compatibilism

[promethean75]

but WHY DO 'you', Age, THINK that what 'you' DID is 'more funny' EXACTLY?

[CHNOPS]

And Age, dont answer.

Too funny.

I did.

More funny.

Yesterday, a weeks later....

Name some 'things', which 'you', human beings, supposedly, can NOT learn, understand, NOR reason.

A lot of things we dont understand yet. If you say that we dont understand but we can understand it in the future, and that is what you talk about when you say "we have the ability", then, why the IA dont have this ability?

You cannot answer saying "because the IA dont understand a lot thing yet", because that is the same with humans...

What are these, supposed, 'more complex conditions' you see in humans, than in robots?

The neural network we have is more complex than the IA today.

Oh, and by the way, the DIFFERENCE between the decisions 'you', human beings, make, from the ones robots make, is the decisions that human beings make did NOT need to be specifically programmed into 'them', by human beings, like robots did.

You dont know about IA. They learn by themself. They have the basic programmed into them, and then they learn alone.

The same with humans. We have the basic programmed by the nature, and then we learn alone.


Still dont have any clue of what are the differences.


Tell me more

[BigMike]

What worries me most about compatibilism is that it makes people think that a contradiction is true. People are made to think that both free will and determinism are true. That is a blatant contradiction.

Classical logic says that if you believe in a contradiction, you can come to any conclusion and justify any action, even the worst action you can think of. In Latin, the law is called "ex contradictione quodlibet".

The idea of compatibilism blurs the lines between what is true and what is false, not just in the debate about free will but in everything we do.

[iambiguous]

What worries me most about compatibilism is that it makes people think that a contradiction is true. People are made to think that both free will and determinism are true. That is a blatant contradiction.

Of course, he had no option but to be worried about compatibilism as he was compelled to in the only possible world. But, fortunately, as a "free will determinist", he is able to assure himself that his worry still reflects the wisest of all possible worries about compatibilism that there can be.

[attofishpi]

What worries me most about compatibilism is that it makes people think that a contradiction is true. People are made to think that both free will and determinism are true. That is a blatant contradiction.

Of course, he had no option but to be worried about compatibilism as he was compelled to in the only possible world. But, fortunately, as a "free will determinist", he is able to assure himself that his worry still reflects the wisest of all possible worries about compatibilism that there can be.

Only an atheist could be stupid enough to reject free will.

[BigMike]

What worries me most about compatibilism is that it makes people think that a contradiction is true. People are made to think that both free will and determinism are true. That is a blatant contradiction.

Of course, he had no option but to be worried about compatibilism as he was compelled to in the only possible world. But, fortunately, as a "free will determinist", he is able to assure himself that his worry still reflects the wisest of all possible worries about compatibilism that there can be.

Only an atheist could be stupid enough to reject free will.

Which just proves that compatibilists can be convinced to believe and say anything, even with the bad intention to cause hurt, as predicted by "ex contradictione quodlibet".

[attofishpi]

Of course, he had no option but to be worried about compatibilism as he was compelled to in the only possible world. But, fortunately, as a "free will determinist", he is able to assure himself that his worry still reflects the wisest of all possible worries about compatibilism that there can be.

Only an atheist could be stupid enough to reject free will.

Which just proves that compatibilists can be convinced to believe and say anything, even with the bad intention to cause hurt, as predicted by "ex contradictione quodlibet".

Wow. That's the second time i've seen you post "ex contradictione quodlibet" amazing how intellectual one can sound by posting foreign language crap...and hey, it's not like people that study "philosophy" come across as pretentious twats...very often.

So.

Y don't you explain your comprehension of "ex contradictione quodlibet" so that poorly educated kunts like me can still tear your "intellect" apart

[attofishpi]

Well...fuck me it is right there above - I'll put it in my words...belief in contradictions means you can believe any ol' shite LOGICALLY.

Food for thought then...free will is not in contradiction to determinism, unless determinism is defined by animate sentient beings being also determined.

Humans have free will within a determined universe...rendering the universe no longer determined.

[Age]

And Age, dont answer.

Too funny.

I did.

More funny.

Yesterday, a weeks later....

Just so you become aware I had NO idea what your comments meant before, just like now I have absolutely NO idea what these comments are referring to.

Name some 'things', which 'you', human beings, supposedly, can NOT learn, understand, NOR reason.

A lot of things we dont understand yet.

By adding the words 'don't' and 'yet' here now you are just DISTORTING and CHANGING what I ACTUALLY SAID, and MEANT.

LOOK, you SAID and WROTE:
Humans dont have the ABILITY to learn, understand and reason absolutely ANY and EVERY thing.

We have the ABILITY to learn, understand and reason SOME THINGS, NOT ALL, NOT EVERYTHING.


So now either back up and support these CLAIMS, by naming some 'things', which 'you', human beings, supposedly, can NOT learn, understand, NOR reason, or just accept that you have NOT YET fully understood what I was meaning.

If you say that we dont understand

WHY say, "If"?

What I actually did say can be SEEN above, in VERY CLEARLY WRITTEN WORDS. And what can be CLEARLY SEEN is I NEVER said what you said here.

but we can understand it in the future, and that is what you talk about when you say "we have the ability", then, why the IA dont have this ability?

What does 'IA' mean, or refer to, EXACTLY?

And, ONLY human beings have 'this ability', and this is WHY 'IA' does NOT have 'this ability'. That is, IF the letters 'IA' does NOT refer to a human being.

You cannot answer saying "because the IA dont understand a lot thing yet", because that is the same with humans...

But I would NEVER say such a thing, so what you said here is just moot.

What are these, supposed, 'more complex conditions' you see in humans, than in robots?

The neural network we have is more complex than the IA today.

But the neural network is NOT complex AT ALL. But, obviously, this all depends on the observer.

Oh, and by the way, the DIFFERENCE between the decisions 'you', human beings, make, from the ones robots make, is the decisions that human beings make did NOT need to be specifically programmed into 'them', by human beings, like robots did.

You dont know about IA.

I KNOW, and this is WHY I asked you to CLARIFY what 'IA' is, EXACTLY, for me.

They learn by themself. They have the basic programmed into them, and then they learn alone.

WHY did you start using the 'learn' word here?

You requested from me a response about 'decisions'. I responded to you about 'decisions', but now you respond in relation to 'learning'.

If it was not OBVIOUS that you are just confusing "yourself" here, then some might see this as being VERY DECEPTIVE.

The same with humans. We have the basic programmed by the nature, and then we learn alone.

What is this 'basic' thing, which is supposedly programmed by 'the nature'?

Still dont have any clue of what are the differences.

Are you aware that you write in a way that does NOT appear to relate to some obvious thing?

Although 'it' might be VERY OBVIOUS to you, what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, is NOT obvious to me, AT ALL.

Tell me more

you tell me more. LOL

[Age]

but WHY DO 'you', Age, THINK that what 'you' DID is 'more funny' EXACTLY?

But I do NOT think this.

I was just replying to a post in the way that I saw it was being written, that is; in a way that does not refer to ANY thing, obvious.

Do you know what "chnops's" post;

And Age, dont answer.

Too funny.

was in reference to, EXACTLY?

[BigMike]

Wow. That's the second time i've seen you post "ex contradictione quodlibet" amazing how intellectual one can sound by posting foreign language crap...and hey, it's not like people that study "philosophy" come across as pretentious twats...very often.

So.

Y don't you explain your comprehension of "ex contradictione quodlibet" so that poorly educated kunts like me can still tear your "intellect" apart

Let's just say that I have a degree in Mathematical Logic and you don't.

[Age]

What worries me most about compatibilism is that it makes people think that a contradiction is true. People are made to think that both free will and determinism are true. That is a blatant contradiction.

ONLY when one uses YOUR definition of and for the term 'free will'. And, because absolutely NO else use that term, with YOUR definition, then this so-called 'blatant contradiction' is SEEN by you, ALONE.

Classical logic says that if you believe in a contradiction, you can come to any conclusion and justify any action, even the worst action you can think of. In Latin, the law is called "ex contradictione quodlibet".

And with ACTUAL 'logic' arguing AGAINST some thing, which could NOT even be a POSSIBILITY, is a form of STUPIDITY, and PROOF of how it is from BELIEF people can and DO become ABSOLUTELY CLOSED.

The idea of compatibilism blurs the lines between what is true and what is false, not just in the debate about free will but in everything we do.

The BELIEF that that is ONLY a 'deterministic world' CLOSES one OFF to what IS ACTUALLY True, Right, AND Correct. But, OBVIOUSLY, those ones with that BELIEF are NOT able to SEE and UNDERSTAND this Fact.

[CHNOPS]

Age,

You are a child. I will never answer to you.

I dont lose anything. I just want you to learn more about life.

Byeeeeee

[BigMike]

Food for thought then...free will is not in contradiction to determinism, unless determinism is defined by animate sentient beings being also determined.

Think about how your will might be able to make your finger pull the trigger on a gun. That would mean that your will was the only thing that made your finger move when it wouldn't have otherwise. When your finger starts to move after being still, its momentum and kinetic energy go up. The increase must have come from something that had momentum and energy to start with, according to momentum and energy conservation laws.

That thing—your will—must have mass because its momentum is the product of its mass and speed. But since it has mass, the laws of physics and gravitational forces in particular affect it. Being subject to physical laws, your will cannot be free. It, like everything else, would be set.

Humans have free will within a determined universe...rendering the universe no longer determined.

Therefore, it is evident that free will and determinism are incompatible. You have just reached the correct conclusion that compatibilism is absurd. Congratulations!

Next, you must decide if you are a libertarian who rejects science in favor of free will or if the only logical conclusion based on observations is that nature follows the laws of physics and free will must be rejected as a result. Your comment above suggests that you are a science denier.

[popeye1945]

Compatibilism is dependent upon the truth of free will in the form of free actions, which is contrary to the nature of the organism. All organisms are reactionary organisms, in that one needs to be motivated from the outside to fulfill a desire or need, and motivation spells reaction not action, for action infers independence of the will. Pleasure, pain, and desire are the elemental forces motivating all reactionary creatures. Organisms are of necessity reactionary in order for there to be any evolutionary adaptation. All diseases of organisms are a reactionary response to invasive chemical and/or biological elements, the immune system itself is a reactionary system motivated by factors alien to the body of the organism. To all organisms, the physical world is cause to the organism's reactive nature. One would be wise to ask in trying to understand our fellow man's behaviors to ask, what is that someone reacting to? Apparent reality itself is a reactionary manifestation of the alterations made to the body of the organism by the energies of the cosmos. As the organism reacts it is cause to the greater environment, in reciprocal causation. Part to part, part to the whole, and the whole to each of its parts. Cause and effect, and effect is reaction.