Logical? Deism.

[wraith]

I knew this blind guy ... He would flip a coin, have you call it in the air, catch it on the back of his hand, and he would tell you if you had called it correctly or not.

He could "see" which way the coin had landed the instant he caught it by feeling which side landed up, and which side was facing down.

WOAH...
now that too would impress the ladies

 

[wraith]

wraith says: If you dont like getting burnt, and you saw an open flame, how is it possible that youre going to "choose" to touch it again?

Trix: And yet, people do. Ever hear of G. Gordon Liddy?

Sure they do...but it would have to depend on their reasoning at the time...
and what about this G. Gordon Liddy character?

Nope. I haven't missed it at all. I understand exactly what you are saying, and I think you are wrong.

Coming from a person that said that toast was more complex than a human.....im pretty sure that you didnt get my point

wraith says: If you dont like getting burnt, and you saw an open flame, how is it possible that youre going to "choose" to touch it again?

Trix: I can think of lots of scenarios where this might happen. I imagine you can too. There is nothing in TLOP that prohibit you from touching the flame again.

Yes, but if I did touch the flame again, it was because that I perceived a benefit in doing so...

Actually what you are personifying is your straw man. You have so far never accurately portrayed my beliefs. Hint: One of the main things I believe is that there is no such thing as magic. I do not believe free will is magic, but rather is required by TLOP.

So the universe just sprung from the darkness willy nilly?
The present is not based on the past? (aka free-will/magic)

that Trix is magic

"Dream matter" on the other hand, sounds pretty darn magic to me, almost as if something becomes real because you dream it, like in a bad horror movie.

"dream matter" is energy aka this universe

Well then, if "dream world matter" is this universe, then atoms are "dream world matter" too, being part of this universe. So now we have that both atoms and gravitons are "dream world matter" and both are part of the universe. This means that premise 2 of the syllogism is incorrect. It should read:

You are made of atoms and other things

This is how you perceieve this universe. Youre made of atoms...

One of those other things (according to you) is a graviton. Do gravitons obey the laws of physics? No they do not, at least the way they have been described by Logical Deists. I can show you examples if you wish, or just look at The List.

In other words, do they behave logically?

Now you are made of things, some of which obey the laws of physics and some of which do not. Therefore, even ignoring the fallacy of composition, you cannot logically say humans obey the laws of physics.

Which things are they that do not obey TLOP?

 

[CWL]

Clearly false? Which part?

Are you not of the opinion that you are conscious?

How about Atoms are conscious, You are made of atoms, You are conscious.

Well, sure (besides the fact that this is also subject to the Fallacy of Composition, but that is way beside the point). But do we have any indication (whatsoever) that atoms are conscious? Wouldn't that be a reasonable requirement for the assumption according to the first premise?

What is clear, did you say, other than from an anthropomorphic human view, and why is that view justified?

Again, are you disputing that you are conscious? Which other view, besides the anthropomorfic view do you suggest? It seems to me that what we are really discussing is what should constitute valid "knowledge".

Not really. Look at a NA+ & a CL- interaction in a given PVT/solution. Does the "description of rules" provide an aspect of choice for either ion?

What makes interactions in your bag-o-bones -- or anywhere -- more subject to choice?

I am not schooled in chemistry or physics, so I am forced to admit that I do not understand your example. Please feel free to clarify/simplify, if possible.

 

[CWL]

Did you choose to not enjoy the sensation of being burnt?

No. I chose to avoid the pain.

 

[CWL]

Sorry, CWL. I've been busy having a romantic Valentine's weekend with my enchantress.

As have I (with my enchantress that is). I Hope yours was as good as mine (the weekend that is).

Of course, it depends on what you mean by "perceived". Does an instrument perceive what it measures? Does a thermometer perceive the temperature? I say no. True perception can only come from a conscious being which recognizes more than the measurement itself. Computers cannot perceive, they can only measure. Of course, I can also defend the opposite point of view... and have done so in the past.

You may be missing the point I was trying to make. The fact that we perceive the options (which I think even Franko is willing to concede) does not necessarily mean that we are consciously choosing between them. "You may perceive the 'options', but it is in reality your algorithm 'choosing' for you" (or something to that effect).

What I am saying is that in order for "free will" to have any real meaning your choices must be conscious. That you have (consciously) perceived the options is not enough.

See what I mean?

 

[wraith]

wraith says: Did you choose to not enjoy the sensation of being burnt?

CWL: No. I chose to avoid the pain.

That doesnt answer the question

 

[CWL]

That doesnt answer the question

Yes it does. The answer was "no" as the question was not formulated correctly. The "sensation" of "being burnt" is hardly one to "enjoy".

 

[Tricky]

Sure they do...but it would have to depend on their reasoning at the time...

Reason? But that would imply choice. Why reason about something for which you have no choice?

and what about this G. Gordon Liddy character?

A bit before your time. He was one of the principle characters in the Watergate scandal, and now has a radio show that makes Rush Limbaugh look like Jesse Jackson. But one of the things he is famous for is his free will. He absolutely refused to cooperate with investigators, and as a result, spent more time in prison than any other conspirator. At one point he showed his resolve by holding his hand in a candle flame until it was badly burned. "The trick", he said, "is not moving". I realize you will claim this was his MPB, but it was a good example to show your "flame" analogy to be a poor one.

Coming from a person that said that toast was more complex than a human.....im pretty sure that you didnt get my point

Are you going to harp on the toast thing now? If you followed that discussion, then you should understand the point I was trying to make (by playing Devil's Advocate). If you didn't understand the point, well, then I think you are ill advised to denigrate my ability to understand things.

Yes, but if I did touch the flame again, it was because that I perceived a benefit in doing so...

Yes. If you perceived a benefit, you might choose to do so.

So the universe just sprung from the darkness willy nilly?
The present is not based on the past? (aka free-will/magic)

that Trix is magic

No, that is admitting I don't know how it happened. Neither do I make up magical stories with Goddesses or Progenitor Solipsists or theoretical particles with amazing powers that defy the laws of physics. Tell me. Do you really believe all that stuff?

"dream matter" is energy aka this universe

I think you'd better withdraw the "dream matter" comment, wraith. It is an inordinately silly concept, even for a Logical Deist. BTW, last I heard, matter and energy were interchangable. I'm still waiting to hear the difference between "dream matter" and ordinary matter.

Also BTW. According to one prominent Logical Deist, gravitons are not made of "dream matter", they are made of time.

This is how you perceieve this universe. Youre made of atoms...

...and other things, including "dream matter". Is dream matter made of atoms?

In other words, do they behave logically?

Not according to The List. There are things on there which are so far outside of logic that one would have to rewrite the whole dictionary to argue the points. But wait! That's being done isn't it?

Which things are they that do not obey TLOP?

Gravitons, for one. Looks like we can add "dream matter" to the list.

 

[Franko]

the Wraith:
Did you choose to not enjoy the sensation of being burnt?

CWL:
No. I chose to avoid the pain.

CWL, would you agree that anyone who did not avoid being burned, or if they actually enjoyed the sensation of being severely burned could be described as "mentally ill"?

 

[CWL]

CWL, would you agree that anyone who did not avoid being burned, or if they actually enjoyed the sensation of being severely burned could be described as "mentally ill"?

The stability of a mind is a tricky one indeed to define, so I don't know about that...

Seriously, such a description would not be entirely unreasonable.

(Please feel free to interpret the above as a "yes").

 

[Guest]

Frankooooooo!!!!! Franko man it's me Jimmy. Oh man, I owe you an apology, I've been spelling your name wrong.

So what's up? Did you decide if I can be in your group yet? I'm really serious about learning more about this Goddette thing. I got a raft of questions for you if you got a minute.

Where is she from? Is she the only god/goddette? Can she make me lose weight? What special powers does she have?

Is her fight with atheism only? Is she angry about the catholics? Does she like holy wars? Does she prefer absolute obedience?

What offends her? What makes her wet? Does she cook? Any special recipes? Does she know that the word recipes looks funny when its printed?

Is there an after life? Do I get free will then? Do I get to meet these atoms that push me around?

Talk to me man...I want in the club and I won't go away. I can't go away.

 

[Franko]

Hey jimmydum, is Tricky paying you to kiss his ass, or did you volunteer for the job? I've noticed his once abundant stable of toadies has been seriously depleted in recent months.

Let me guess ... you are the "reinforcements"?

woooo ... I so scared!

You smell like a thaifoodkenny brand A-Theist!

hehehe!!! hehehe ....

 

[Tricky]

Hey jimmydum, is Tricky paying you to kiss his ass, or did you volunteer for the job? I've noticed his once abundant stable of toadies has been seriously depleted in recent months.

Let me guess ... you are the "reinforcements"?

woooo ... I so scared!

You smell like a thaifoodkenny brand A-Theist!

As I've told you many times before, Franko, I don't have any toadies. I do have one sock puppet, but you have still not identified it. Jimmy is ...well... a little odd. I could not possibly be creative enough to either produce or even influence his brand of craziness. But keep looking. I love it when you are eaten up by paranoia.

 

[CWL]

Tricky,

Never mind your alleged toadies. We are having a shoot-out over the inclusion of "conscious" in the definition of "free will", remember?

I said:

You may be missing the point I was trying to make. The fact that we perceive the options (which I think even Franko is willing to concede) does not necessarily mean that we are consciously choosing between them. "You may perceive the 'options', but it is in reality your algorithm 'choosing' for you" (or something to that effect).

What I am saying is that in order for "free will" to have any real meaning your choices must be conscious. That you have (consciously) perceived the options is not enough.

In other words, "free will" IMO does not solely imply awareness of the options, but also awareness of the choice itself. A subtle but significant difference. The fact that I may stop a while to think about whether I should have chicken or salad for lunch today is important (as opposed to just perceiving both the salad and the chicken as "options" - if I don't actually make the choice consciously, what is such perception worth?) - and that is what I am getting at.

Now, for the third time - do you, or do you not, see my point (or am I actually going to have to kick your sorry geologist butt over this)?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Which leads us to the evolutionary argument for the existence of free will.

Compared to other animals on that East-African plain, six million or so years ago, Man had only one advantage: His brain, and his ability to make deliberate choices. Whereas the other animals, faster, stronger, with sharper senses, were confined to their simple MPB algorithm, Man could think and plan ahead, and this enabled us to become the dominant species on the planet.

Hans

 

[CWL]

Which leads us to the evolutionary argument for the existence of free will.

Compared to other animals on that East-African plain, six million or so years ago, Man had only one advantage: His brain, and his ability to make deliberate choices. Whereas the other animals, faster, stronger, with sharper senses, were confined to their simple MPB algorithm, Man could think and plan ahead, and this enabled us to become the dominant species on the planet.

Hans

Hans,

Does this mean that you will support my "include-conscious-in the-definition-of-free-will-campaign"? We are a growing movement you know (well - we will be as soon as a certain Texan comes to his senses).

 

[MRC_Hans]

I don't, on principle, support campaigns, heheheh. However, I dont see how free will can exist without consciousness. Consciousness, on the other hand, might exist without free will, it just wouldn't be of much use.

So, if your slogan is "Free will is a conscious choice between available options", I would say that you are partly right. Not entirely right, however, because a conscious entity might also choose to pursue a non-available option. Suppose I decided I wanted to own a Ferrari. At present, this is not an available option for me, but I could still choose it, and then plan a row of actions that would make it avalable.

I find it very hard to conciliate such a decision with MPB, by the way.

Hans

 

[CWL]

I don't, on principle, support campaigns, heheheh. However, I dont see how free will can exist without consciousness. Consciousness, on the other hand, might exist without free will, it just wouldn't be of much use.

So, if your slogan is "Free will is a conscious choice between available options", I would say that you are partly right. Not entirely right, however, because a conscious entity might also choose to pursue a non-available option. Suppose I decided I wanted to own a Ferrari. At present, this is not an available option for me, but I could still choose it, and then plan a row of actions that would make it avalable.

I find it very hard to conciliate such a decision with MPB, by the way.

Hans

The suggested definition is:

Free Will = The ability to make conscious choices between perceived and available options

Tricky has previously stated that "consciousness" is implied in the word "perceived" and that the ability to choose between perceived and available options therefore would be sufficient. I disagree.

BTW - "striving to own a Ferrari" is an "available option" - although "owning a Ferrari" may not be one at the time. In your example you are therefore IMO "choosing an available option".

 

[Tricky]

Tricky,

Never mind your alleged toadies. We are having a shoot-out over the inclusion of "conscious" in the definition of "free will", remember?

I said:


In other words, "free will" IMO does not solely imply awareness of the options, but also awareness of the choice itself. A subtle but significant difference. The fact that I may stop a while to think about whether I should have chicken or salad for lunch today is important (as opposed to just perceiving both the salad and the chicken as "options" - if I don't actually make the choice consciously, what is such perception worth?) - and that is what I am getting at.

Now, for the third time - do you, or do you not, see my point (or am I actually going to have to kick your sorry geologist butt over this)?

Of course I see your point. You can't buy a hat tall enough to cover it. Your objectioin, though, is ludicrous. How can you perceive options and yet be unconscious of them? If you select things without recognizing options, then you have not perceived the other options. Admittedly, you pay a lot more attention to some choices than others. You would cogitate more about buying a car than a sandwich, yet you must spend at least a tiny amount of time making each choice. Otherwise, it would be "fated", right?

It is really sad to see you stoop to such ridiculous semantic arguments. I suppose it is the "lawyer" coming out in you.

 

[CWL]

Of course I see your point. You can't buy a hat tall enough to cover it. Your objectioin, though, is ludicrous. How can you perceive options and yet be unconscious of them? If you select things without recognizing options, then you have not perceived the other options. Admittedly, you pay a lot more attention to some choices than others. You would cogitate more about buying a car than a sandwich, yet you must spend at least a tiny amount of time making each choice. Otherwise, it would be "fated", right?

It is really sad to see you stoop to such ridiculous semantic arguments. I suppose it is the "lawyer" coming out in you.

Look here bub. No matter how impossible it may be to procure any kind of headgear sizable enough to cover my humble intimation, you still do not seem to grasp the issue. If you would spend less time staring at rocks all day and more time actually using your noggin, you would maybe be able to comprehend my allegedly obvious point.

As you clearly have not, you will forgive me for spelling it out for you once again:

If the definition does not clearly state that the choice as such is made consciously one can argue that - although you may perceive certain seemingly possible actions as "options" - you notwithstanding had no choice in pursuing the action that you ended up "choosing".

Need I remind you that it has been argued that a car "perceives" its speed through its instruments? One could however not reasonably argue that a car "consciously chooses" to travel at a certain speed.

Jeez Tricky. Surely you can comprehend this.

Seriously, yes this is semantics - but I believe the distinction is important. The purpose of a definition is to eliminate any possible misconstruction (no matter how remote and/or ridiculous) - and yes, this is the lawyer in me talking. If there is one thing one understands as a lawyer, it is the importance of being precise in one's definitions.

Concede, Texan, or be prepared to face me in fair intellectual joust (with the occasional biting).