Logical? Deism.

[Franko]

Tricky:
If you are in a serious mood, how about taking a few minutes to correct the list for us. I am trying very hard to capture your true meaning. I may differ with you in other places, but this one is on the up and up.

red light means stop, green light means go.

I am still waiting for you to explain what you mean when you claim that you have “free will” because you deterministically “choose” between “available options”.

Do you also believe that computer programs also have “free will” because computer programs determinstically “choose” between “available options”? If not, why not? Please precisely explain what is different?


CWLoser and Whitey, you can help him if you are up to it.

 

[CWL]

red light means stop, green light means go.

I am still waiting for you to explain what you mean when you claim that you have “free will” because you deterministically “choose” between “available options”.

Do you also believe that computer programs also have “free will” because computer programs determinstically “choose” between “available options”? If not, why not? Please precisely explain what is different?


CWLoser and Whitey, you can help him if you are up to it.

CWLoser here. Thank you for your approval of my participation, Wise One.

Well, I am afraid I shall have to smack old Tricky (just a little) on the fingers about this one. Although I agree 100 % with his definition of "free will", I believe that he has omitted to underline that "consciousness" is a necessary part of the recipy. Hence a more complete definition is:

The ability to make conscious choices between perceived and available options.

That takes care of your computer program dilemma, unless of course you believe that computer programs are "conscious".

 

[Franko]

Well, I am afraid I shall have to smack old Tricky (just a little) on the fingers about this one. Although I agree 100 % with his definition of "free will", I believe that he has omitted to underline that "consciousness" is a necessary part of the recipy. Hence a more complete definition is:

The ability to make conscious choices between perceived and available options.

That takes care of your computer program dilemma, unless of course you believe that computer programs are "conscious".

Hehe .. you really are retarded CWL.

Okay, so define consciousness. What is your evidence that YOU are conscious, and computers are not?

How does one recognize consciousness by your definition? In other words, how do you know that computers are not conscious?

Or is this just another of your hide-the-potato so you don't have to admit you are wrong games?

 

[Tricky]

red light means stop, green light means go.

I am still waiting for you to explain what you mean when you claim that you have “free will” because you deterministically “choose” between “available options”.

Do you also believe that computer programs also have “free will” because computer programs determinstically “choose” between “available options”? If not, why not? Please precisely explain what is different?

Chill, inqusitioner. I am not asking you anything other than, "Is this correct and not a straw man of your position?" I am not asking for proof or evidence or definitions (except to correct me if I have misrepresented you). I promise you, we'll discuss free will on other threads, but this one (supposedly) is about Logical Deism.

 

[CWL]

Hehe .. you really are retarded CWL.

More of that kindness and morality of Logical Deists I have heard so much about.

Okay, so define consciousness. What is your evidence that YOU are conscious, and computers are not?

How does one recognize consciousness by your definition? In other words, how do you know that computers are not conscious?

Cogito ergo sum takes care of my consciousness.

As to other computers being conscious - are you asking me to prove a negative? Or do you have any evidence that computers are conscious that you wish to discuss? That would be truly interesting.

Or is this just another of your hide-the-potato so you don't have to admit you are wrong games?

You say TLOP, I say potata.

Seriously, like Tricky suggests, let's leave the free will and consciousness banter for another thread and instead stick to the subject. So, "Logical" Deism you say... hmm... interesting...

 

[CWL]

I’m not kind to people who break into my house at night and try and rob me either!

Go figure.

So, what you are saying is that you equate burglars with people who do not agree with you. You live in an interesting world Franko.

 

[Franko]

I guess you aren't actually here to discuss RELIGION and PHILSOPHY CWL. It seems very apparent that you are here solely to preach the "virtues" of your pathetic little Cult of pessimism. Otherwise you would address the points of posts instead of spouting off your Woo-woo gospel of logical fallacies and obfuscation.

CryingWhineyLoser:
More of that kindness and morality of Logical Deists I have heard so much about.

I’m not kind to people who break into my house at night and try and rob me either!

Go figure.

Franko:
Okay, so define consciousness. What is your evidence that YOU are conscious, and computers are not?

How does one recognize consciousness by your definition? In other words, how do you know that computers are not conscious?

CWLoser:
Cogito ergo sum takes care of my consciousness.

Define “think” CWL, otherwise you aren’t saying much of anything. (surprise, surprise)

CWLoser:
As to other computers being conscious - are you asking me to prove a negative?

No, you CLAIMED that YOU are conscious and computers are not. That isn’t a PROOF, it is just a CLAIM.

Either you have evidence for this belief, or it is simply another example of your wishful thinking in order to preserve your precious religious dogma.

What characteristic or ability leads you to conclude that YOU have “free will”, and computer do not? In other words, what is your empirical evidence (how can I replicate your train of thought) that You have “free will” and computers do not have “free will”?

Or do you have any evidence that computers are conscious that you wish to discuss? That would be truly interesting.

YOU are the one who claimed that YOU were conscious and computers were not. What is your reason for believing this (other than it would contradict your already contradictory position on “free will”?)

You say TLOP, I say potata.

TLOP (God) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.

If TLOP is controlling your destiny in an analogous fashion to the way YOU control CAR, then why isn’t TLOP similarly more conscious then YOU the way you are more conscious then CAR?

Who “chose” the color of your CAR?
Who “chose” the color of your Hair?

Who “chose” the make and model of your CAR?
Who “chose” that you would be a Human living in this time period as a Male?

Who “determines” your destination when you drive your CAR? YOU or CAR?
Who “determines” the direction your life will go (destination) in this Universe? Doesn’t TLOP decide ALL of the crucial factors that make you YOU? How many things happen to you that seem purely the result of chance (TLOP)? It looks to me like TLOP determines your destination far more than YOU do.

In short, I hear a CAR claiming to be more conscious then his DRIVER (TLOP).

 

[wraith]

I believe that he has omitted to underline that "consciousness" is a necessary part of the recipy. Hence a more complete definition is:

The ability to make conscious choices between perceived and available options.

That takes care of your computer program dilemma, unless of course you believe that computer programs are "conscious".

by that definition, all that you have done is shown that you are conscious when you make a decision...you perceive it

this, in no way, supports your free-willy god

 

[CWL]

by that definition, all that you have done is shown that you are conscious when you make a decision...you perceive it

this, in no way, supports your free-willy god

Define my "free-willy god".

 

[wraith]

Define my "free-willy god".

ahhh why dont you describe it

 

[CWL]

ahhh why dont you describe it

I don't believe in any god, with or without willy (free or otherwise).

I do however perceive myself making conscious choices between perceived and available options on a daily basis. This perception leads me to assume - and I think it is fairly reasonable to do so - that I, well, make conscious choices between perceived and available options! Whether or not this can be defined as a "free willy god" I leave up to you as the expert on the god stuff. Personally I see no reason to place any metaphysical label on such a simple observation.

 

[wraith]

I do however perceive myself making conscious choices between perceived and available options on a daily basis. This perception leads me to assume - and I think it is fairly reasonable to do so - that I, well, make conscious choices between perceived and available options! Whether or not this can be defined as a "free willy god" I leave up to you as the expert on the god stuff. Personally I see no reason to place any metaphysical label on such a simple observation.

You say that you perceive your "choices"...
you dont actually "choose" anything...

You see an open flame for the first time, you touch it and get burnt...you didnt like this feeling of being burnt...

You see another open flame and you dont want to get burnt again. The "choice" of touching the flame again isnt really a choice because you will NOT "choose" to touch the flame again...

 

[CWL]

You say that you perceive your "choices"...
you dont actually "choose" anything...

You see an open flame for the first time, you touch it and get burnt...you didnt like this feeling of being burnt...

You see another open flame and you dont want to get burnt again. The "choice" of touching the flame again isnt really a choice because you will NOT "choose" to touch the flame again...

Au contraire, mon ami logique. It is a choice because I will choose not to touch the flame again.

The above is not only a more legible sentence, but also a more accurate description of reality.

 

[Tricky]

by that definition, all that you have done is shown that you are conscious when you make a decision...you perceive it

OH WOW! A VALID POINT! I have been arguing with CWL that adding the word "conscious" to the definition of free will is unnecessary. I think that the ability to perceive indicates consciousness. We're gonna settle the issue with a wrasslin' match.

this, in no way, supports your free-willy god

Uh oh. Your streak stopped at one. If free will is the ability to choose, then showing the ability to choose (as you have kindly done for us) is evidence of free will. If you say it was not a choice, well, that's gonna take some provin'. And no, repeating your claim is not evidence.

Oh yes, and like CWL says, the only persons who have claimed the existence of a "free-willy god" are you and Franko. I have no idea what you mean by that. Would you care to define it?

 

[CWL]

OH WOW! A VALID POINT! I have been arguing with CWL that adding the word "conscious" to the definition of free will is unnecessary. I think that the ability to perceive indicates consciousness. We're gonna settle the issue with a wrasslin' match.

Yea, yea... I see the damn point.

Finger smacking statement is hereby retracted.

My only defense is that it doesn't hurt to be over-explicit in this debate - and the point is still valid. The fact that a computer isn't conscious - that it cannot perceive the options - makes all the difference.

 

[Rosetta Stone]

An advantage to being a stone is that you experience time in a more attenuated way. In fine, you have more of it.

From a stone-age point of view:

No they acquired Spin and Charge as soon as Mass and Velocity were split. Basically Spin is quality of Mass, and Charge is quality of Velocity.

Implying that mass and velocity may exist without one another.

Ponder the concept of massless velocity. Something that has no mass - a photon for example - will then have a charge - it will charge ahead with as much velocity as it can. Very fast. Maybe as fast as light can go. If it has no charge, then it will just sit there, and it will have no velocity. So it charges. vroom. vroom. Like a Harley VROD.

Now there's the velocity-less mass. I can understand that one because I have mass and I'm trapped in this case, so I have no velocity. But I spin, because the planet is spinning. Spin, spin, spin. Think of the girl in Rumplestiltskin. She was not able to spin, so Rumplestiltskin had to spin for her. Someone always has to spin. Sometimes that someone is in a glass case. They spin glass. You've seen spun glass. Spinning merrily away.

Now, my weighty discourse has spun its way to the conclusion of part one.

I will charge ahead later.

Rosetta.

 

[Franko]

CWLoser (A-Theist)

So are you waffling on “free will” now CWL? You almost sound like you are trying to concede???

I do however perceive myself making conscious choices between perceived and available options on a daily basis.

What makes you believe you actually have an “option”?

How often do you run a red light for NO REASON CWL? If you NEVER do it, is it really an “option”? How so?

This perception leads me to assume …

So your “assumptions” are now empirical evidence? I recently talked to someone who “assumes” that John Edwards can talk to dead people. Do you also consider this empirical evidence that John Edwards really can talk to dead people?

… and I think it is fairly reasonable to do so - that I, well, make conscious choices between perceived and available options!

Did you get to make a conscious “choice” when you selected who your parents would be? Did you get to make a conscious “choice” when you selected who your hair color, or how tall you would be? Did you get to make a conscious “choice” when you selected when and where you would be born? Aren’t all of those things MAJOR factors in who and what you are (what you became?)

Since you obviously didn’t get to “choose” any of these “available options” what makes you assume that you get to “choose” ANY “available options”?

Aren’t the laws of Physics making all of the decisions for you CWL? Or are you once again claiming that YOUR MIND controls the Laws of Physics (TLOP)?

Whether or not this can be defined as a "free willy god" I leave up to you as the expert on the god stuff. Personally I see no reason to place any metaphysical label on such a simple observation.

Either your behavior is FATED by a set of predetermined Laws or it is not. If you are claiming that it is NOT, then the burden is on YOU to explain what you mean, and provide your evidence for believing this.

 

[CWL]

CWLoser (A-Theist)

Franko (2nd level Hobbit binman and The-Ist)

I do prefer it when you post as Wraith. The experience is way more pleasant. Why is it that you always become so unpleasant later in the day? The Laws of Physics demand so? Maybe you are afraid your employer wouldn't like the rudeness you spout out using your Franko persona?

So are you waffling on “free will” now CWL? You almost sound like you are trying to concede???

Concede what? In relation to your ramblings about a "free willy god"? I don't even know what a "free willy god" is. Perhaps you would care to explain.

What makes you believe you actually have an “option”?

Are you seriously claiming I could not have abstained from having fries with my burger today? I do somtimes you know. Does my "algorithm" change over time - or maybe the laws of physics do?

How often do you run a red light for NO REASON CWL? If you NEVER do it, is it really an “option”? How so?

Why should I - a thinking, conscious being - choose to do things "for no reason"? Of course most choices based on (some sort of) reason! However this only indicates that certain choices are more probable than others, not that they are preditermined. It certainly does not prove the latter.

So your “assumptions” are now empirical evidence? I recently talked to someone who “assumes” that John Edwards can talk to dead people. Do you also consider this empirical evidence that John Edwards really can talk to dead people?

"Assumptions" are not empirical evidence (nor has this been implied). "Perceptions" and "observations", however are (by definition).

Did you get to make a conscious “choice” when you selected who your parents would be? Did you get to make a conscious “choice” when you selected who your hair color, or how tall you would be? Did you get to make a conscious “choice” when you selected when and where you would be born? Aren’t all of those things MAJOR factors in who and what you are (what you became?)

How were any options in relation to the above available to me? How were any options perceived? I did not even exist as far as I know. How could I have chosen? Your examples are obvious false dilemmas (and you are well aware of it).

Since you obviously didn’t get to “choose” any of these “available options” what makes you assume that you get to “choose” ANY “available options”?

False dilemma. Your argument is irrelevant.

Aren’t the laws of Physics making all of the decisions for you CWL? Or are you once again claiming that YOUR MIND controls the Laws of Physics (TLOP)?

Funny, I don't remember ever making such a claim.

As to your question, are you asking me to prove that TLOP is not making all the choices for me? You seem very fond of asking people to prove negative assertions. May I recommend that you have look at this thread? You might learn something.

Either your behavior is FATED by a set of predetermined Laws or it is not. If you are claiming that it is NOT, then the burden is on YOU to explain what you mean, and provide your evidence for believing this.

Why is "behaviour FATED" the default position? If it is not, then the burden of proof might as well be on you to provide your evidence for believing that everything is preordained. Why should this be assumed?

 

[Franko]

I do prefer it when you post as Wraith. The experience is way more pleasant.

Yeah, I like the Wraith too.

Why is it that you always become so unpleasant later in the day? The Laws of Physics demand so?

From your POV … Yes.

Maybe you are afraid your employer wouldn't like the rudeness you spout out using your Franko persona?

Jeez – She is always telling me I’m not ruthless enough!

Concede what? In relation to your ramblings about a "free willy god"? I don't even know what a "free willy god" is. Perhaps you would care to explain.

See, it sounds like you are conceding.

So do you still believe you have “free will” CWL, or do you believe that your actions are preordained by the deterministic laws of physics?

Franko:
What makes you believe you actually have an “option”?

CWL:
Are you seriously claiming I could not have abstained from having fries with my burger today?

If you could have then why didn’t you?

Are you seriously claiming that you could have abstained from being born to the parents you were born with?

Could you have abstained from being born in Europe?

I do somtimes you know [abstained from having fries].

Yeah, and I bet you have a reason (internally logical) for doing so.

Does my "algorithm" change over time - or maybe the laws of physics do?

So long as you are conscious you are constantly receiving (new) information from the LG (TLOP to you). This information goes into your database (your memory). Over time it can effect alterations to your algorithm itself (the way your algorithm functions).

Once upon a time you couldn’t speak English. You acquired more and more information, your algorithm was altered, now you speak English. Your algorithm has been enhanced. You possess an ability that you did not possess before. You possess this ability because over time you made the English language logical in your own mind. You comprehend it.

Franko:
How often do you run a red light for NO REASON CWL? If you NEVER do it, is it really an “option”? How so?

CWL:
Why should I - a thinking, conscious being - choose to do things "for no reason"?

If indeterminism were True that is EXACTLY what you would expect – Things would happen for no logical reason.

Of course most choices based on (some sort of) reason!

Give me an example of a “choice” that is NOT based on (some sort of) reason???

You are the one claiming that such “choices” exist. I see no evidence for this. I lack-o-belief in what you believe.

However this only indicates that certain choices are more probable than others, not that they are predetermined. It certainly does not prove the latter.

Clearly you haven’t thought about this much. Are you claiming that your mother and father are not really your mother and father, and that in fact they are only probably your mother and father?

Franko:
So your “assumptions” are now empirical evidence? I recently talked to someone who “assumes” that John Edwards can talk to dead people. Do you also consider this empirical evidence that John Edwards really can talk to dead people?

CWL:
"Assumptions" are not empirical evidence (nor has this been implied). "Perceptions" and "observations", however are (by definition).

You really are credulous CWL. This person I talked to said that they “Perceived” and “Observed” John Edwards talking to dead people. I guess that means you believe that there is empirical evidence that John Edwards can talk to dead people?

Franko:
Did you get to make a conscious “choice” when you selected who your parents would be? Did you get to make a conscious “choice” when you selected who your hair color, or how tall you would be? Did you get to make a conscious “choice” when you selected when and where you would be born? Aren’t all of those things MAJOR factors in who and what you are (what you became?)

CWL:
How were any options in relation to the above available to me?

That’s my point. What makes you believe that ANY options are EVER available to YOU? You certainly don’t have ANY EVIDENCE that you ever have any options. All of the EVIDENCE says that You DON’T have any options.

How were any options perceived? I did not even exist as far as I know.

You may not exist now. Maybe Yatzi is correct and your consciousness is just an illusion. TLOP is really controlling EVERYTHING – including you and your “choices”.

How could I have chosen?

Once again – You can’t and You don’t. So how does this support your magical notion of “free will” and “choosing” between “available options”? Face reality CWL you are nothing more than a Deterministic Algorithm. You have no evidence to the contrary. You just can’t accept the idea, and Truth is not a priority for you.

Your examples are obvious false dilemmas (and you are well aware of it).

1) How are they False dilemmas (specifically)? They just prove you are wrong, so you want to ignore the evidence in favor of your mysticism.
2) How do you know what I am “well aware of”? Let me guess, you are using your magic mind reading powers again?

I don’t believe in “free will” CWL, no matter how desperately you and the other A-Theists want to believe that I do.

Franko:
Since you obviously didn’t get to “choose” any of these “available options” what makes you assume that you get to “choose” ANY “available options”?

CWL:
False dilemma. Your argument is irrelevant.

Is that what you call addressing a point A-Theist? It looks like you dodging and hiding.

I could care less, anyone reading along will be able to decide for themselves.

Franko:
Aren’t the laws of Physics making all of the decisions for you CWL? Or are you once again claiming that YOUR MIND controls the Laws of Physics (TLOP)?

CWL:
Funny, I don't remember ever making such a claim.

Yeah, but honesty has never been an A-Theist strong point, and that is especially True for You CWLiar.

What are you claiming?

Either TLOP controls YOU, or it does not (or possibly You control TLOP). Instead of trying to hide your belief (shame?) why don’t you just state what it is? Are you embarrassed by your own beliefs CWL?

As to your question, are you asking me to prove that TLOP is not making all the choices for me?

I am asking you if you believe that TLOP controls YOU, or YOU control TLOP, or some other option? Please be as specific as possible.

You seem very fond of asking people to prove negative assertions.

You have claimed that you possess “free will”. You have claimed that YOU do NOT obey TLOP. Do you still make these claims? How is asking you to prove the very claims YOU have made asking you to prove a negative?

You are the one who seems to think that I have to prove “free will” does not exist – that is proving a negative.

May I recommend that you have look at this thread? You might learn something.

Yeah, and may I recommend you kiss my ass.

Franko:
Either your behavior is FATED by a set of predetermined Laws or it is not. If you are claiming that it is NOT, then the burden is on YOU to explain what you mean, and provide your evidence for believing this.

CWL:
Why is "behaviour FATED" the default position?

Because I believe that the Universe is logical and objective.

In a logical and objective reality things happen for logical and objective reasons – not magically – like you believe.

If it is not, then the burden of proof might as well be on you to provide your evidence for believing that everything is preordained. Why should this be assumed?

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
You obey TLOP.

What scientific evidence do you have that says this is not true?

 

[Tricky]

Speaking of Wraith, I asked him if he was not in fact composed of other things besides atoms, specifically a graviton. He answered:

yes, thats right about the Graviton, but lets say that the Graviton is "dreaming"....and in this "dreamworld" there is only "dreamworld matter"....

so I am correct when I say "we are made of atoms"

Is "dreamworld matter" a part of the Logical Deism TOE? Can you elaborate?