karma, reincarnation and Buddhism

corrocamino · Jan 13, 2010

Let's not forget in all this that "reality" itself is a perception/construct in any given mind. We all perceive a different universe, and each of us perceives any given situation differently; the disparities in perception, as we all know, are often very large. Our reactions to a given situation are commensurately disparate. (Of course, reaction implies causation, as does any rational commentary.)

sylla1 · Jan 13, 2010

wittgenstein said:
sylla1 I believe that we have different definitions of free will. Yours is that a physical system can manipulate data.
Mine is that the lack of free will implies that all of ones actions are predetermened, even tho we do not have the knowledge or ability to process the vast amounts of data required to make an accurate prediction.

- That was hardly the definition I posted above; again from the S.E.P.:
"capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives".

- What you posted above is not a definition of free will, but a definition of determinism (as Rasta pointed out).

wittgenstein · Jan 13, 2010

"Please read again my post your answering here; silicon was certainly not the difference I stated there."
sylla1
Yes. However, the difference you mention is equally superfluous in the context of a debate about free will.
""Programming" in cybernetics means that, leaving mistakes aside, one stimulus equals one and only one possible response."
sylla 1
Which I indirectly anticipated and answered by saying
"However, that does not mean that its [ the brain ] actions are not physically predetermined. Its actions may appear less determined but that is only an illusion because its actions are more complicated and seeing a direct line of cause and effect is less easy to perceive." POST 69
Complexity of data processing does not relate to the core question of free will.

Rasta · Jan 13, 2010

JimR-OCDS said:
If computers could reason, they'd power on by themselves. They do analysis on their own and eventually take over the world.

However, such is not the case. A computer can only do what man has built and programed it to do. Reason is not a capability of a computer.

Jim

Sorry. I was disagreeing with the assertion that animals do not have reasoning capcity. They do, to differing degrees of course.

sylla1 · Jan 13, 2010

corrocamino said:
Let's not forget in all this that "reality" itself is a perception/construct in any given mind. We all perceive a different universe, and each of us perceives any given situation differently; the disparities in perception, as we all know, are often very large. Our reactions to a given situation are commensurately disparate. (Of course, reaction implies causation, as does any rational commentary.)

No matter what your Zen sensei told you; trees still make a lot of noise even if there's nobody there to hear them fall...

In spite of relativists better opinion, the Universe exists...

That said, we agree; free will exists too.

wittgenstein · Jan 13, 2010

The only defense for free will has to be based on consciousness and/or intentionality. Both , as I have previously mentioned challenge my physicalist stance.

sylla1 · Jan 13, 2010

wittgenstein said:
"Please read again my post your answering here; silicon was certainly not the difference I stated there."
sylla1
Yes. However, the difference you mention is equally superfluous in the context of a debate about free will.
""Programming" in cybernetics means that, leaving mistakes aside, one stimulus equals one and only one possible response."
sylla 1
Which I indirectly anticipated and answered by saying
"However, that does not mean that its [ the brain ] actions are not physically predetermined. Its actions may appear less determined but that is only an illusion because its actions are more complicated and seeing a direct line of cause and effect is less easy to perceive." POST 69
Complexity of data processing does not relate to the core question of free will.

Why "an illusion"?

As any programmer can tell you, for any input there's only one possible output in cybernetics; otherwise, algorithms would not be possible at all.

That's not the case for humans; mutiple possible reactions from the same specific stimulus are not only possible, but actually the rule.

wittgenstein · Jan 13, 2010

"However, such is not the case. A computer can only do what man has built and programed it to do."
That seems very arbitrary and not very philosophical. Why is there a philosophical difference between being programmed by a hominid and being programmed by the laws of nature?
As for the difference between a free will being and a not free will being residing in the ability to pull the plug. I find that to be unrelated to the free will debate. People can be shot and killed. And yes there is a difference between that and pulling the plug. But in the context of a free will debate that difference is superfluous.

wittgenstein · Jan 13, 2010

With human neurons there is only fire or not fire. The fact that they interact does not mean that their actions are not totally caused.

Robert165 · Jan 13, 2010

wittgenstein said:
"However, such is not the case. A computer can only do what man has built and programed it to do."
That seems very arbitrary and not very philosophical. Why is there a philosophical difference between being programmed by a hominid and being programmed by the laws of nature?
As for the difference between a free will being and a not free will being residing in the ability to pull the plug. I find that to be unrelated to the free will debate. People can be shot and killed. And yes there is a difference between that and pulling the plug. But in the context of a free will debate that difference is superfluous.

can you actualy prove no free will exists or is your case only to be made with philosophy and big words?

Rasta · Jan 13, 2010

I agree. However, soft determinism implies that either an object can transcend physical laws ( such as cause and effect) or that a brain being totally subject to cause and effect does not imply that it is not free. I find that to be more semantic rather than substantive.

I think the substance in this argument is manifest simply by looking at the wide range of perceptions we humans have. Causality does not necissarily imply hard determinism based on my point of view. No two perceptions have ever been the same. What can we conclude from this?

Well, I think the logical starting point is an exploration into what caused sapience. We have no clue how we developed sapience. There is no logical path that we can yet determine.

sylla1 · Jan 13, 2010

wittgenstein said:
The only defense for free will has to be based on consciousness and/or intentionality.

Here it seems we agree.

wittgenstein said:
Both , as I have previously mentioned challenge my physicalist stance.

I give up; what is your "physicalist stance"?

Then, why is it challanged at all by your basic cognitive abilities?

wittgenstein · Jan 13, 2010

"As any programmer can tell you, for any input there's only one possible output in cybernetics; otherwise, algorithms would not be possible at all."
sylla1
The same is true for the human brain. If we knew the position of every chemical in every neuron and had the knowledge of how they interact ( in philosophy this would be called God's perspective because we humans are not able to process that complex of a reality) we could predict the outcome, what the person would think or do.
The only way out is to postulate that there is something inside the human brain that is outside the laws of cause and effect.

wittgenstein · Jan 13, 2010

I believe that free will requires consciousness and intentionality. However, to my surprise both concepts challenge my physicalist stance.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/physicalist

wittgenstein · Jan 13, 2010

"a doctrine associated with logical positivism"
from the dictionary site I gave.
Note that I agree with the physicalist position but am not a logical positivist.
Perhaps, materialist would better define my position. That matter ( energy, void etc) and the patterns that we perceive are the only reality we can talk about realistically.

JimR-OCDS · Jan 13, 2010

Rasta said:
Sorry. I was disagreeing with the assertion that animals do not have reasoning capcity. They do, to differing degrees of course.

No, animals don't have reasoning capability, otherwise they would've evolved beyond what they have. The ability to reason is what separates humans from animals.

Jim

Rasta · Jan 13, 2010

wittgenstein said:
"As any programmer can tell you, for any input there's only one possible output in cybernetics; otherwise, algorithms would not be possible at all."
sylla1
The same is true for the human brain. If we knew the position of every chemical in every neuron and had the knowledge of how they interact ( in philosophy this would be called God's perspective because we humans are not able to process that complex of a reality) we could predict the outcome, what the person would think or do.
The only way out is to postulate that there is something inside the human brain that is outside the laws of cause and effect.

I don't think this necissarily follows. It does not need to be outside the laws of cause and effect. The key component, I believe, is the comprehension (albeit base) of the process of our reaction to stimuli.

As a simple example. Let's pretend that we input all of your information into the determinism machine. Now, we are able to accurately predict that you will crave a can of coke in 1.234 hours. Sure enough, you do. However, as soon as you crave a coke, you are given a choice as you are aware of the process. You can choose to drink bottled water instead (as it is more healthy), you can choose to drink sprite (just to mix things up), or you can choose to save some money.

JimR-OCDS · Jan 13, 2010

wittgenstein

Why is there a philosophical difference between being programmed by a hominid and being programmed by the laws of nature?

Because laws of nature can't be changed, while humans do.

Jim

Rasta · Jan 13, 2010

JimR-OCDS said:
No, animals don't have reasoning capability, otherwise they would've evolved beyond what they have. The ability to reason is what separates humans from animals.

Jim

No. Evolution has no destined "end result". The process is "controlled" by natural selection. Meaning, mutations (random) that are beneficial proliferate, while mutations that are not benefical are weeded out.

sylla1 · Jan 13, 2010

Let me see if I got your point, and if we may even agree in some points, Witt.

The physiological basis of the cognitive processes (including free will) is extremely complex and far from completely understood.

However, the basic component of such process is necessarily the neuronal activity, which in its most basic expression can indeed be decribed as a categorical response (YES or NO), as you rightly stated.

Therefore (as I conceded many posts ago) AI should im principle be able to express free will. Again, far as I'm aware that is still not the case.

And again, that is entirely irrelevant for our debate. In fact, if AI would be ever able to express free will, then the latter must necessarily exist.

Cause is not antonym of option. The same cause (stimulus) can provoke many different responses in humans.

Even more; causation does not contradict either consciousness or intentionality, neither in principle nor in ´practice.

It seems your argumentation on determinism and causation goes far beyond cognition (free will included).
Utter determinism would in fact negate chance; no event would be truly aleatory in the Universe, from the Big Bang onwards and even before. Am I right?

Search

Search

karma, reincarnation and Buddhism

corrocamino

sylla1

wittgenstein

Rasta

sylla1

wittgenstein

sylla1

wittgenstein

wittgenstein

Robert165

Rasta

sylla1

wittgenstein

wittgenstein

wittgenstein

JimR-OCDS

Rasta

JimR-OCDS

Rasta

sylla1

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions