A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Yeah - they were only able to pick the right one 81% of the time. Hardly statistically significant really.

Whatever. Animals are known to identify shapes and patterns when given rewards, but they could never identify a person by sight alone. I have never seen a fish or dog pick their owner from a series of pictures without other cues. They cannot do this because they don't have the capacity to distinguish faces without the use of language.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am getting the feeling that in the multi-worlds version, we could be seen as both having an not having free will depending on the point of view of the observer.

From the point of view of the individual, who experiences the choices that represents his line in the endlessly branching series of worlds as reality, it may well seem one way. But to an observer from the outside, who sees that reality as a spot in a tapestry of possibilities, it may well seem different.

None of this comes close to discrediting this discovery.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Obviously you do not understand the many worlds interpretation of QM, otherwise you would not say something like this.

It doesn't interest me. The only reason I bring it up is because David actually thinks that this proves we have free will. It's a joke.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Moreover, there is nothing in the brain that we can say is free to initiate its own thoughts.

Originally Posted by GdB

Then whose thoughts are it, if not its own thoughts?

I said that we do not initiate our thoughts. Haven't you noticed that thoughts come and go without our input? Even if our thoughts were acausal (which cannot be true if thoughts are events because events are always preceded by other events) this does not help grant free will because we would not be responsible for a thought that popped into existence, which is what an acausal thought would look like.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whatever. Animals are known to identify shapes and patterns when given rewards, but they could never identify a person by sight alone. I have never seen a fish or dog pick their owner from a series of pictures without other cues. They cannot do this because they don't have the capacity to distinguish faces without the use of language.

The experiment proves otherwise.

You are only clinging to this belief because Lessans claimed it in his book, but his claim was based on nothing, and in fact is wrong. Language has nothing to do with facial recognition, that is just another unsupported claim by Lessans, another idea that he made up out of thin air.

[thedoc]

Hello Peacegirl, how are you doing, are you getting enough abuse to feed your martyr complex? I'm sure the other posters here could step it up if needed, I wouldn't want you to be any more deprived that you are.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't interest me. The only reason I bring it up is because David actually thinks that this proves we have free will. It's a joke.

Does he? Hmmm...

Originally Posted by davidm

I think the situation for free will in a multiverse is no different than it would be in a single universe: It is compatibilist free will

That sounds differently, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that we do not initiate our thoughts.

What you cannot understand, is that we are our thoughts (and feelings, senses etc). So your sentence becomes meaningless.

You and your are dualists in disguise.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Does he? Hmmm...

That sounds differently, doesn't it?

What you cannot understand, is that we are our thoughts (and feelings, senses etc). So your sentence becomes meaningless.

We are not the cause of ourselves.

Originally Posted by GdB

You and your are dualists in disguise.

None of this proves that free will or compatibilism exists in reality. These are just wild speculations that jump from one logical cobweb to another.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't interest me. The only reason I bring it up is because David actually thinks that this proves we have free will. It's a joke.

And once again you are too stupid or dishonest, or both, even to have the brains and courtesy to accurately represent what someone else has said.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Whatever. Animals are known to identify shapes and patterns when given rewards, but they could never identify a person by sight alone. I have never seen a fish or dog pick their owner from a series of pictures without other cues. They cannot do this because they don't have the capacity to distinguish faces without the use of language.

See? When an animal looks at a face and recognizes it, is has just identified some shapes and patterns. Totally unlike recognizing the shape and pattern of a face. Simple! It is not real recognition.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

And once again you are too stupid or dishonest, or both, even to have the brains and courtesy to accurately represent what someone else has said.

You aren't a match for Trick Slattery. You couldn't even respond to his article on Bell's theorem or quantum probability. You are so busted David.

[peacegirl]

It’s “Possible” to be Confused About “Possibility” by Trick Slattery

The word “possibility” can be used in two different ways: ways that are quite often confused and conflated, leading to some huge errors in thought. This is even done by very intelligent people.

One way has to do with our uncertainty about the future. Due to our limited prediction capabilities, we often look at and call future events in which we think at the time “could happen” as a “possibility”. This type of possibility I’ll call “epistemic possibility” as “epistemic” assesses our “knowledge or lack of knowledge” over the possibility.

It’s important to note that “possibility” in this epistemic sense does not necessarily align with whether something was a real possibility.

cont. at: It's "Possible" to be Confused About "Possibility"

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You aren't a match for Trick Slattery. You couldn't even respond to his article on Bell's theorem or quantum probability. You are so busted David.

And you, of course, are too stupid to notice that nothing Slattery wrote about Bell's Theorem contradicts anything that I said about it! We are in complete agreement about the theorem. Of course, you don't even know what Bell's Theorem is. You have never heard of it. You have no idea what he and I are talking about! As always, you are an idiot, and just like Donald Trump, proud of it.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It’s “Possible” to be Confused About “Possibility” by Trick Slattery

The word “possibility” can be used in two different ways: ways that are quite often confused and conflated, leading to some huge errors in thought. This is even done by very intelligent people.

One way has to do with our uncertainty about the future. Due to our limited prediction capabilities, we often look at and call future events in which we think at the time “could happen” as a “possibility”. This type of possibility I’ll call “epistemic possibility” as “epistemic” assesses our “knowledge or lack of knowledge” over the possibility.

It’s important to note that “possibility” in this epistemic sense does not necessarily align with whether something was a real possibility.

cont. at: It's "Possible" to be Confused About "Possibility"

Uh-oh! It seems this is about to broach a discussion of modal logic -- of which you are also wholly ignorant.

Good thing for Velcro, eh, peacegirl? Tying shoes, like using quote tags properly, can be such a challenge!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

And you, of course, are too stupid to notice that nothing Slattery wrote about Bell's Theorem contradicts anything that I said about it! We are in complete agreement about the theorem. Of course, you don't even know what Bell's Theorem is. You have never heard of it. You have no idea what he and I are talking about! As always, you are an idiot, and just like Donald Trump, proud of it.

He rules out free will and compatilism entirely. Do you understand that he is a hard determinist? So either you read him wrong, or you are pretending to be in agreement when you're really not. I suggest you read the next blog post of his, and then the next entitled "Ontic Probability Doesn't Exist." Soon he'll straighten you out.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

And once again you are too stupid or dishonest, or both, even to have the brains and courtesy to accurately represent what someone else has said.

Peacegirl responds to what she thinks you might have said, not what you have actually posted. After all, you must remember that she thinks that what her father wrote was right.

[But]

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You aren't a match for Trick Slattery. You couldn't even respond to his article on Bell's theorem or quantum probability. You are so busted David.

Again, intelligence is based on agreement with Lessans. If you agree you are intelligent, if you disagree, it is because you are too stupid to understand. So you need to be as smart as an uneducated aluminum siding salesman.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

According to Peacegirl, something else is going on.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Uh-oh! It seems this is about to broach a discussion of modal logic -- of which you are also wholly ignorant.

Good thing for Velcro, eh, peacegirl? Tying shoes, like using quote tags properly, can be such a challenge!

Slattery writes:

If you ever find yourself in a debate with a person that claims determinism has been disproved by quantum mechanics, the first thing you should do is question in what sense they are using the words "determinism" and "indeterminism". Chances are they are using the sense that implies an unpredictable event rather than an acausal event. Be careful of those that mix these. Causality does not imply predictability! For example, if someone states that the uncertainty principle disproves the idea that everything is causally determined, a red flag should go off. It only disproves that everything is predictable. Whether it's causal depends on the interpretation subscribed to.

Breaking the Free Will Illusion for the Betterment of Humankind by Trick Slattery

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You aren't a match for Trick Slattery. You couldn't even respond to his article on Bell's theorem or quantum probability. You are so busted David.

And you cannot even understand the article. You have shown, extensively, you do not understand anything about physics at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

And you cannot even understand the article. You have shown, extensively, you do not understand anything about physics at all.

I'm learning quickly. Slattery is so on target, anyone that reads his book will have to discard a lot of his work (which will be hard to do) if they want to keep their respective positions. I would like to clarify one thing. The term "cause" can be misleading because it implies that previous circumstances make us do things or push us to do things that we really don't want to do. In other words, antecedent events can make us do things without our consent. This is where the problem of responsibility comes into play. People have been very confused over the fact that determinism does not reduce responsibility; it increases it. Schooler was wrong. His experiment was flawed.

[davidm]

Hey, peacegirl, why don't you invite Trick Slattery over here? After all, you were going to ask him how the wave functions, right? Did you? And what was his answer?

I've read a little more of his stuff and he is obviously thoughtful and intelligent. I could imagine an interesting discussion among him, myself, GdB, spacemonkey, and about 10 others here on the fascinating subjects of free will, determinism, indeterminism and etc. Peacegirl, of course, would have to sit at the children's table and stfu during our discourse.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

See? When an animal looks at a face and recognizes it, is has just identified some shapes and patterns. Totally unlike recognizing the shape and pattern of a face. Simple! It is not real recognition.

These fish were clearly achieving recognition results only by relying on their hidden language abilities.

My God, Peacegirl really is a stupid and dishonest fucktard.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, peacegirl, why don't you invite Trick Slattery over here? After all, you were going to ask him how the wave functions, right? Did you? And what was his answer?

I've read a little more of his stuff and he is obviously thoughtful and intelligent. I could imagine an interesting discussion among him, myself, GdB, spacemonkey, and about 10 others here on the fascinating subjects of free will, determinism, indeterminism and etc. Peacegirl, of course, would have to sit at the children's table and stfu during our discourse.

He won't come here. He told me I'm wasting my time. He's right.

The Online Debate Monster

Online debates happen both intentionally and unintentionally. I’ve had my fair share of ’em, in fact I’ve had too many debates to keep track of. Many are on the free will topic, and many are on other topics. I still have them but only when I can find the time, something limited. They are a great tool to get feedback and to provoke other thoughts or ways to go about addressing a topic of concern. They can also be a great tool for spreading information to others.

Some of these debates can be pleasurable experiences – in particular when neither side is hostile. Many online debates, however, turn into something else. They can often lead you down a dark alley of consistent frustration, defensive attitudes, and even drive out emotional responses that in hindsight are often regretted.

When that happens, we need to recognize that the person on the other end has just as much of a compulsion as you. Understanding that we lack free will means we should understand that no matter how someone on the other end behaves, there are factors driving them to that. If you were them atom for atom, you would behave the same way.

This could give you more compassion over their variables, and potentially prevent you from going down that dark alley. But this is easier said than done, even with the understanding that people lack free will.

cont. at: The Online Debate Monster -