Science proves choice is noise

[SoAMadDeathWish]

The reason I cannot agree with you is the constant denial of the act of creation through use of consciousness. Use of consciousness makes the nuerons bang away, not just all those other things. It's a merry go round in which all the deterministic forces are riding their horses but you too are there riding and deciding what you are going to do when the ride stops and you go get on the ferris wheel.

--Brant

But there is no sense in which "you" exist as entity distinct from the physical causes that constitute "you". Do you see? This conception of "you" is the illusion. "You" are not a disembodied entity floating above nature and "deciding" whether or not to go along with the physical processes that make up your brain. This belief is like the homunculus argument which simply begs the question and leads to an infinite regress.

What I'm trying to say is that, in the analogy above, you are not on the merry-go-round, you are the merry-go-round.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Can you explain how a person can morally choose when, according to you, choice is only an illusion?

And can you explain how people can be conscious of their choice when, according to you, consciousness is only physical chemical reactions in the brain?

Only "choice" in the sense of "having chosen one could always have chosen otherwise" is an illusion.

Then there is no choice and there is no moral accountability.

You're quoting me out of context, and your argument is based on a non-sequitur.

As for the second question, it is nonsensical because it presupposes the possibility of choice in the first sense.

Of course it's nonsense in your view that you have no free will to choose, and so there is no personal moral accountability for your own behavior.

This is a strawman.

You first have to demonstrate that that kind of free will is possible, but this will be difficult for you since that kind of free will contradicts the known laws of physics.

Your statement reveals the root of the difference between our two views.

In my view, people are uniquely moral beings who constantly make moral choices, and so are morally accountable for their own personal behavior... while in your view they are not. Your view of choice being only an illusion is the current popular collective consensus of the secular libertine narcoculture that holds behavior is simply an amoral physical chemical process.

So you are deterministic about the act of choosing itself... while I am deterministic only about the just and deserved consequences we set into motion by our choices.

Greg

A strawman argument again, along with an ad hominem thrown into the mix.

Nothing you've said here can even remotely be considered a rational thought.

[Brant Gaede]

The reason I cannot agree with you is the constant denial of the act of creation through use of consciousness. Use of consciousness makes the nuerons bang away, not just all those other things. It's a merry go round in which all the deterministic forces are riding their horses but you too are there riding and deciding what you are going to do when the ride stops and you go get on the ferris wheel.

--Brant

But there is no sense in which "you" exist as entity distinct from the physical causes that constitute "you". Do you see? This conception of "you" is the illusion. "You" are not a disembodied entity floating above nature and "deciding" whether or not to go along with the physical processes that make up your brain. This belief is like the homunculus argument which simply begs the question and leads to an infinite regress.

What I'm trying to say is that, in the analogy above, you are not on the merry-go-round, you are the merry-go-round.

Not quite. Regardless, if illusion is needed for the act of creation the creation is not an illusion. Regardless again, it would seem I'm a better compatibilist than you are for I'm describing an actual person--me--and you are stuck on the merry-go-round of deterministic intellectualizations and keep pushing free will off the ride. Go get on the ferris wheel for your own life's sake! You-can-do-it! You are not an "illusion."

--Brant

but Jesus H. Christ--don't go teach that stuff!

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Not quite. Regardless, if illusion is needed for the act of creation the creation is not an illusion. Regardless again, it would seem I'm a better compatibilist than you are for I'm describing an actual person--me--and you are stuck on the merry-go-round of deterministic intellectualizations and keep pushing free will off the ride. Go get on the ferris wheel for your life's sake!

--Brant

but Jesus H. Christ--don't go teach that stuff!

I don't understand this part at all. What are you trying to say, exactly?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So either you believe that a person's free will stems from a supernatural source, or you see some other way in which free will is a) based entirely in deterministic natural causes but b) is not itself deterministic.

This is a false dichotomy and I quote you, "Assertions are not arguments."

Your premise is that man's state of evolution is sufficient to know all that is worth knowing in order to make a dichotomy like that. Meaning if man does not have the capacity to know it yet, it does not exist.

You assert this dichotomy is all there is. That is not an argument.

Michael

[moralist]

Can you explain how a person can morally choose when, according to you, choice is only an illusion?

And can you explain how people can be conscious of their choice when, according to you, consciousness is only physical chemical reactions in the brain?

Only "choice" in the sense of "having chosen one could always have chosen otherwise" is an illusion.

Then there is no choice and there is no moral accountability.

You're quoting me out of context, and your argument is based on a non-sequitur.

As for the second question, it is nonsensical because it presupposes the possibility of choice in the first sense.

Of course it's nonsense in your view that you have no free will to choose, and so there is no personal moral accountability for your own behavior.

This is a strawman.

You first have to demonstrate that that kind of free will is possible, but this will be difficult for you since that kind of free will contradicts the known laws of physics.

Your statement reveals the root of the difference between our two views.

In my view, people are uniquely moral beings who constantly make moral choices, and so are morally accountable for their own personal behavior... while in your view they are not. Your view of choice being only an illusion is the current popular collective consensus of the secular libertine narcoculture that holds behavior is simply an amoral physical chemical process.

So you are deterministic about the act of choosing itself... while I am deterministic only about the just and deserved consequences we set into motion by our choices.

Greg

A strawman argument again, along with an ad hominem thrown into the mix.

1. The narcoculture believes that choice is an illusion, and that all behavior is merely physical chemical reactions.

2. You believe that choice is an illusion. and that all behavior is physical chemical reactions.

It's hardly a personal affront to be identified as belonging to the dominant force in society today. On the contrary, you should be proud. These are your people.

Nothing you've said here can even remotely be considered a rational thought.

I agree that you freely chose to believe that thought. For you there is absolutely no reason that you would ever regard moral accountability for your own choices in life as a rational thought.

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Not quite. Regardless, if illusion is needed for the act of creation the creation is not an illusion. Regardless again, it would seem I'm a better compatibilist than you are for I'm describing an actual person--me--and you are stuck on the merry-go-round of deterministic intellectualizations and keep pushing free will off the ride. Go get on the ferris wheel for your life's sake!

--Brant

but Jesus H. Christ--don't go teach that stuff!

I don't understand this part at all....

That's for sure. Everyone who goes this route has difficulty seeing it.

Some eventually do, then they wonder how on earth they could have been so stupid before. But I don't think it is stupidity. It's storytelling at the root, and a powerful mythology it is.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

So either you believe that a person's free will stems from a supernatural source, or you see some other way in which free will is a) based entirely in deterministic natural causes but b) is not itself deterministic.

This is a false dichotomy and I quote you, "Assertions are not arguments."

It's not a mere assertion. There's a whole chain of reasoning above that quote that you're ignoring. It isn't a false dichotomy either. If it is, then what is the third alternative?

Your premise is that man's state of evolution is sufficient to know all that is worth knowing in order to make a dichotomy like that. Meaning if man does not have the capacity to know it yet, it does not exist.

You assert this dichotomy is all there is. That is not an argument.

Michael

One of the premises of my argument is not that we know everything we do know but that we know everything that can be known about the physical processes underlying a person's choice. Any further factors, are, by definition, either a physical process that cannot be known (an absurdity) or they are supernatural causes.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

1. The narcoculture believes that choice is an illusion, and that all behavior is merely physical chemical reactions.

2. You believe that choice is an illusion. and that all behavior is physical chemical reactions.

It's hardly a personal affront to be identified as belonging to the dominant force in society today. On the contrary, you should be proud. These are your people.

You are affirming the consequent. If a communist believes that the sky is blue, and you also believe that the sky is blue, then are you a communist?

Nothing you've said here can even remotely be considered a rational thought.

I agree that you freely chose to believe that thought. For you there is absolutely no reason that you would ever regard moral accountability for your own choices in life as a rational thought.

Greg

An ad hominem once again.

It's called "logic" Greg. It's a beautiful thing. You should try it sometime.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

One of the premises of my argument is not that we know everything we do know but that we know everything that can be known about the physical processes underlying a person's choice. Any further factors, are, by definition, either a physical process that cannot be known (an absurdity) or they are supernatural causes.

This could not be a better example of rationalism.

If it ain't already in the human head within a category called physical, it does not exist (or is "supernatural" meaning imaginary).

And what's in the head is an illusion, anyway.

That's a really fucked up life-view prancing about as if it were true knowledge.

Another term for this is deducing reality from principles and logic, rather than observing reality, then arriving at principles and logic to measure it and understand it. When science-minded people decide to explain to philosophers what real philosophy is, they generally screw it up like this.

What's worse, when you go down to their foundation and principles of existence, all you find is storytelling, not science. They make myths out of math and deductions, then preach their own brand of either-or nonsense.

If true science is the value, this is fraud.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

One of the premises of my argument is not that we know everything we do know but that we know everything that can be known about the physical processes underlying a person's choice. Any further factors, are, by definition, either a physical process that cannot be known (an absurdity) or they are supernatural causes.

This could not be a better example of rationalism.

If it ain't already in the human head within a category called physical, it does not exist (or is "supernatural" meaning imaginary).

And what's in the head is an illusion, anyway.

That's a really fucked up life-view prancing about as if it were true knowledge.

Another term for this is deducing reality from principles and logic, rather than observing reality, then arriving at principles and logic to measure it and understand it. When science-minded people decide to explain to philosophers what real philosophy is, they generally screw it up like this.

What's worse, when you go down to their foundation and principles of existence, all you find is storytelling, not science. They make myths out of math and deductions, then preach their own brand of either-or nonsense.

If true science is the value, this is fraud.

Michael

Never said that, nor is it implied by anything I said. It's a strawman.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If it ain't already in the human head within a category called physical, it does not exist (or is "supernatural" meaning imaginary).

Never said that, nor is it implied by anything I said. It's a strawman.

Bullshit. You just said it.

... we know everything that can be known about the physical processes underlying a person's choice. Any further factors, are, by definition, either a physical process that cannot be known (an absurdity) or they are supernatural causes.

But I'm tired of playing this game.

It does not lead to understanding, new knowledge or wisdom.

Just mind games.

I prefer to illude myself with other pursuits (i.e, choose something different to do that I can't help but choose ).

Michael

[Selene]

Assertions are not arguments.

So when are you going to stop your assertions as arguments argumentation.

She is a Skinerian.

A...

[Brant Gaede]

Well, Naomi, consider yourself as an acting agent instead of a knowing agent only. Imagine yourself as an artist. You existing as you. I submit this is the proper reference point for these discussions, not what made you you even the you that made you you. That way you are free; not enslaved by any knowledge of your antecedent suppositions. There you are, artist-painter, in your north-light studio and there is your blank canvas. Create something. Paint it. Never mind skill level. Are you just going to blank-faced stand there doing nothing until the creative Viagra kicks in? Are you going to tell the blank canvas you can't even scrawl across it because you're too busy thinking about everything that got you there--for nothing? Are you going to just tell me you're not an artist so WTF am I on about? You don't have to be an artist. You can still create something on that canvas and that will be you, not your Mom and Dad making love on a Saturday night all those Saturday nights ago.

--Brant

[SoAMadDeathWish]

If it ain't already in the human head within a category called physical, it does not exist (or is "supernatural" meaning imaginary).

Never said that, nor is it implied by anything I said. It's a strawman.

Bullshit. You just said it.

... we know everything that can be known about the physical processes underlying a person's choice. Any further factors, are, by definition, either a physical process that cannot be known (an absurdity) or they are supernatural causes.

But I'm tired of playing this game.

It does not lead to understanding, new knowledge or wisdom.

Just mind games.

I prefer to illude myself with other pursuits (i.e, choose something different to do that I can't help but choose ).

Michael

No, I said that one of the assumptions we make in the argument is that we know every physical process that can be known, not that every process that is known is physical, which is an important distinction unless you believe that free will is a physical process that both can and cannot be known.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Well, Naomi, consider yourself as an acting agent instead of a knowing agent only. Imagine yourself as an artist. You existing as you. I submit this is the proper reference point for these discussions, not what made you you even the you that made you you. That way you are free; not enslaved by any knowledge of your antecedent suppositions. There you are, artist-painter, in your north-light studio and there is your blank canvas. Create something. Paint it. Never mind skill level. Are you just going to blank-faced stand there doing nothing until the creative Viagra kicks in? Are you going to tell the blank canvas you can't even scrawl across it because you're too busy thinking about everything that got you there--for nothing? Are you going to just tell me you're not an artist so WTF am I on about? You don't have to be an artist. You can still create something on that canvas and that will be you, not your Mom and Dad making love on a Saturday night all those Saturday nights ago.

--Brant

Until my brain decides to do otherwise, then yes.

your Mom and Dad making love on a Saturday night all those Saturday nights ago.

*shudders*

Don't put those images in my head.

[Brant Gaede]

Well, Naomi, consider yourself as an acting agent instead of a knowing agent only. Imagine yourself as an artist. You existing as you. I submit this is the proper reference point for these discussions, not what made you you even the you that made you you. That way you are free; not enslaved by any knowledge of your antecedent suppositions. There you are, artist-painter, in your north-light studio and there is your blank canvas. Create something. Paint it. Never mind skill level. Are you just going to blank-faced stand there doing nothing until the creative Viagra kicks in? Are you going to tell the blank canvas you can't even scrawl across it because you're too busy thinking about everything that got you there--for nothing? Are you going to just tell me you're not an artist so WTF am I on about? You don't have to be an artist. You can still create something on that canvas and that will be you, not your Mom and Dad making love on a Saturday night all those Saturday nights ago.

--Brant

Until my brain decides to do otherwise, then yes.

your Mom and Dad making love on a Saturday night all those Saturday nights ago.

*shudders*

Don't put those images in my head.

Oh, come on. You must have been a love child!

--Brant

you are not your brain, your brain is only part of you, you use your brain, your brain doesn't use you--well, I'm not talking about the functions of the autonomic nervous system

I've shot my wad on this

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Oh, come on. You must have been a love child!

What would make you think that?

--Brant

you are not your brain, your brain is only part of you, you use your brain, your brain doesn't use you--well, I'm not talking about the functions of the autonomic nervous system

I've shot my wad on this

What do you mean by "you"? Unless you believe in the existence of a soul, I don't see how you can avoid being nothing more than your brain.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Unless you believe in the existence of a soul, I don't see how you can avoid being nothing more than your brain.

 

True. Kill the brain, the animal dies. No imaginary eternal "soul" survives death. Death is death. This is true of humans, chipmunks, birds -- all animals, whether they can use a keyboard or not. There's good evidence you can use a keyboard, which means you're a specific kind of animal, a human who can choose what to say, organize your thoughts, edit on the fly, choosing one word instead of another. I've made five changes in typing this post (so far) for simplicity, clarity and brevity. When I say those words (clarity, brevity) you know what those terms mean, because you chose to pay attention, study, develop your mind. The brain doesn't do that automatically. It requires conscious effort and the choice to stick to it, to achieve another increment of understanding, as opposed to partying and getting stoned every day, which a lot of people do in college like the Kardashian brats who can't think cuz its 2 hard

 

In teaching my daughter about life, I often say it's harder to go uphill than downhill—which means: the business of study, comparison and rational thought is hard work. It is not enough to memorize a lesson in school, or to take someone else's word at face value. Especially not whatever another kid believes or says. Use your own judgment and think it through. Ask questions. If something is hard to understand (like algebra) don't despair. Take a break. Have something to eat. Go back and try again. School is a job. Learning is work. [COGIGG, p.46]

 

If a 12-year-old can grasp the issue of work, but you can't, somebody conned you into a "no fault" emotional free ride.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

No, I said that one of the assumptions we make in the argument is that we know every physical process that can be known, not that every process that is known is physical, which is an important distinction unless you believe that free will is a physical process that both can and cannot be known.

I don't know what "the argument" is (it sounds oddly like "the Messiah" in this context ) and where you get the idea that "we know every physical process that can be known." That not only sounds like an unwarranted conceit, it is.

But let's make it simple without all the gobbledygook.

Are you saying that choice is not a physical process?

Or it is a physical process?

Michael

[moralist]

You are affirming the consequent.

You're the one here who believes that choice is an illusion and that your own behavior is nothing more than determinant chemical reactions. You freely chose to own that view. I sure didn't.

Would you like to amend the description of the view you have already expressed?

People here are kind of piling on and that is only causing you to double down on your hand. I don't mind opposing views because I know that short of a genuine life threatening experience, you'll take the view you chose and all of its just and deserved consequences with you to your grave, just as I will. So there is no such thing as "convincing" others to change their view... ~especially~ in this virtual world of interactive public television... because only the objective reality of getting exactly what you deserve for your choices in life has the power to do that.

An ad hominem once again.

It's ok... you can hide behind that to save face since you can't even account for your own chosen view. After all, you already have your hands full trying to deal with the others.

Greg

[SoAMadDeathWish]

No, I said that one of the assumptions we make in the argument is that we know every physical process that can be known, not that every process that is known is physical, which is an important distinction unless you believe that free will is a physical process that both can and cannot be known.

I don't know what "the argument" is (it sounds oddly like "the Messiah" in this context ) and where you get the idea that "we know every physical process that can be known." That not only sounds like an unwarranted conceit, it is.

None of the things you've said here address the logic of my arguments. You're just trying to diminish an argument you can't rationally disagree with by misconstruing my words and dragging them through the mud.

But let's make it simple without all the gobbledygook.

Are you saying that choice is not a physical process?

Or it is a physical process?

Michael

It is.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

You are affirming the consequent.

You're the one here who believes that choice is an illusion and that your own behavior is nothing more than determinant chemical reactions. You freely chose to own that view. I sure didn't.

Would you like to amend the description of the view you have already expressed?

People here are kind of piling on and that is only causing you to double down on your hand. I don't mind opposing views because I know that short of a genuine life threatening experience, you'll take the view you chose and all of its just and deserved consequences with you to your grave, just as I will. So there is no such thing as "convincing" others to change their view... ~especially~ in this virtual world of interactive public television... because only the objective reality of getting exactly what you deserve for your choices in life has the power to do that.

An ad hominem once again.

It's ok... you can hide behind that to save face since you can't even account for your own chosen view. After all, you already have your hands full trying to deal with the others.

Greg

Your modus operandi is nothing more than argument from intimidation, something Ayn Rand wrote about here:

There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent’s agreement with one’s undiscussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure . . . [it] consists of threatening to impeach an opponent’s character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: “Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X’s argument is false.” . . . The falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality.

In today’s epistemological jungle, that second method is used more frequently than any other type of irrational argument. It should be classified as a logical fallacy and may be designated as “The Argument from Intimidation.”

The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: “Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.”

Let me emphasize that the Argument from Intimidation does not consist of introducing moral judgment into intellectual issues, but of substituting moral judgment for intellectual argument. Moral evaluations are implicit in most intellectual issues; it is not merely permissible, but mandatory to pass moral judgment when and where appropriate; to suppress such judgment is an act of moral cowardice. But a moral judgment must always follow, not precede (or supersede), the reasons on which it is based.

How does one resist that Argument? There is only one weapon against it: moral certainty.

When one enters any intellectual battle, big or small, public or private, one cannot seek, desire or expect the enemy’s sanction. Truth or falsehood must be one’s sole concern and sole criterion of judgment—not anyone’s approval or disapproval; and, above all, not the approval of those whose standards are the opposite of one’s own.

-The Virtue of Selfishness

I don't know what kind of people you're used to dealing with that would lead you to think that these underhanded tactics would work on me. The lack of any rational substance in your "you have your opinion and I have mine" arguments is painfully obvious (and kind of sad, really), and if you think that I am fooled, you've only succeeded in fooling yourself. How you can honestly call yourself an objectivist with your de facto rejection of reason in favor of epistemological relativism is beyond me.

PS: I could care less about saving face. One thing my alexithymia blesses me with is complete freedom from human weaknesses like shame, guilt, fear, and self-doubt. I will say whatever I please, and I will do so with certainty you can only dream about.

People here are kind of piling on

Pffft. Feathers on an anvil, and the hammer is coming down fast.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It is.

You give that as an answer and you whine about mud?

What do you expect?

To be taken seriously?

btw - I do have a discussion about all this stuff I have written about several times before. And it makes sense, agree with it or not. But I don't feel like raising it with you since you stay so much in teach others what you don't know mode.

So I'll just observe you as you keep teaching others this stuff (which I doubt you came to on your own anyway--too much canned jargon) as I keep commenting on how boneheaded some of your ideas are.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Oh, come on. You must have been a love child!

What would make you think that?

--Brant

you are not your brain, your brain is only part of you, you use your brain, your brain doesn't use you--well, I'm not talking about the functions of the autonomic nervous system

I've shot my wad on this

What do you mean by "you"? Unless you believe in the existence of a soul, I don't see how you can avoid being nothing more than your brain.

"Soul" has nothing to do with an active, directing consciousness. The living brain is like a car idling in the driveway but the driver is in the house. Your brain is so impenetrabally locked down, I can't believe you're not in your 30s or 40s. College students don't pretend to know so much and at least try to think. The continual denial of consciousness and the feedback role it plays respecting that effect on electrical-chemical brain activity is like denying what happens when the car's driver steps on the gas.

You really need to put up some real info showing who you really are and not a sock puppet. I'm about to put you on my "ignore" list. I've no use for the thinking-brain dead and there's hardly any reason to continue to engage you. You may actually be an entire class of psychology students running this crap as a psychology experiment with the others on OL as your lab rats and one student doing the vetted writing. This isn't true, of course; the semester is long over.

--Brant

hitting the mule over the head with a two by four