Philosophy Now Forum

ughaibu wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:No. The ass must encounter the bails one after the other.

We could offer the ass a choice between a small pile of rotting hay that it can reach by walking over a field of sharp stones and a large pile of fresh hay immediately to hand, but there wouldn't be much interest in such a question. Likewise, restating the conditions so that the question varies only as a matter of degree, from the above, is to change an interesting question into an uninteresting one. So, you either engage with the interesting question or you dont engage at all, as uninteresting questions aren't, you know, interesting.
Besides which, your contention is false. The ass can be trained to recognise certain coloured boxes as containers of specified amounts of hay. It can be wheeled on in a contraption which keeps its head pointing equally at both boxes, etc.

chaz wyman wrote:. . . . the case is clearly made for determinism.
Case Closed!

ughaibu wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:. . . . the case is clearly made for determinism.
Case Closed!

Nothing brought up so far, on this thread, supports belief in the reality of determinism.

chaz wyman wrote:If you had actually read the whole thread you would know that my posts answered in favour of determinism.

ughaibu wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:If you had actually read the whole thread you would know that my posts answered in favour of determinism.

I have read the thread and your claim is false.

The way I reasoned this conundrum is that the ass looks to the left and to the right and back to the left and so on.
The casual factor for which one to pick starts in equilibrium, but already we know that the ass is considered first one then the other. Another casual factor increases in intensity: the anticipation of his hunger, and this grow stronger with each moment. As the ass look back and forth the hunger reaches a tipping point. It is a matter of no consequence which the ass chooses. It chooses the one it happens to be considering when the power of the causality that the hunger is pressing to the point of no return.
In a sense this moment is seemingly random to an observer, but is nonetheless determined by the moment in time that the right factors come into play. The stupid ass thinks he has made a free choice where in fact his choice is caused by his hunger.

In computer terms a loop is created where the left and right variable for the food alternates. In the middle of the loop is a conmditional. If hunger > x then eat.

1 if look = right then look = left goto 3
2 if look = left then look = right
3 Let hunger =hunger +1
4 if hunger > 75 eat the hay "look"
5 goto 1

chaz wyman wrote:Show me how this does not favour determinism!

ughaibu wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:Show me how this does not favour determinism!

There's no particular way in which it doesn't support realism about determinism, it just doesn't, at all. In order to support determinism you will need an argument.

chaz wyman wrote:

ughaibu wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:Show me how this does not favour determinism!

There's no particular way in which it doesn't support realism about determinism, it just doesn't, at all. In order to support determinism you will need an argument.

THen I suggest you find one in your arse-hole!
Because you have offered fuck all to this Forum, so far.

ughaibu wrote:Still no support for realism about determinism, so far, on this thread.

chaz wyman wrote:

ughaibu wrote:Still no support for realism about determinism, so far, on this thread.

If you think you are so qualified to judge, then why can't we hear your argument?
Put up or shut up!

ughaibu wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

ughaibu wrote:Still no support for realism about determinism, so far, on this thread.

If you think you are so qualified to judge, then why can't we hear your argument?
Put up or shut up!

If you post an argument, I'll give you a crit. But if you dont, then there's nothing for me to respond to.

chaz wyman wrote:Either you post your own or fuck off!

chaz wyman wrote:

ntadepalli wrote:[My thinking on self-adaptation :

* Self-adaptation is adaptation to social environment achieved through

changes in self.
* All influences involved in decision making are inputs to neuronal

processes of brain.The competing processes bring out the outcome

decision.
* If it is foreseen that this decision has undesirable consequences then
self-adaptation arises as an option.Self-adaptation is not easy either.

Now the choice is between earlier determined decision (with undesirable
anticipations) and the present option of self-adptation.
* The choice is just either-or deliberation based,not on causes but on

anticiations.

So whatever may be the choice,the consideration of self- adaptation as an

option makes the choice free.

OR not.

Neuro-science has shown that decisions are made by the brain before a conscious choice has been registered.

ntadepalli wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:Neuro-science has shown that decisions are made by the brain before a conscious choice has been registered.

What science says is true.

ntadepalli wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

ntadepalli wrote:[My thinking on self-adaptation :

* Self-adaptation is adaptation to social environment achieved through

changes in self.
* All influences involved in decision making are inputs to neuronal

processes of brain.The competing processes bring out the outcome

decision.
* If it is foreseen that this decision has undesirable consequences then
self-adaptation arises as an option.Self-adaptation is not easy either.

Now the choice is between earlier determined decision (with undesirable
anticipations) and the present option of self-adptation.
* The choice is just either-or deliberation based,not on causes but on

anticiations.

So whatever may be the choice,the consideration of self- adaptation as an

option makes the choice free.

OR not.

Neuro-science has shown that decisions are made by the brain before a conscious choice has been registered.

What science says is true.

My general question is whether random selection by any machine amounts to
its free will.