sereboi

Karma: −34

sereboi 13 Aug 2010 22:15 UTC
−2 points
in reply to: Leonhart’s comment on: Righting a Wrong Question
that would be funny were it a paradox.

sereboi 13 Aug 2010 22:03 UTC
−8 points
in reply to: orthonormal’s comment on: Righting a Wrong Question
so i am starting to finally get the dogma of this community, correct me if i’m wrong but this is basically a Reductionist site, right?

Eliezer said: “Since free will is about as easy as a philosophical problem in reductionism can get”

Reductionism does not make sense at solving ALL problems, perhaps i’m too dumb to get it. The problem of Free will Vrs Determinism has baffled philosophers for a long time. Calling it a veridical paradox might seem like a capitulation but it’s about the only thing that makes any kind of real sense. The problem is most rationalists can’t accept that., like paradox’s have to be solved.

I also get the feeling that this community enjoys talking in circles and never really getting anywhere, like the whole fun of it is just discussing forever and presenting endless scenario’s. Thats not my bag. Im NOT saying i’m right, but im defiantly not into intellectual masturbation.

I have asked repeatedly for substantial evidence and have only gotten subjective reasoning delivered in analogies.

Thanks to everyone for you time responding to my questions. Believe me my intent is not to bash you guys. Its just not for me.

-10 for me. i know, i know.

Chow

sereboi 13 Aug 2010 5:30 UTC
−3 points
in reply to: orthonormal’s comment on: Righting a Wrong Question
This makes sense, somewhat and now that i realize your not trying to defend compatibilism and can shift gears a bit. I really think that the whole situation might just be a veridical paradox, both being true equally. So in a way i would like to concede to compatibilism, however compatabilist attempts at solving the paradox are pathetic. Not sure if you have heard of Dialetheism, its a growing western philosophy that recognizes true contradictions. If compatibilism is a true contradiction than there will never be an explanation for how it works. It will just have to be accepted as such. The problem for most rationalists is that it takes the wind out of their sails. Also who decides something is a veridical paradox? Graham Priest has several books on the topic which challenges Aristotle’s Law of Non Contradiction which is what we base most western debate off of. Perhaps it is time to start rethinking the wheel of some rational solutions..

here is a WIKI link to read more on dialethesim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism

sereboi 11 Aug 2010 6:17 UTC
0 points
in reply to: wedrifid’s comment on: Two straw men fighting
The reason i said “little effort” is to clarify that one could possibly with much concentration have an effect on the subconscious, However the kind of effect im concerned with is the act of everyday choices that happen in nano seconds. I would welcome some data on “much effort” effects as well.

sereboi 11 Aug 2010 5:40 UTC
0 points
in reply to: ata’s comment on: Two straw men fighting
Any shown tangible research that an agent can manipulate and control with little effort their subconscious mind.

The presence of, would imply a host of things from complete agent responsibility in all areas of life.

The absence of it would not only imply severed liability but also complete meaninglessness.

Most branches of existential philosophy solve meaninglessness by stating one has control over their choices and so creating meaning, If one is stripped of that control than meaninglessness truly abounds.

Of course that is unless one believes in God.

sereboi 11 Aug 2010 5:30 UTC
0 points
on: Two straw men fighting
@ orthonormal

you said- I agree. But I think that there is actually some feature of the (deterministic) act of choosing which leads a person to falsely believe that their choice is nondeterministic, and that by analyzing this we learn something interesting and important about cognition.

Very true. so what do you make of reconciling the two? Do we castigate them both in hopes of finding something out that is hiding in the shadows? The nexus of the matter is “belief” and in order to have a sound belief one should know as many facts about the subject as possible. I listened to a long discourse given by Dennet who is a avid compatibilist, he presented an extremely weak argument with nothing to back up his claims, now when i read “the illusion of free will” by wegner its nothing but proof.

Now of course we can poke holes all day in theories derived from test studies. But by what else can we as humans deduct solid reasoning if we don’t take what evidence is available to us. To me discussing this topic is not about fascination, its about getting the truth. I might be that crazy to think it’s available.
What links here?
- orthonormal's comment on Righting a Wrong Question by Eliezer Yudkowsky (12 Aug 2010 16:19 UTC; 7 points)

sereboi 11 Aug 2010 5:18 UTC
0 points
on: Two straw men fighting
@Thomblake sorry about the message thing. Im still getting used to how this site works..

You substantiate analogies with proof. Basically im saying that your analogies don’t hold water perhaps i’m using confusing vernacular.

Let me say one thing before moving on. I hate debating just to debate, for me when i involve myself in a debate it is to gain more insight. So i am totally open to your point of view if it sheds some light on this subject, the bottom line is if someone has a solid angle that i’m missing than i welcome it.

Ok that being said. it sounds like your actually mostly agreeing with me.

You do however trail off with more questions. Like

“If the things we perceive as “choices” are “not really choices”, then what is really a choice? What do we mean by “choice”? The problem i have is that if you hold a firm position on compatibilism then you should be able to explain it to a laymen by using real proof.

My question to you is how is proof that our “will” is not really controlled by us as ideal conscious agents irrelevant?

It’s absolutely relevant.

“free will” then becomes some untestable enity that is open to all kinds of conjecture and speculation. Reason and philosophy but they can only go so far when answering real life questions. So i stack up the data the best i can and make an intelligent decision based on those facts and my own empirical life evidence that i have lived through, but i will stay out of personalizing the problem.

Please just show me a shred of evidence, supporting the fact that we have real control over our subconscious minds in order to make choices freely.

Thanks.

sereboi 10 Aug 2010 23:02 UTC
4 points
in reply to: orthonormal’s comment on: Two straw men fighting
thanks thanks for the information, honestly i got to this site cause i get e-mail alerts from google with anything about determinism. So when i read the article i thought it was some regular commentator. i had no idea that it was written by someone in a smaller community. That is why i was so harsh in my opening line...

Well now that i have a better understanding of what this site is about, if i make anymore comments i will word them a bit differently thanks again.

sereboi 10 Aug 2010 22:32 UTC
0 points
on: Two straw men fighting
Ok i finally get the etiquette thing of this system. :)

Sorry i am a straight shooter. I will work on my wording, however i still stand by my claims of conjecture vrs facts.

sereboi 10 Aug 2010 22:12 UTC
−13 points
in reply to: orthonormal’s comment on: Two straw men fighting
This sounds like intellectual snobbery to me.

No matter, nothing will dispel peoples beliefs, i simply stated the case that this blog/article is nothing but conjecture, no hard evidence to back up what is being said. If your going to make an intelligent opinion about something, shouldn’t you have some evidence to back it up?

I stated my position and gave information on where to get substantiated evidence on the subject and im voted out?

As for the article on “dissolving the problem” rather than trying to answer it, this is the very pompous cop out. By calling something meaningless and diffusing it you can do that with the very nature of philosophy ie. “Reason and rational thought is subjective and meaningless and i challenge anyone to truly define it.”

do you see how absurd that is?

I agree that in a complex debate like this it is ignorant to claim that you have the ultimate truth, and i by no means do. In fact i said “the verdict is still out.” But holding a position my not holding a position just seems like a trick. If you really want to get to the bottom of something you dig up facts not conjecture.

Im sorry i wont do a pompous intellectual 2-step with everyone, when discussing matters like this i prefer to get down to business, OPEN MINDED, but discussing facts if there are any.

sereboi 10 Aug 2010 19:01 UTC
−12 points
on: Two straw men fighting
Talk about creating a “strawman”!? This has got to be one of the worst articles ever written on the subject of determinism vrs free will. You postulate conjecture more freely than anyone i have ever seen. There is absolutely nothing here to back up your claims, sincerely is this a joke?

You want some scientific proof for Determinism? start with a book called “The Illusion Of Conscious Will” by Wegner. Its a 400 page book that is cover to cover scientific study on the fact that we don’t really act freely. Test studies, in Labs!

You are a compatibilist.

And even though i agree the verdict is still out on Hard Determinism. Compatibilism along with free will is just straight up ludicrous. There is no real proof on either and when ever juxtapose-determinism wins over compatibilism every time by a land slide. People that are compatibilist are too smart to concede to having free will alone, but too scared to accept the hard truth that we are not truly in control. They want it both ways and will invent all kinds of ridiculous theories to support their belief.