Philosophy Now Forum

this is to define a man as different from not only machines but also all the other animals

Yep.

I urge you to think again.

I eat animals, B. I hunt, shoot, dress & clean, cook, and eat animals, B.

I have no intention of rethinkin' diddly.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 3:38 pm

1 Only physical objects can interact with physical objects.

And yet information, which we both agree is immaterial, regularly interacts with the material or physical.

Obviously, I firmly reject the notion that immaterial information can interact with matter.

2 All such interactions are governed by the four fundamental forces of nature.

According to the standard model (which has holes), yes.

3 If free will is not physical, it cannot cause ions, neurotransmitters, and other atoms and molecules to move and thus trigger nerve signals and actions.

And yet, as I say, information, which we both agree is immaterial, regularly interacts with the material or physical.

Again, I reject categorically the notion that information can interact with matter.

4 If will is physical, it is subject to the laws of physics and is not free.

I agree.

Well, that did narrow it down a lot. The big question now is whether or not a fifth force has yet to be found. You are implying that such an undiscovered force exists, and that it is an interaction between things that are not physical and things that are. Obviously, all known forces only work between physical things with similar properties. For example, gravity only works between things that have mass. Electromagnetism only works between things that both have an electric charge.
In spite of the fact that you find speculation intriguing, I find it boring if not unsettling. I make an effort to base my judgments on available evidence. And I take great delight in the fact that our current evidence explains why there is no free will elegantly and to my satisfaction.

I firmly reject the notion that immaterial information can interact with matter.

This conversation would be impossible if information didn't interact with the physical.

I find it boring

Ain't nuthin' keepin' you here: you choose to participate.

our current evidence explains why there is no free will elegantly and to my satisfaction.

It really doesn't but -- if you're satisfied with it -- there isn't much more to say.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 5:03 pm

I firmly reject the notion that immaterial information can interact with matter.

This conversation would be impossible if information didn't interact with the physical.

How? By your made-up fifth force, may I ask?

I find it boring

Ain't nuthin' keepin' you here: you choose to participate.

True. I won't be sticking around nearly long enough to come close to matching your almost 13,000 posts, that's for sure.

our current evidence explains why there is no free will elegantly and to my satisfaction.

It really doesn't but -- if you're satisfied with it -- there isn't much more to say.

It appears that only your voodoo power is preventing you from seeing the truth. You basically got 3 out of 4 correct. So sad.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 11:14 am In either case there is no free will. The real challenge is how to deal with it.

Compatibilism in a nutshell?

You have no free will! So deal with it!!

Now, sure, this may all revolve around my own inability to grasp the argument of the compatibilists. Or, perhaps, around how words like determinism and free will and compatibilism are defined? As though how we define things in and of itself is not embedded in this...

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?

Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.

Meanwhile, philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with this profound mystery now for thousands of years.

Either in the only possible reality in the only possible world or of their own volition.

Again, though, let's bring this back to Mary above.

She's pregnant and doesn't want to be. She chooses an abortion.

If she has no free will as BigMike understands it, how can how she deals with it not in turn be the only possible manner in which she could have dealt with it?

What crucial point -- that I was never able not to grasp? -- do I keep missing here?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 6:08 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 11:14 am In either case there is no free will. The real challenge is how to deal with it.

Compatibilism in a nutshell?

Certainly not! I believe myself to be an uncompromising determinist.

You have no free will! So deal with it!!

I agree. No one has free will. What I meant about dealing with it, was that lack of free will has consequences. One such consequence, of course, is that there can be no moral responsibility.
Since our communities and legal systems are predicated on the existence of free will, they require extensive overhaul. Unless we are content with burying our heads in the sand like ostriches, of course, which I am not.

Now, sure, this may all revolve around my own inability to grasp the argument of the compatibilists. Or, perhaps, around how words like determinism and free will and compatibilism are defined? As though how we define things in and of itself is not embedded in this...

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?

Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.

Meanwhile, philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with this profound mystery now for thousands of years.

Either in the only possible reality in the only possible world or of their own volition.

Again, though, let's bring this back to Mary above.

She's pregnant and doesn't want to be. She chooses an abortion.

If she has no free will as BigMike understands it, how can how she deals with it not in turn be the only possible manner in which she could have dealt with it?

What crucial point -- that I was never able not to grasp? -- do I keep missing here?

I'm not certain I fully comprehend your question regarding Mary. Regardless, I am of the opinion that she cannot do anything different. In the words of Arthur Schopenhauer, "You can do what you will, but in any given moment of your life, you can will only one definite thing and absolutely nothing other than that one thing."

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 3:45 pm

this is to define a man as different from not only machines but also all the other animals

Yep.

I urge you to think again.

I eat animals, B. I hunt, shoot, dress & clean, cook, and eat animals, B.

I have no intention of rethinkin' diddly.

You are not deliberately cruel though.You know the animals have feelings.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 8:40 pmYou are not deliberately cruel though.You know the animals have feelings.

No, I don't out of my way to cause pain, but I'm not exactly shyin' away from causin' pain either.

A few years back we had a local problem with foxes. There's a whack of undeveloped woodlands around and the fox population got too big. They were comin' into town, killin' small livestock, pets, and generally bein' a nuisance. Locals, includin' me, spent a few nights shootin' 'em (it was easy...wait till the late evening or early morning then follow the yips).

I can't say I spent too much time wonderin' about the pain my shot was causin', or how any of the foxes felt when my shot tore holes in 'em.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 5:40 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 5:03 pm

I firmly reject the notion that immaterial information can interact with matter.

This conversation would be impossible if information didn't interact with the physical.

How? By your made-up fifth force, may I ask?

This is your contention: information is immaterial; the immaterial cannot interact with the physical. You may phrase it otherwise but that's the information you want to convey.

The notion, the idea, the thought, the conclusion (no doubt reached after much research), the information -- information is immaterial; the immaterial cannot interact with the physical -- is in your brain. How do you convey this immaterial thing to me? You use language, itself information, to transmit it. You use symbols we agree have certain meanings when arranged in certain ways (according to rules which are even more information). You recreate the symbols that are in your brain (more information) as physical representations (with ink on paper, with your finger in the sand, as a hand carved wooden placard, or as photons comin' out of diodes) essentially packaging the information -- information is immaterial; the immaterial cannot interact with the physical -- so I can get it.

From you to me: the chain of conveyin' information is immaterial; the immaterial cannot interact with the physical is nuthin' but information (the immaterial) interactin' with the physical (your brain, your body, the medium you use, my body, my brain).

In particular: note the medium is unimportant. You, as I say, can use ink & paper, sand, carved wood, light, or sky writing or sound or, well, you get the idea. It doesn't matter what the nature of the packagin' is, only that it conforms, in form, to the symbols which convey the information. In other words: the immaterial dictates the pattern or structure of the material.

Sure does, to me, seem like there's a whole whack of interactin' goin' on between immaterial and material.

If you have an alternate way of describin' how you convey information is immaterial; the immaterial cannot interact with the physical to me that doesn't involve the immaterial interactin' with the material (information interactin' with the physical), I'd like to read it.

I'm relieved that the question has been reduced to whether the immaterial can interact with the material. "Atoms push the mind around, but the mind can't push atoms around" is one common way to say this.

As we all should know by now, atoms can only be pushed by applying force. Sir Isaac Newton told us this in 1687 with his first law of motion: "An object at rest remains at rest, or if in motion, remains in motion at a constant velocity unless acted on by a net external force." The four fundamental forces of nature—gravitation, electromagnetism, and the two nuclear forces—are the only ones capable of accomplishing that. "Willpower" isn't a force! It isn't even power.

We can't talk about things like information that are derived from other things until we know what those other things are.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 08, 2022 1:22 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 5:40 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 5:03 pm
This conversation would be impossible if information didn't interact with the physical.

How? By your made-up fifth force, may I ask?

This is your contention: information is immaterial; the immaterial cannot interact with the physical. You may phrase it otherwise but that's the information you want to convey.

I think I said that information has two parts: syntax and semantics. The syntax is physical/material; the ink on the page. The pages with ink-written symbols are intended to convey what they mean (the semantics). This means that the person who gets it has to unpack it and compare it to other things he has learned in his life for it to make sense to him. The semantics can't be communicated because it can't interact with anything physical, like your brain. Only the physical symbols and the way the light bounces off the pages and stimulates the photosensitive nerves in your eyes can do that. Semantics are assembled in the receiver's mind; they are not communicated, they can't be.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 08, 2022 1:22 am

From you to me: the chain of conveyin' information is immaterial; the immaterial cannot interact with the physical is nuthin' but information (the immaterial) interactin' with the physical (your brain, your body, the medium you use, my body, my brain).

As I attempted to explain in a previous response, information is comprised of two components: syntax and semantics. Syntax is physical, semantics is not. When I specify immaterial information I'm referring to semantics. The part of the information that does interact, because it is physical, is the syntax.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 08, 2022 1:22 am

In particular: note the medium is unimportant. You, as I say, can use ink & paper, sand, carved wood, light, or sky writing or sound or, well, you get the idea. It doesn't matter what the nature of the packagin' is, only that it conforms, in form, to the symbols which convey the information. In other words: the immaterial dictates the pattern or structure of the material.
Sure does, to me, seem like there's a whole whack of interactin' goin' on between immaterial and material.

The choice of medium to convey the syntax may not be important, but unless it is physically conveyed it will not be received, obviously. But the meaning of the message, however, can never be conveyed; it is created (hopefully correctly re-created) in the mind of the receiver.

But to wrap up this lengthy response: Is it correct to assume that you think a fifth force is somehow involved? Do you really think that "the mind can push atoms around"? I ask because you seem to claim that free will and "information" can interact with matter, but you are unclear as to which forces are involved. Are you claiming that I can telepathically transmit to objects my grasp of what something means in some psychokinetic way? I'd like you to be more specific and less gobbledygook in your answer.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 08, 2022 12:50 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 8:40 pmYou are not deliberately cruel though.You know the animals have feelings.

No, I don't out of my way to cause pain, but I'm not exactly shyin' away from causin' pain either.

A few years back we had a local problem with foxes. There's a whack of undeveloped woodlands around and the fox population got too big. They were comin' into town, killin' small livestock, pets, and generally bein' a nuisance. Locals, includin' me, spent a few nights shootin' 'em (it was easy...wait till the late evening or early morning then follow the yips).

I can't say I spent too much time wonderin' about the pain my shot was causin', or how any of the foxes felt when my shot tore holes in 'em.

If control of foxes were properly regulated the only people licensed to shoot them would be expert shots. No matter how rurally isolated your community is, it should have has access to expert and licensed shots. The shot should be able 100% to hit the animal in its head or its heart.

Dom,

I'm gonna try this one last time...

You go to the beach and with an index finger inscribe in the sand free will is bunkum. The syntax (material) are the shapes you've made in sand. The semantics (immaterial) is the information.

The syntax is dictated by the semantics. If you mean to say free will is bunkum then you won't inscribe in the sand free will is the tops.

Clearly, the semantics (immaterial) is interacting with the syntax (the material).

B,

The shot should be able 100% to hit the animal in its head or its heart.

Even on a range, the best marksman won't score 100%.

In the dark, with only a hand-light, with moving targets, no one will make head or heart shots.

It's just not possible.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 08, 2022 5:11 pm Dom,

I'm gonna try this one last time...

You go to the beach and with an index finger inscribe in the sand free will is bunkum. The syntax (material) are the shapes you've made in sand. The semantics (immaterial) is the information.

The syntax is dictated by the semantics. If you mean to say free will is bunkum then you won't inscribe in the sand free will is the tops.

Clearly, the semantics (immaterial) is interacting with the syntax (the material).

Never mind, Henry. You still cannot utter the words, can you? I'll nevertheless presume that your response is affirmative and that you have no idea how your voodoo spirit generates gravity or electricity, and I'll leave it at that - as garbage.

As you like, Dom.