Philosophy Now Forum

i blame blame wrote:My view, which is based on scientific evidence is that bacteria don't make choices.

It is the nature of evidence that one needs to show it for it to be evidence.

i blame blame wrote:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/choice

Damn, dictionary.com don’t base their definitions on the Philosophy Now forum. Doh!

i blame blame wrote:... a falling boulder makes choices. It starts to fall and then stops.

What action does the boulder take that starts and stops the falling?

i blame blame wrote:A star makes a choice. It starts nuclear fusion and then stops.Every specific arrangement of matter makes choices: It begins to exist and then stops.

I haven’t any experience of stars starting or stopping or of matter coming into being or ceasing to exist – but then neither have you.

i blame blame wrote:If free will is whatever makes that possible, then...free will is causality? Time?

What do you think causality is? Have you heard of David Hume?

i blame blame wrote:Or if we go with your more restricted definition of choice = life, then is free will is organic chemistry? Homeostasis? A planet in favorable conditions?

Organic chemistry, homeostasis and our planet obviously have some associations with life so freewill is possibly in there somewhere.

i blame blame wrote:Your definitions are vague and meaningless at best.

Getting back to the title of this thread – you claimed earlier that computers made choices. Care to back that up at all?

i blame blame wrote:You started bringing biology into the discussion with your claim of free will driving the process of evolution.

Just because I mentioned evolution doesn’t mean that a Wikipedia entry on evolution is going to answer your questions about what I am saying.

i blame blame wrote:Indeed. If it had been an old refuted idea that's still believed in by many, say creationism, I wouldn't have facepalmed in surprise and disbelief of such an idea.

So your disbelief comes from someone trying to explain the concept that underlies ethics, justice, government, economics, personal identity, the legal system etc?

i blame blame wrote:You would. This is now however, what happened. I gave you links to wikipedia entries which themselves link to scientific publications. These refuted your claim.

Prove it!

S G R wrote:It is the nature of evidence that one needs to show it for it to be evidence.

I could quote all the papers listed in the reference of the wikipedia articles but won't. So there:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... References
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... References

S G R wrote:Damn, dictionary.com don’t base their definitions on the Philosophy Now forum. Doh!

Oh so now your definitions became those of the entire forum?

S G R wrote:What action does the boulder take that starts and stops the falling?

It breaks off the rock and impacts the ground.

S G R wrote:I haven’t any experience of stars starting or stopping or of matter coming into being or ceasing to exist – but then neither have you.

I have seen a stellar nursery with my naked eye (the Orion nebula). Astronomers observe supernovae from time to time. 1000 or so years ago, Chinese astronomers and the Anasazi recorded the explosion of a star whose remnants we now call the the Crab nebula.

S G R wrote:What do you think causality is? Have you heard of David Hume?

The relationship between cause and effect. What about Hume?

S G R wrote:Organic chemistry, homeostasis and our planet obviously have some associations with life so freewill is possibly in there somewhere.

That's pretty vague.

S G R wrote:Getting back to the title of this thread – you claimed earlier that computers made choices. Care to back that up at all?

There you go:
http://www.1000minds.com/
http://www.decision-sights.com/
http://makeitrational.com/
http://www.kessera.com/
http://www.lumina.com/ana/whatisanalytica.htm

S G R wrote:Just because I mentioned evolution doesn’t mean that a Wikipedia entry on evolution is going to answer your questions about what I am saying.

Not if you keep making up your own definitions of words like "choice" or "life".

S G R wrote:So your disbelief comes from someone trying to explain the concept that underlies ethics, justice, government, economics, personal identity, the legal system etc?

Yes because your explanation of this ill-defined concept is more ridiculous than any other that I can think of right now.

S G R wrote:Prove it!

S G R is what causes mental retardation. Disprove it!
Showing that you can't find any scientific paper related to mental retardation that mentions S G R doesn't count.

S G R wrote:Notice how you changed term from choice to decision?

I didn't change the terms, I introduced decision making into my definition if choice.

S G R wrote: Who says I have to think about a choice in order to make it? I can choose based upon the toss of a coin or just by seeing what comes up.

You might as well attribute the choice to the coin as it's as capable as the bacteria.

S G R wrote: I agree that decisions require reason but I don’t consider choices and decisions to be the same thing at all. So I would say that bacteria are capable of acting and this acting is a choice – but agree they don’t think about it or decide.

I disagree I can choose and I can decide, I can make a choice and I can make a decision. You can't just abandon one of them.

I suspect that if I followed your definition and rolled a ball down a hill I would wrongly interpret the path it took, as the result of the influence of the landscape on it, as being a choice the ball has made.

S G R wrote:

John wrote:If your going to confer free will on non-thinking bacteria you've defined something that's meaningless in relation to understanding humans.

I’m not conferring anything at all – I’m just pointing out that bacteria and humans act through the same thing which is life – being alive is what confers choice not having a brain.

I'm still at a loss as to how you think non sentient things can make choices.

S G R wrote:

John wrote:I'm intrigued though because I've never heard anyone take your position so is there a school of thought that does think that the likes of bacteria have free will?

Just me as far as I’m aware.

I suspected as much.

S G R wrote:

i blame blame wrote:... a falling boulder makes choices. It starts to fall and then stops.

What action does the boulder take that starts and stops the falling?

This statement might have helped me understand where you're coming from, or maybe not so let's see.

Would I be right in thinking that you view the bacteria as being different to the boulder because the bacteria is alive and can act, consciously or otherwise, in an independent fashion. I.e. it doesn't need someone to start it rolling down a hill?

If this is the case is it what leads you to claim that the bacteria has free will?

John wrote: This statement might have helped me understand where you're coming from, or maybe not so let's see.

Would I be right in thinking that you view the bacteria as being different to the boulder because the bacteria is alive and can act, consciously or otherwise, in an independent fashion. I.e. it doesn't need someone to start it rolling down a hill?

If this is the case is it what leads you to claim that the bacteria has free will?

But the boulder doesn't necessarily need someONE to roll it down. It might break off of the mountain due to water in fissures freezing or soemthing. The bacterium also needs another bacterium to "start it", and that one in turn needs another and so on until that first cell which needed proteins and ribonucleic acids coming together in an as yet unknown mechanism.

i blame blame wrote:I could quote all the papers listed in the reference of the wikipedia articles but won't. So there:

The fact that you don’t know which article it is that proves your point demonstrates that you don’t have any evidence.

i blame blame wrote:Oh so now your definitions became those of the entire forum?

It wasn’t me who attempted to use the authority of a dictionary instead of actually making a point.

i blame blame wrote:

S G R wrote:What action does the boulder take that starts and stops the falling?

It breaks off the rock and impacts the ground.

It is the lack of support and gravity which starts the boulder falling and the ground which stops the boulder – neither of these things are the boulder.

i blame blame wrote:The relationship between cause and effect. What about Hume?

Hume pointed out that there is no evidence – logical or otherwise – that demonstrates any relationship between cause and effect.

i blame blame wrote:

S G R wrote:Getting back to the title of this thread – you claimed earlier that computers made choices. Care to back that up at all?

There you go:
http://www.1000minds.com/
http://www.decision-sights.com/
http://makeitrational.com/
http://www.kessera.com/
http://www.lumina.com/ana/whatisanalytica.htm

Calculating programmes all.

i blame blame wrote:Not if you keep making up your own definitions of words like "choice" or "life".

It’s called having an idea.

i blame blame wrote:Yes because your explanation of this ill-defined concept is more ridiculous than any other that I can think of right now.

Why don’t you try to be a bit more honest? You don’t believe that freewill exists so you think any definition is meaningless. Quite why you believe this is unclear.
Are people not allowed to have a different point of view to yours?

i blame blame wrote:S G R is what causes mental retardation. Disprove it!

If you find that arguing with me makes you feel a bit thick that doesn’t mean that I am the one causing it.

i blame blame wrote:

John wrote: This statement might have helped me understand where you're coming from, or maybe not so let's see.

Would I be right in thinking that you view the bacteria as being different to the boulder because the bacteria is alive and can act, consciously or otherwise, in an independent fashion. I.e. it doesn't need someone to start it rolling down a hill?

If this is the case is it what leads you to claim that the bacteria has free will?

But the boulder doesn't necessarily need someONE to roll it down. It might break off of the mountain due to water in fissures freezing or soemthing. The bacterium also needs another bacterium to "start it", and that one in turn needs another and so on until that first cell which needed proteins and ribonucleic acids coming together in an as yet unknown mechanism.

Just to be clear on what I said, I'm only truing to understand S G R's point of view. I actually agree with what you've been writing (what I've read of it anyway as I haven't read the thread all the way through from the start).

John wrote:I didn't change the terms, I introduced decision making into my definition if choice.

Imagine an earthworm burrowing through the ground. It bumps straight into a rock. Whichever direction it goes in next is the result of a choice but does not involve any mental decision making.

John wrote:You might as well attribute the choice to the coin as it's as capable as the bacteria.

Coins don’t do anything, bacteria are at the root of most living processes on earth.

John wrote:I disagree I can choose and I can decide, I can make a choice and I can make a decision. You can't just abandon one of them.

Why do you need to abandon either? I just think that choices and decisions are not the same thing.

John wrote:I suspect that if I followed your definition and rolled a ball down a hill I would wrongly interpret the path it took, as the result of the influence of the landscape on it, as being a choice the ball has made.

Why? It is the landscape influencing the ball – not the ball.

John wrote:I'm still at a loss as to how you think non sentient things can make choices.

See earthworms above.

John wrote:I suspected as much.

Do you have some issue with this?

John wrote:Would I be right in thinking that you view the bacteria as being different to the boulder because the bacteria is alive and can act, consciously or otherwise, in an independent fashion. I.e. it doesn't need someone to start it rolling down a hill?

If this is the case is it what leads you to claim that the bacteria has free will?

Yes and yes.

John wrote: Just to be clear on what I said, I'm only truing to understand S G R's point of view. I actually agree with what you've been writing (what I've read of it anyway as I haven't read the thread all the way through from the start).

I think I left out some bits in the middle of the thread.

S G R wrote:The fact that you don’t know which article it is that proves your point demonstrates that you don’t have any evidence.

I have read many mutually-supporting scientific texts involving this. I don't need to read through any of those articles to convince yourself. And I don't feel it's worth it to waste so much time quoting the relevant passages in those references in this thread as I doubt you'll change your mind any time soon. I've seen your ridiculous assertions on the Free Will Challenge thread and your refusal to acknowledge Psychonaut's refutations.

S G R wrote:It wasn’t me who attempted to use the authority of a dictionary instead of actually making a point.

Before any meaningful discussion can take place, there needs to be a consensus on what words actually mean. A dictionary is a neutral authority.

S G R wrote:It is the lack of support and gravity which starts the boulder falling and the ground which stops the boulder – neither of these things are the boulder.

It is the presence of nutrients which and its metabolism which causes the bacterium to multiply. The metabolism arose after an as yet unknown complicated chemical reaction occurred between ribonucleic acids, proteins and their friends.

S G R wrote:Hume pointed out that there is no evidence – logical or otherwise – that demonstrates any relationship between cause and effect.

I read the wikipedia entry on Hume and did not see your alleged demonstration.

S G R wrote:Calculating programmes all.

That's precisely what choice is. A cost-benefit calculation in relation to some predefined goal.


[quote="S G R""]It’s called having an idea.[/quote]A redundant idea, because those words already have definitions. Here's a better idea: Make up your own words for your new definitions rather than taking pre-existing ones.

S G R wrote:Why don’t you try to be a bit more honest? You don’t believe that freewill exists so you think any definition is meaningless. Quite why you believe this is unclear.

Not every definition is meaningless. Here's a possible, somewhat meaningful one:

SkepticWiki wrote:Compatibilists Who Believe In Free Will
The argument may be presented as follows:
When Incompatibilists say that they have no free will, what they mean, in part, is that the state of their brain, or their mind, determines their choices. But this determination is exactly what I mean by the phrase "free will".

S G R wrote:Are people not allowed to have a different point of view to yours?

Sure they are; and I'm allowed to criticize and ridicule them for it.

S G R wrote:If you find that arguing with me makes you feel a bit thick that doesn’t mean that I am the one causing it.

I don't feel that. Even if I did, your claim would not be a disproof proof.

S G R wrote:

John wrote:I didn't change the terms, I introduced decision making into my definition if choice.

Imagine an earthworm burrowing through the ground. It bumps straight into a rock. Whichever direction it goes in next is the result of a choice but does not involve any mental decision making.

It's not really a choice in the way we would understand it as the worm really just reacts to its environment as isn't that dissimilar to the ball rolling down the hill and taking a path determined by its environment. It's not quite the same but it's not close enough to what we would call conscious decision making.

S G R wrote:

John wrote:You might as well attribute the choice to the coin as it's as capable as the bacteria.

Coins don’t do anything, bacteria are at the root of most living processes on earth.

You could make the same claim for carbon atoms.

S G R wrote:

John wrote:I disagree I can choose and I can decide, I can make a choice and I can make a decision. You can't just abandon one of them.

Why do you need to abandon either? I just think that choices and decisions are not the same thing.

I believe their interlinked but we'll maybe have to just disagree on that.

S G R wrote:

John wrote:I suspect that if I followed your definition and rolled a ball down a hill I would wrongly interpret the path it took, as the result of the influence of the landscape on it, as being a choice the ball has made.

Why? It is the landscape influencing the ball – not the ball.

What I meant was that it's sometimes not easy to see what the influences are so it's easy to wrongly interpret actions as free choices. That's what I believe you're doing with the bacteria as something that can't think can't make a choice.

S G R wrote:

John wrote:I'm still at a loss as to how you think non sentient things can make choices.

See earthworms above.

Ditto my response.

S G R wrote:

John wrote:I suspected as much.

Do you have some issue with this?

No, but it means that there's not much work to support the view beyond your opinions here so it makes it a lot harder for you to present such a radical view.

You're also inferring things from the behaviour of certain biological organisms and when you use the behaviour of earth worms to make a point my first thought is: what qualifies you to makes those statements? Are you a biologist or have some expertise in bacteriology?

S G R wrote:

John wrote:Would I be right in thinking that you view the bacteria as being different to the boulder because the bacteria is alive and can act, consciously or otherwise, in an independent fashion. I.e. it doesn't need someone to start it rolling down a hill?

If this is the case is it what leads you to claim that the bacteria has free will?

Yes and yes.

Ok, good. At least I understand where you're coming from now.

i blame blame wrote:

i blame blame wrote:Hume pointed out that there is no evidence – logical or otherwise – that demonstrates any relationship between cause and effect.

I read the wikipedia entry on Hume and did not see your alleged demonstration.

You're arguing with yourself

Don't you love it when quotes go wrong

Sorry, childish I know but I couldn't resist.

John wrote:
You're arguing with yourself

Don't you love it when quotes go wrong

Sorry, childish I know but I couldn't resist.

Why you punchin yourself? Why you punchin yourself?
This always happens when I respond to S G R. Usually I notice it when viewing the submitted post though.

You started out saying this:

i blame blame wrote:My view, which is based on scientific evidence is that bacteria don't make choices.

And now you say this:

i blame blame wrote:I don't need to read through any of those articles to convince yourself. And I don't feel it's worth it to waste so much time quoting the relevant passages in those references in this thread

Science by its nature is based upon reproducible evidence – if you can’t produce it then your original claim was bullshit.

i blame blame wrote:Before any meaningful discussion can take place, there needs to be a consensus on what words actually mean. A dictionary is a neutral authority.

More bullshit. Arguments from authority – whether you call them neutral or not – are fallacies.

i blame blame wrote:

S G R wrote:It is the lack of support and gravity which starts the boulder falling and the ground which stops the boulder – neither of these things are the boulder.

It is the presence of nutrients which and its metabolism which causes the bacterium to multiply. The metabolism arose after an as yet unknown complicated chemical reaction occurred between ribonucleic acids, proteins and their friends.

And again.
You couldn’t argue against what was said so you change the subject.

i blame blame wrote:

S G R wrote:Hume pointed out that there is no evidence – logical or otherwise – that demonstrates any relationship between cause and effect.

I read the wikipedia entry on Hume and did not see your alleged demonstration.

I keep on telling you that Wikipedia is not the font of all knowledge. If you want to know what Hume said you may have to look elsewhere.

i blame blame wrote:That's precisely what choice is. A cost-benefit calculation in relation to some predefined goal.

No, that is an aspect of value, the subject matter of ethics – premised upon freewill.

i blame blame wrote:A redundant idea, because those words already have definitions. Here's a better idea: Make up your own words for your new definitions rather than taking pre-existing ones.

So now you’re arguing from your own claim to authority – bullshit all the way down.

i blame blame wrote:Not every definition is meaningless. Here's a possible, somewhat meaningful one:

That’s quite funny because you didn’t finish the quote:

SkepticWiki wrote: When someone demands that in order for his will to be free, it must be free of his brain, his mind, or whatever he imagines instantiates his will, what he is asking is that his will should be so free that it's free of his will. He is chasing after a chimera.

You do realise that this argument applies to you? That it is your demand about the definition of freewill that is the chimera?

i blame blame wrote:Sure they are; and I'm allowed to criticize and ridicule them for it.

But your criticisms are based upon bullshit and your ridicule is ad hominem, another fallacy – bullshit upon bullshit.

i blame blame wrote:

S G R wrote:If you find that arguing with me makes you feel a bit thick that doesn’t mean that I am the one causing it.

I don't feel that.

Well maybe you should – given the evidence of what you’ve put forward here.

John wrote:It's not really a choice in the way we would understand it as the worm really just reacts to its environment as isn't that dissimilar to the ball rolling down the hill and taking a path determined by its environment.

Maybe I wasn’t quite clear. The earthworm is stopped by the rock. To me where it goes next is a choice – if a ball stops whilst rolling down a hill then that’s it, it stops, it isn’t going anywhere else.

John wrote:It's not quite the same but it's not close enough to what we would call conscious decision making.

I’m trying to distinguish between choices and decisions. The classic way of thinking about a choice is as a fork in the road. There may be sign posts and destinations and reasons why one would want to go in one direction rather than the other and all of this I would say was part of making a decision but one hasn’t made the choice until one takes either one fork or the other – it is the physical act which is the choice whereas the decision is about a mental process.

John wrote:

S G R wrote:

John wrote:You might as well attribute the choice to the coin as it's as capable as the bacteria.

Coins don’t do anything, bacteria are at the root of most living processes on earth.

You could make the same claim for carbon atoms.

What, that carbon atoms are like coins and don’t do anything? Organic chemistry is the result of life not life itself. Your DNA will still be in every one of your cells after you are dead.

John wrote:What I meant was that it's sometimes not easy to see what the influences are so it's easy to wrongly interpret actions as free choices.

I think you may be confusing philosophy with science. Within a philosophical example you can stipulate exactly what is going on. Then the statement can be tested by taking it to its logical conclusions. What are being tested are the concepts one is using not the physical reality of an event. Until the concepts have some logical rigour they cannot very well describe anything and one needs to be able to describe something before one can proceed to the science part of testing whether the description corresponds to reality.

John wrote:That's what I believe you're doing with the bacteria as something that can't think can't make a choice.

I guess what I am trying to do is propose that one looks at choice as a part of life rather than a part of thought. I believe this assertion gives a new insight into how things happen.

John wrote:You're also inferring things from the behaviour of certain biological organisms and when you use the behaviour of earth worms to make a point my first thought is: what qualifies you to makes those statements? Are you a biologist or have some expertise in bacteriology?

I can see your point and I do try quite hard to avoid making some sort of quasi-scientific claims to anything because, as I said above, I consider philosophy to be dealing with what needs to occur before one can go on to do scientific experiments and observations.

So in terms of earthworms or bacteria I’m just trying to conjure up a mental image. The earth worm could just as well be a root – when it meets a rock if it is to carry on growing it must also find a new direction to go in – I consider this too to be a choice.

Hello, SGR!

I see that you are busy debating free will again. Since we had a rather lengthy exchange on the subject a while ago in another thread, I'll post a link in case anybody is interested, and perhaps save you the trouble of explaining some of your rather peculiar views all over again:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=4573