Logical? Deism.

[Tricky]

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".

Yes, I understand your argument, Shylock. It appears that you define "perceive" differently than I. So be it.

Seriously, yes this is semantics - but I believe the distinction is important. The purpose of a definition is to eliminate misconstructions (no matter how remote and/or ridiculous they may be) - 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.

Okay, I give. You may write the definition of free will as the ability to consciously choose between available, perceived options. I will not claim copyright infringement. For that matter you may write it as the ability or capacity to consciously, meaningly, deliberately choose, select or pick between available, perceived, separate, identifiable options or possibilities. When it comes to writing legalese, I would not attempt to compete with the "Battling Barrister".

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

If you wanna take this to the flame war section, Swedey Pie, that's fine with me. I'll leave you picking the fragments of your pathetic arguments out of your powdered wig.

 

[whitefork]

Tricky, you mean Portia, the cross-dressing lawyer. Shylock was the defendant.

Now bow your head and say "D'oh"

 

[CWL]

Yes, I understand your argument, Shylock. It appears that you define "perceive" differently than I. So be it.

At least I hath eyes to see and a brain to think with.

Apparently you still do not understand the argument. It is not a matter of defining "perceive" - it is the fact that the word "perceive" only alludes to "options" - not to the act of choosing between them as such.

Okay, I give. You may write the definition of free will as the ability to consciously choose between available, perceived options. I will not claim copyright infringement. For that matter you may write it as the ability or capacity to consciously, meaningly, deliberately choose, select or pick between available, perceived, separate, identifiable options or possibilities. When it comes to writing legalese, I would not attempt to compete with the "Battling Barrister".

Good work, rock boy. I must admit that you do have a certain talent for the profession. Now how about unconditionally conceding, surrendering, admitting defeat and yielding as to the fact that the original definition suggested by you was incomplete?

If you wanna take this to the flame war section, Swedey Pie, that's fine with me. I'll leave you picking the fragments of your pathetic arguments out of your powdered wig.

You seem to have a little fetish for headdresses there, Tex. May I suggest barbecued hat this evening?

 

[Tricky]

The List

This has been a fun diversion, but I think we should not let our semantic differences divert us from the true purpose of this thread, which is to discuss Logical Deism. It has been a while so I think I should once again present The List in the fervent hope that some Logical Deist will confirm it's accuracy.
____________________________
NOTE: Many of these “beliefs” were verified by Franko in this post.
Origins

• This universe is part of an omniverse.
• The first entity is the Progenitor Solipsist (PS) – our original primordial ancestor – what the Christians call “God the Father/God the Creator”
• The Progenitor Solipsist exists in the distant past when there were only two intrinsic parameters - Mass and Velocity
• This universe was created by the Logical Goddess (LG), who also created the forces (electro-magnetism, weak nuclear and strong nuclear). She did not create gravity.
• The LG created The Laws Of Physics (TLOP), except for gravity.
• The Logical Goddess controls everything in this universe.
• Everything in the universe is deterministic, including Quantum Mechanics.
• Consciousness creates matter.
• The Big Bang is made up of two parts. The Goddess corresponds to "The Initial State” (the initial “random” configuration of stuff). The other part is The Laws of Physics .

How Things Work

• One soul = one graviton.
• Gravitons come from the omniverse, but not necessarily this universe.
• The Logical goddess is the "top graviton", meaning she is omnipotent.
• Gravitons are fermions, i.e. they have spin and charge.
• Spin is quality of Mass, and Charge is quality of Velocity.
• The gender of a graviton is determined by its spin.
• Determinism/Fate/”free will” is the interaction of gravitons of varying strength.
  The same logic that leads me to conclude a more evolved being exist leads me to believe that entities’ gender female.
• There is no free will. Not libertarian free will. Not compatabalist free will. None.
• The LG is the most conscious and complex entity in the universe.
• This entire Universe is essentially an illusion. You and I actually exist as particles in the Truer reality of the Omniverse. This universe is a carefully constructed elaboration of the True reality.
• TLOP are an expression of the LG. She controls them.
• The LG, using TLOP, creates the shape, or body of humans. The soul is the graviton.
• The LG, and by extension TLOP are smarter, more powerful and more complex than humans.
• True randomness does not exist.
• If A has property P and B is made of A, then B has property P. (As shown by the syllogism, "Atoms obey the laws of physics. You are made of atoms. Therefore you obey the laws of physics.)
• Gravity travels faster than the speed of light.
• Gravitons are the fundamental force-carrying particles of Gravity and Time.
• Gravitons are not real in the sense that you and I are real.
  [*] Gravitons obey a higher law that we'd probably call Thermodymics.
• A Graviton is just a special kind of meme, and memes are just distinct packets of information.
• Gravitons are made of time
• Objects without gravitons don't really exist in the way that You or I do. They are merely projections.
• Essentially, LD is a Unified Theory of Physics.
• The universe can be completely described in terms of binary responses.
• If A controls B then A is more conscious than B. -- EXCEPTION If it appears that a less conscious object is controlling a more conscious object, it is actually the LG that is controlling them both.
• Matter does not physically exist, but is a manifestation of energy.
  [*] At the core of your Soul there is a special type of meme, a special type of algorithm. It possesses this quality you call self-awareness to a far greater degree than other memes. It has this quality because it possesses a meme which gives it Simultaneous Perception. In short it has the ability to perceive two realities (or more) at the same time.

Morality

• Gravitons are intrinsically Good or Evil.
• Good Gravitons will move forward in Time (to a higher energy state), Evil Gravitons will move backwards in Time (to a lower energy state).
• The lower, the worse things are, but not the same as the Christian "Hell".
• the abyss is a Black hole where the Souls that don’t make it get tossed.
• There are consequences for the things you do.
• The things you do are the result of Maximum Perceived Benefit (MPB). This is not the same as free will.
• You will be punished if your MPB causes you to do the wrong things.
• MPB is what is actually evolving. Your algorithm (as well as your database) expands, and evolves over time. It grows. It becomes more complex. You become more self aware. You gain individuality, you gain power. You gain control. You gain freedom.
• Anyone who commits an immoral act is insane
• Threat of punishment is the only thing that leads to morality.
• A situation is a pattern of events outside the context of time.

Miscellaneous/The Lexicon

• Followers of LD are on an Omniworldview line.
• Fate = Karma. Karma is – every action has a equal reaction (initially equal, but magnified over Time)
• No evidence against a thing means evidence for a thing.
• choices are preordained outputs
• In LD an Eternity is a very long long period of time, not an “infinite” period of time.

A more detailed explanation of the Logical Deism creation story is given here.

 

[CWL]

This has been a fun diversion, but I think we should not let our semantic differences divert us from the true purpose of this thread, which is to discuss Logical Deism. It has been a while so I think I should once again present The List in the fervent hope that some Logical Deist will confirm it's accuracy.

You realize of course that I shall be forced to interpret your silence in relation to my dazzling arguments as a walkover.

Be that as it may, I agree - it is now time to get back to

The List

[Insert music score to the Edward D. Wood Jr. movie of your choice here]

 

[MRC_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".

Ahh, but then we might argue that the word "percieved" is redundant, because if you don't percieve an option, then obviously it is not really available.

On striving as an available option: Well, you can call it that, but once you include abstract options, anything can happen. Anyhow, I dont argue that it isn't part of free will, but that it is beyond the concept of MPB as explained by our local authority on Logical Deism.

Hans

 

[CWL]

Ahh, but then we might argue that the word "percieved" is redundant, because if you don't percieve an option, then obviously it is not really available.

On striving as an available option: Well, you can call it that, but once you include abstract options, anything can happen. Anyhow, I dont argue that it isn't part of free will, but that it is beyond the concept of MPB as explained by our local authority on Logical Deism.

Hans

Good points Hans, but ssssh. We have to stop talking about free will - we might scare the Logical Deists away. Tricky is trying to get them to verify

The List

[Insert high pitched scream here]

 

[Frostbite]

Whoo... 666 replies. Spooky!

 

[Tricky]

You realize of course that I shall be forced to interpret your silence in relation to my dazzling arguments as a walkover.

I guess you missed this part.

Tricky said:
Okay, I give.

That is the problem with legalese. It tends to obscure the important stuff. Of course that doesn't obscure the fact that my flames were far superior to yours.

 

[CWL]

I guess you missed this part.

Hey - do you call telling me that I may define "free will" in the way suggested by myself giving? Guess we need to properly define the expression "I give" for you as well.

That is the problem with legalese. It tends to obscure the important stuff. Of course that doesn't obscure the fact that my flames were far superior to yours.

I am certain you perceived it that way. In reality I consciously flamed your behind off.

But again, enough with our little linguistic squabble (amusing as it is). The List, the List!

 

[Franko]

MRC:

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.

MPB = Maximum Perceived Benefit (conscious algorithm)

So you are claiming that Man (not confined by MPB) became the "superior" species on this planet by NOT choosing the most beneficial option??

MRC, I want to conduct an experiment. I want you to continue to choose the option that is NOT most beneficial, while I am going to continue to do the opposite. let's see which of us ends up as the fitter to survive ...

 

[Franko]

MRC: (A-Theist)
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.

Ahhh, there’s that famous A-Theist Pessimism again!!! How unpredictable …

without your precious imaginary "free will" powers life just wouldn't be worth living according to you ... would it A-Theist?

MRC: (A-Theist)
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 available.

What exactly is making the decision MRC? What is the “YOU” according to materialism? Explain it to me?

I thought that YOU were nothing more than your physical brain, and isn’t your physical brain just a collection of atoms (chemical elements), and don’t those chemical elements obey the exact same rules that ALL chemicals obey? Where is the YOU making the “choice”? Isn’t it all just laws of chemistry making all the “choices”???

Or are You claiming that your mind some how has the power to control the laws of chemistry? That seems like it would be easy to test for …

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

MPB = Maximum Perceived Benefit. The chemicals in your brain obey the deterministic laws of physics (TLOP). Those reactions generate a list of perceived options based on past experience, but the same process that generates the list ranks the options from best (most beneficial) to worst (least beneficial). You are crazy if you think you get a “choice”. Your consciousness ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, picks the best option off the list.

Unless you are insane.

But I don’t know MRC, are you claiming that people have “free will” to be insane? Did insane individuals “choose” to be insane according to you? I thought that no one was responsible for their actions according to atheists?

 

[Tricky]

So you are claiming that Man (not confined by MPB) became the "superior" species on this planet by NOT choosing the most beneficial option??

It is not always possible to know in advance what is going to be beneficial. Nature does the culling, and people aren't always in tune with what nature likes. The Darwin Awards are full of stories of people who made bad guesses.

 

[CWL]

I still don't understand how MBP works when I choose different numbers in a lottery for instance. How do I perceive a benefit in chosing number "9" over number "347"?

 

[Franko]

Tricky:
It is not always possible to know in advance what is going to be beneficial.

That is why it is called Maximum Perceived Benefit instead of Maximum Actual Benefit.

CWL:
I still don't understand how MBP works when I choose different numbers in a lottery for instance. How do I perceive a benefit in chosing number "9" over number "347"?

When you “choose” a lottery number your mind is really trying to solve a very difficult Deterministic Equation. Let me give you an example. I want you to pick a “random” number that will make you a winner in this “mini-lottery” … what is the sum of 2 + 2 = ???

Just because your “choices” seem random doesn’t mean that they are actually random. In reality your mind is operating no more randomly then computer programs do.

 

[Tricky]

That is why it is called Maximum Perceived Benefit instead of Maximum Actual Benefit.

Which is exactly why your statement here is ludicrous.

Originally posted by Franko
So you are claiming that Man (not confined by MPB) became the "superior" species on this planet by NOT choosing the most beneficial option??

Man cannot choose to be superior, because he can only choose "perceived" benefits. He cannot know if he is choosing "actual" benefits.

Man does not choose to evolve, he strives to survive. Nature decides if his survival strategy is successful, not Man himself.

 

[Franko]

Man does not choose to evolve, he strives to survive. Nature decides if his survival strategy is successful, not Man himself.

"Nature Decides"? I thought you said that TLOP was non-conscious and didn't make ANY decisions about anything???

 

[Tricky]

"Nature Decides"? I thought you said that TLOP was non-conscious and didn't make ANY decisions about anything???

One need not be conscious to effect a decision. Certainly I am not claiming nature has free will. A sudden gust of wind during a last second field goal can decide the outcome of a football game. Does that mean the gust of wind is conscious?

 

[Franko]

Tricky:
One need not be conscious to effect a decision. Certainly I am not claiming nature has free will.

So if nature can make “decisions” without “free will”, and you are simply a part of nature, then why do you require “free will” to make “decisions”? By your own admission the concept is unnecessary. It would seem to indicate that parsimony would allow you to remove “free will” from your theory/worldview/philosophy/metaphysical belief system.

Tricky:
Man does not choose to evolve, he strives to survive. Nature decides if his survival strategy is successful, not Man himself.

In this existence you are either moving closer to the Truth, or you are Not. The Logical Goddess is the embodiment of the Truth. She comprehends it far better than You do. She is trying to explain it to you, but I don’t think you are listening.

 

[CWL]

That is why it is called Maximum Perceived Benefit instead of Maximum Actual Benefit.



When you “choose” a lottery number your mind is really trying to solve a very difficult Deterministic Equation. Let me give you an example. I want you to pick a “random” number that will make you a winner in this “mini-lottery” … what is the sum of 2 + 2 = ???

Just because your “choices” seem random doesn’t mean that they are actually random. In reality your mind is operating no more randomly then computer programs do.

No, seriously - I don't get it.

"Pick a number between 1 and 100 and win a basket of fruit". Why would my MBP tell me to prefer "87" over "34"?