Freewill - Final Submission

[TZK]

I believe it is you that is missing my point.

 

That which is explained does not exist other than as a function of that which we have experienced. Our concept of infinity is not anything in the real world, it is just a frankenstein monster we created from pieces of other ideas we have experienced.

[ughaibu]

I'll run with it, tell me about the potential of inductive reasoning, ie science. Tell me also your theory of discovery.

[TZK]

im sorry what do you mean exactly?

[ughaibu]

You are claiming that human beings are confined to that which they have already experienced, accordingly I would like to read your theory of discovery.

[TZK]

So like how do I think people form ideas or learn things?

 

Well say the mind starts out blank. You have someone point to a coconut and say coconut. At first it means nothing. Then someone repeats it (perhaps later) at a different location. Now the only thing remaining similar between the two is a pointing person and a coconut, but the word coconut was uttered both times.

 

But then someone does the same thing with a basketball, and you see a similar situation but the person pointing remains while the object pointed to changes with the word.

 

So you now deem the pointing as not what the word refers to.

 

So now you understand pointing as well as any object that the process is repeated with.

 

If this model is accurate, it is implied that any thing you percieve can be broken into parts and the parts can be associated with one another.

 

The concept of an object like a basketball is a function of experiences because you never see a basketball just by itself rather it is part of a whole landscape.

 

Now lets say I switched it up, and after you learned several objects I pointed to one and said "object". At first maybe you were confused, but when I pointed to a different object I again said "object". Soon you would realize that the difference is that object is anything that can be pointed to.

 

I would classify object as a function of your experiences even though it is not somethign you have directly percieved. It used attributes of your memory storage and retrieval device (attributes that might be called deductive reasoning or in a more computational design sense just simple comparisons and logic gates), the brain, to create the concept of "object".

 

I can only speculate on the exact design. Maybe object is directly associated with all known objects or maybe it is associated with the sight of someone pointing, being defined as the object of someone's reference.

 

In any case you can see how more complex ideas can be formed from this system, though each idea may be somewhat unique in how exactly it is learned.

 

So infinity is just something like associating no and stopping events. Like I count, but one day I get hungry and eat.. or die.. or something. But I can just stick not in front of the concept of stopping event (which is to the grouping of events which might stop me as object is to the group of objects), and then I wonder how long I will continue to do taht task. The answer IS infinity, ie that is the real subconsious definition of infinity and infinity has no more meaning than that.

 

Of course again the exact design of any given concept can only be determined through careful deductive reasoning and introspection, ie observing how we use the concept and how that eliminates potential attributes of the subconsious definition of the word. The example i gave for infinity may be incorrect, but I believe that it is a similar function of other experiences.

[ughaibu]

Okay, now you appear to be agreeing that human beings do have mechanisms for dealing with things that they have no experience of.

[TZK]

No, though I can see how you might confuse what I said to think that...

 

What I mean is, infinity is nothing more than this function of past experiences.

 

IE there is no magical infinity floating around out there, that we have no experience of, that is represented by this function of experiences we have. If there is anything out there even remotely similar, it is still different than our idea of infinity.

 

In the case of radio waves, until the point where we have experience of a real radio wave, our idea of a radio wave is just a function of other experiences and maybe deductive reasoning which implies to us that there should be such a thing in the world. That is not the same thing as percieving the effects of a radio wave like a voice coming out of a little box.

 

In the case of radio the distinction is not a big deal though... because the model based on experiences allowed us to accomplish things using something that actually existed in the real world. In this case our reasoning that radio waves exist and can be used in a certain way were correct.

 

However, we can only validate our model ONCE we get experience of the object. So to say that we can model things we have no experience of is not right because without any evidence that our model mimics something in the real world it is just speculation. For every radio wave there are infinite models that can be created that do not mimic anything in the real world. I can say tall short person, but there may be no such thing. I can say Omnipotent but there may be no such thing (Could an omnipotent beign create a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it?) Infinity may be one of these.

 

Personally I believe the universe is finite. And it is impossible to prove otherwise - you would need devices of infinite precision and infinite time to prove it...

[ughaibu]

we can only validate our model ONCE we get experience of the object. So to say that we can model things we have no experience of is not right because without any evidence that our model mimics something in the real world it is just speculation

 

So what? The model was correct before it was validated, this has been demonstrated in the case of radio waves, circumnavigation, distance to the moon, transitional fossil forms, etc.

You are heading to a point where you'll need to describe almost all human explanations as speculation, this isn't a useful position for making a point about free will and determinism, unless you're going to reverse your initial contention that free will isn't experienced or you can demonstrate that the experience of determinism takes precidence.

[TZK]

I figured id have to reword it several times before you got my meaning...

 

It isn't an issue of correct or not. The model was itself and nothing more before the calculations were validated to also apply to actual radio waves. And after the model was itself. The model is not actual radio waves. The model did not give us understanding of radio waves. Radio waves gave us understanding of radio waves. Until we can see that the calculations actually worked, then it is just speculation.

 

I can just as easily say there is some sort of ether and come up with all kinds of theories related to it. The theories are what we have understanding of not an actual ether field. It is no different in the case of radio waves, the actual radio waves are something new apart from our model of it.

 

The model doesn't give us understanding of radio waves, it gives us understanding of our model.

 

We cannot experience infinity. We have absolutely no reason to believe it exists. Our idea of it is just a model that we created by putting other experiences together. There is no real infinity.

 

You said that there is no collection of understanding or symptoms or anything else that are capable of explaining a non deterministic choice. My point was simply that this means there is no such thing as a non deterministic choice. You can't concieve of a non deterministic choice any more than you can a tall short person.

[ughaibu]

The fact is that the mathematics correctly predicted radio waves when there was no experience of them, this is an example of human thinking dealing with a matter that is outside experience. Obviously this concerns models, it's implicit in the definition of experience, but the models have often turned out to be correct and this confirms the effectiveness of the mechanism. There really is nothing controversial about this.

[TheBigDog]

Every day I flip a coin to see if I am going to respond to this thread. If It comes up heads, I ignore it for another day. It if comes up tails I proceed.

 

Then I flip another coin to decide if I am going to post on the side of free will of determinism. Heads is free will, tails is determinism. If it comes up heads I post, tails I decide that the method is bullshit and I skip the day.

 

Bill

[TZK]

Every day I flip a coin to see if I am going to respond to this thread. If It comes up heads, I ignore it for another day. It if comes up tails I proceed.

 

Then I flip another coin to decide if I am going to post on the side of free will of determinism. Heads is free will, tails is determinism. If it comes up heads I post, tails I decide that the method is bullshit and I skip the day.

 

Bill

 

Which is of course, perfectly in line with your attachment to the concept of free will caused by your past experiences...

 

The fact is that the mathematics correctly predicted radio waves when there was no experience of them, this is an example of human thinking dealing with a matter that is outside experience. Obviously this concerns models, it's implicit in the definition of experience, but the models have often turned out to be correct and this confirms the effectiveness of the mechanism. There really is nothing controversial about this.

 

The models do not often turn out to be correct. They are usually incorrect. Anyone can, and people often do, make models that never represent anything in reality. I can concieve of a unicorn by putting together a goat's horn and a horse. But there are no unicorns. I can concieve of a fat skinny person and it may not exist. I can concieve of an infinite number of things that are not represented in reality. One time you say radio wave and get lucky and suddenly the models are "often correct?"... No I am afraid not.

 

Sometimes we see that certain types of reasoning produce connections to reality more often than not... Usually deductive reasoning (and math calculations which are a type of deductive reasoning) allow us to create models that are likely to mimic reality.

 

However it is important not to confuse math calculations and other deductive reasoning with ideas that are related to math but were not created using reasoning that we have seen to be effective to that degree.

 

Infinity was not created using deductive reasoning, in the sense that it is not an immediate result of something else we have seen to be true. Rather we simply said what if someone never stopped counting, which is analogous to saying somethign like "what if there was a horse with a horn on it's head?".

 

Free will is another random fabrication created by jamming ideas together. What if nothing could control what you choose? Just because you can say it, doesn't mean it makes any sense whatsoever.

[ughaibu]

Your latest reply was, frankly, silly. We haven't been discussing random fantasies such as unicorns or self contradictory descriptions such as "fat skinny". One counter example to your initial claim is sufficient to falsify it, that has been achieved.

Free will is certainly not a random fabrication, it is directly experienced.

I've had enough of pointing out these same things to you.

[TZK]

You made the false statement that human made models often proove similar to something in reality. IMO Saying they prove accurate is nonsense, because an idea of radio waves created from putting together other ideas like waves in water (hence our giving it the name "wave") is not the same thing as an actual radio wave. It may allow us to predict parameters of a real life phenomenon, but it is not the phemonmenon.

 

As far as often proving similar to something in reality, this could not be farther from the truth. You cannot simply cherrypick human ideas that happen to turn out to be similar to somethign real and call those models and say that models are usually accurate.

 

You wish to seperate an idea of radio waves from any other fabricated model such as unicorns and tall short people so that you can attribute a higher success rate. You can not do this magically or because it is convient to do so. Why is it any different?

 

I gave you a suggestion as to how, namely is the model based on immediate consequences of things we already know (ie deductive reasoning). But this way of improving a model cannot be used to support free will.

 

Also, you previously said there is no way to consider choices in a free will context. If there was such a thing as a free will choice, then it would make sense such that you could say that someone chose something and there was nothign that affected his decision. You cannot say this because there is no such thing as free will and noone has ever experienced it.