automaton I'd have to congratulate you on certainly presenting a very strong case.

we're all automatons, whether we like it or not (because as you admit, we exist in a purely deterministic system), but from our long arguments, i think the case is rather strong that the only mindless one around here is you. sorry mate, but not even someone with my reasoning skills can refute that.

1. your refusal to "use labels", when labels are what us humans use to communicate, which leads me to believe you're subhuman.
2. your acceptance of a strictly deterministic system, and at the same time rejecting determinism, which leads me to believe your sub-ape.
3. your constant and repeated attacks (and insults) on opposing philosophers and newtonian scientists, yet essentially disagreeing with even non-newtonian "scientists", which leads me to believe you're sub-jackass.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
non-newtonian conclusion: endless evolving is necessary just so you can reach jackass level.

[Hobbes' Choice]

we're all automatons, whether we like it or not (because as you admit, we exist in a purely deterministic system), but from our long arguments, i think the case is rather strong that the only mindless one around here is you. sorry mate, but not even someone with my reasoning skills can refute that..

This is a damnably poor argument, determinism or no.
An automaton has a fixed algorithm, and endlessly repeats the same series of actions until it is wound up again. We are nothing like this.
An automaton, is constructed of a fixed list of materials that wear down, do not repair, do not grow and eventually break. It is wholly dependant on external forces. It has no autonomy. Not so us.

From the moment we are conceived the human machine grows, and the programme changes each day. The unit gets larger and with each new challenge the machine adapts, providing more brain power, muscle, hair, skin to meet new challenges. It defends itself against disease and other forms of attack, modifying its substance with the immune system and externally, technology. It gains autonomy from its makers and follows self determining paths that are not predicted by its initial genetic make-up. It can change.

[alpha]

we're all automatons, whether we like it or not (because as you admit, we exist in a purely deterministic system), but from our long arguments, i think the case is rather strong that the only mindless one around here is you. sorry mate, but not even someone with my reasoning skills can refute that..

This is a damnably poor argument, determinism or no.
An automaton has a fixed algorithm, and endlessly repeats the same series of actions until it is wound up again. We are nothing like this.
An automaton, is constructed of a fixed list of materials that wear down, do not repair, do not grow and eventually break. It is wholly dependant on external forces. It has no autonomy. Not so us.

From the moment we are conceived the human machine grows, and the programme changes each day. The unit gets larger and with each new challenge the machine adapts, providing more brain power, muscle, hair, skin to meet new challenges. It defends itself against disease and other forms of attack, modifying its substance with the immune system and externally, technology. It gains autonomy from its makers and follows self determining paths that are not predicted by its initial genetic make-up. It can change.

1. i disagree with the highlighted part, and i challenge you to prove it conclusively. you simply can't, so don't even bother.
2. to me, the simplicity and complexity of a thing is irrelevant; in the end they're all essentially automatons, more or less.

the problem with leo is that he manages to hit two (or more) birds with one stone. he continuously contradicts himself, and at the same time insults his opponent (who isn't contradicting himself). he insists on two contradicting concepts; 1. that we are a part of a purely deterministic universe, but 2. at the same time, we're not deterministic. he also maintains that 3. creationists are idiots, and 4. newtonian scientists are morons.

[Hobbes' Choice]

we're all automatons, whether we like it or not (because as you admit, we exist in a purely deterministic system), but from our long arguments, i think the case is rather strong that the only mindless one around here is you. sorry mate, but not even someone with my reasoning skills can refute that..

This is a damnably poor argument, determinism or no.
An automaton has a fixed algorithm, and endlessly repeats the same series of actions until it is wound up again. We are nothing like this.
An automaton, is constructed of a fixed list of materials that wear down, do not repair, do not grow and eventually break. It is wholly dependant on external forces. It has no autonomy. Not so us.

From the moment we are conceived the human machine grows, and the programme changes each day. The unit gets larger and with each new challenge the machine adapts, providing more brain power, muscle, hair, skin to meet new challenges. It defends itself against disease and other forms of attack, modifying its substance with the immune system and externally, technology. It gains autonomy from its makers and follows self determining paths that are not predicted by its initial genetic make-up. It can change.

1. i disagree with the highlighted part, and i challenge you to prove it conclusively. you simply can't, so don't even bother..

F'fuck sake! This is a complete no brainer.
Genetically the human species is indistinguishable from how we were as hunter gatherers.
Depending on where you live in the world our entire subsistence model has changed completely between 12,000 - 100 years. You can take a baby from a modern day hunter/gatherer society and make him a CEO of a corporate conglomerate.
Culture is not genetically determined.
My comment that you objected to in not contentious in any way.

PS you don't get to conclude against every thing I said that we are automatons, simply by disregarding the content of my post.

[Obvious Leo]

Creationism and evolution are diametrically opposed paradigms precisely because of the way determinism is defined.

Alpha. You need to read some biology because Hobbes is right. It is the capacity for sentient species to adapt and learn which defines the nature of the will. It dates back to the trilobites, which are assumed to be the first multi-cellular organisms with motility. Complex organisms which can move about need to learn how to make use of this skill so this led to the evolution of a central nervous system and a central processing unit, i.e. a brain. The adaptive success of this variation was such that mind can now be seen as following an evolutionary trajectory of its own. In other words once brains evolved it was absolutely inevitable that eventually one would evolve which would be the uber-predator of the entire biosphere.

This is a mixed blessing because the predator at the top of the food pyramid has nowhere further to evolve to and the only end in sight is extinction. This is not necessarily the case for homo, who has become his own genetic engineer, but the survival value of our uber-brain is certainly questionable, a point masterfully explored by Kurt Vonnegut in his seminal novel, Galapagos.

[alpha]

we're all automatons, whether we like it or not (because as you admit, we exist in a purely deterministic system), but from our long arguments, i think the case is rather strong that the only mindless one around here is you. sorry mate, but not even someone with my reasoning skills can refute that..

This is a damnably poor argument, determinism or no.
An automaton has a fixed algorithm, and endlessly repeats the same series of actions until it is wound up again. We are nothing like this.
An automaton, is constructed of a fixed list of materials that wear down, do not repair, do not grow and eventually break. It is wholly dependant on external forces. It has no autonomy. Not so us.

From the moment we are conceived the human machine grows, and the programme changes each day. The unit gets larger and with each new challenge the machine adapts, providing more brain power, muscle, hair, skin to meet new challenges. It defends itself against disease and other forms of attack, modifying its substance with the immune system and externally, technology. It gains autonomy from its makers and follows self determining paths that are not predicted by its initial genetic make-up. It can change.

1. i disagree with the highlighted part, and i challenge you to prove it conclusively. you simply can't, so don't even bother.
2. to me, the simplicity and complexity of a thing is irrelevant; in the end they're all essentially automatons, more or less.

F'fuck sake! This is a complete no brainer.
Genetically the human species is indistinguishable from how we were as hunter gatherers.
Depending on where you live in the world our entire subsistence model has changed completely between 12,000 - 100 years. You can take a baby from a modern day hunter/gatherer society and make him a CEO of a corporate conglomerate.
Culture is not genetically determined.

who the fuck said anything about "culture" being "genetically" determined? people should really stop putting words in others' mouths. my point is that every tiny subatomic particle in existence is deterministic. likewise, every huge and complex system is equally deterministic. genetic determinism affects genetic areas, and cultural determinism affects cultural areas, and so on.

My comment that you objected to in not contentious in any way.

neither was mine, if you understand what i say.

PS you don't get to conclude against every thing I said that we are automatons, simply by disregarding the content of my post.

excuse me? if leo can conclude whatever nonsense he pleases, surely i can conclude any meaningful thing i damn well please. besides, i didn't simply "disregard" it, i refuted it with a concise argument, with which you're free to disagree.