Thoughts in a Haystack

If this were facebook I'd click like...
 

Well, Jerry, since your choices are predetermined by the laws of physics and chemistry, in what way could "you" have "changed your mind"? Indeed, what "mind" do you have?

Oh, no, not this again!

Every one of our minds is linked to the outside world through our senses. Each of us is bombarded every day with millions of bits of visual, auditory, olfactory, information. And any one of those bits might cause our neural network to be wired differently from the day before. So, indeed, we can have our minds changed by argument and experience.

Why is that hard to accept?
 

Sigh Indeed. Wasn't this thread closed?

Lets suppose a black box (some process, some state),input(s) and output(s) , where the makers of said black box provide a reset button to restore the black box to the same state and process that it had at any point in time. When would you say the black box has choice? How do you define choice?

The entire response seems to be
a) "look at the wonderful outputs" (art,science,reason,logic) - there must be choice! otherwise the output is useless.

b) Since other similar black boxes are the one's performing the observation , a conclusion of no choice implies that the observations cannot be relied on.

c) Look at the inconsistent language you use (because ha ha English is such a logical language and language is used so consistently everywhere else).

None of which ever gets to answering when would you say the black box has choice (and how do you define it). And if you can't do that much , well well.

From an engineers perspective , If the exact same process, state and input gives different results then we define that as "random". If the output is different but it's because something that we don't know of changed (usually state) - we call it "pseudo-random" (but this is really deterministic if you knew everything). Otherwise the output is the same.
Hence what the heck does choice mean? How is choice, as it is usually thought of, a coherent concept?

You could of course redefine choice to describe what humans experience , but that's a separate thing.
 

we can have our minds changed by argument and experience.

What "mind"? Under Coyneism, you can have your brain changed by a bullet in just the same way as by an argument ... with as much relationship to "reason".

Why is that hard to accept?

I don't know ... ask Jerry.
 

Wasn't this thread closed?

I suppose you can't help but think that this is the same thread ...

How do you define choice?

Under Coyneism, I can't "define" anything (look up the word roots) since I cannot choose between concepts, I can only "report" the subatomic state of my brain.

Look at the inconsistent language you use (because ha ha English is such a logical language and language is used so consistently everywhere else).

But Jerry does claim to use logic consistently everywhere else ... as in comparison with William Lane Craig, for example. It's Jerry that has to explain that black box, not me.

From an engineers perspective

Salem Hypothesis? ...

Hence what the heck does choice mean? How is choice, as it is usually thought of, a coherent concept?

How would I be able to choose between what is and is not "coherent"? What meaning does "coherent concept" have if "concepts" are simply the present state of the subatomic particles that make up my brain?
 

So, indeed, we can have our minds changed by argument and experience.

Coyne didn't report he passively experienced his mind being changed or not changed. He said "I haven't changed my mind." If you don't take that to mean that he is claiming an agency to evaluate logical propositions, then you just aren't being intellectually honest.

If someone was half serious about this hypothesis (and note how much more strongly this is being presented than a tentative scientific position), he or she would find a way, before blogging about it, to describe the phenomenon consistently. Copernicus may very well have used casual language like "the sun is rising" in his everyday speech, but he took care not to use it in de revolutionibus.
 

a) "look at the wonderful outputs" (art,science,reason,logic) - there must be choice!

You've made this assertion many times. I guess it's somewhat interesting that it "seems" this way to you, but since no one has offered this explanation to support their argument, maybe it's time to stop mentioning it?

Since other similar black boxes are the one's performing the observation , a conclusion of no choice implies that the observations cannot be relied on.

This gets closer to the epistemic problem of deriving the fact of non-choice from among logical alternatives. Got a solution?

From an engineers perspective , If the exact same process, state and input gives different results then we define that as "random"

I'm happy to allow that "from an engineers perspective" there's no such thing as volition. But what follows from this, in the arena of human action, given that we must "make" choices? From a mortician's perspective, we all end up cold and stiff in the end. What is the relevance of the any of these when (in the famous example) trying to decide whether to join the French resistence or stay home with our sick mother?

This is important because Coyne isn't idly speculating about how things look mechanistically--he's drawing inferences about how this "fact" should influence our thought. Recall his argument that we should structure society to account for the fact that criminals have no choice but to commit their crimes (and non-criminals to not commit them.) This has nothing to do with engineering.

Why would you argue one thing (let's change the legal system) on the basis that argument is pointless? Why not actually try to influence the minds presented with the appearance of choosing between committing crimes and not committing them? Alternatively, why not give up reasoned argument altogether as pointless?

In other words, if choice is just (illusory) experience, why not hold yourself to the same standard as everybody else, and vice versa?

You could of course redefine choice to describe what humans experience , but that's a separate thing.

Given that humans are the only ones interested in the problem, it's not clear how different it really is. If thermometers started demanding we validated their subjective experience, that would be another matter.
 

Jeffrey, I'm not sure why you bother to ask - i think people aren't responding to you because you haven't shown a willingness to engage their arguments.
Just FYI
 

I think it's also sad that Coyne may not recognize his small sample is subject to confirmation bias. Coyne would tend to be aquanted with those who already think similarly to him.
If anything it kind of confirms to me science as professional methodology - people tend to shed it outside of work like a business suit.
I also think I'm understanding why he's so impressed with certain interpretations of fMRI studies - and why I'm not (fMRI, I think, is very cool).
Mind is certainly a part of nature, and we should expect to see the organ it "resides" in working - which is all fMRI imaging is showing. And I hope advances in imaging continue for obvious medical reasons.
But Coyne is adopting the argument that a mind with free will is in some way supernatural, or tied to some religious concept so that it wouldn't be detected in the natural world.
I don't think that's correct even theologically, but anyway, since he has no choice but to reject the supernatural, he reverts to his duality that if it's not one it's the other - a determinist scientism that he has to reinforce by turning to people who would tend to agree with him.
And that's a pity because these threads have prompted me to be more aware of research into this and apparently some leading scientists think mind might be a product of not just our organic brains but of communal interactions similar to what's seen in bees or ants.
Which, I think, wouldn't fit comfortably with a deterministic view since some tendencies or preferences might not have arrived in a subject's communal interaction set yet (and I don't think I'm talking about memes).
 

Complaining about what words he uses to describe this idea doesn't seem fair. It's not as if he had a choice.
But then, your decision to do so was determined by all your past experiences, so I guess I shouldn't complain.
(You knew I was going to say that, right?)
 

@John
I see you didnt answer the question (or why the question is unfair/unreasonable).

Under Coyneism, I can't "define" anything (look up the word roots) since I cannot choose between concepts, I can only "report" the subatomic state of my brain.
For the purpose of the black box question , assume you are an independent objective observer with choice, free will, superman's powers, bruce wayne's money, brad pitt's looks and whatever other properties you want to attribute to yourself. Now when would you say the black box has choice (and what is the definition of choice)?

Salem Hypothesis? ...
First time I heard this. Shrug.

Coyne's (and the common persons) definition of choice is the same as the engineers definition of random. Since choice != random , one of the premises is wrong. From which I conclude that choice as commonly defined is incoherent(to me) - because the definition of random works well enough everywhere else.

Incidentally a lot of the eastern faiths(and a good number of christians too) believe in "fate" and "destiny" - when can I expect blog posts that laugh at their use of "choice" or "mind"

But back to the question. When can we say a black box has choice? Based on this I(read as my brain) can decide whether I agree/disagree or can ignore.
 

@chris
You've made this assertion many times.
Read the previous thread, this is what I gathered from what you kept saying. Wonderful outputs (Art, writing a book) only possible with choice (or your new word volition).

Got a solution?
The way humans work around this is , if different black boxes can repeat the same observation, multiple times, then it is likely to be true. This still has the same problem , however since the applications(e.g. an aeroplane) of the observations "work" , it solves the practical problem , even if the philosophical problem is not solved or is unsolvable. You keep missing the fact that the brain is a reasoning engine i.e. a calculator can add numbers correctly (because it works!) even if the calculator has no choice. Saying that the calculator can never know that it is adding correctly does not mean it cant be used.

Recall his argument that we should structure society to account for the fact that criminals have no choice but to commit their crimes (and non-criminals to not commit them.)
Decide what you mean by choice first.

In any case since we have been over this ground , Im probably not going to carry on this conversation with you.
 

I see you didnt answer the question (or why the question is unfair/unreasonable).

I've already said I don't have an answer for what choice is or how it works. At a guess, it is some epigenetic property of the brain that allows it, in certain, probably fairly limited, circumstances to act as one of its own environmental influences.

But if Coyne is correct, I can't have a rational answer because I can't choose between rational and unrational evidence or arguments. And, if you agree with Coyne, why bother asking me, since all you'll get is the present state of the subatomic particles of my brain?

From which I conclude that choice as commonly defined is incoherent(to me) - because the definition of random works well enough everywhere else.

What makes you "think" it works well everywhere else and it is not just your physical and chemical history and environmental influences forcing you to type those words when, in fact, the world actually operates through Hogsworth magic?

Based on this I(read as my brain) can decide whether I agree/disagree or can ignore.

How can it "decide" if it is simply deterministically doing what is predetermined by the laws of physics and chemistry, as Coyne says? At most, it is "reporting" the outcome of those laws.
 

Don:You knew I was going to say that, right?

If "I" follow Coyne's "thinking" what "I" is there to "know" anything?

["I" had no choice but to write that...]
 

@John
I don't have an answer for what choice is
And yet you insist it exists?

At a guess, it is some epigenetic property of the brain that allows it, in certain, probably fairly limited, circumstances to act as one of its own environmental influences.
But we can't get here unless we know what we mean by choice - in what sense does our brain "allow" choice if we don't have a meaningful definition of the word choice which can be applied in general to any black box?

What makes you "think" it works well everywhere else
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. pseudo random sequences are used everywhere and they work. I can never know for sure if science is correct , but the computer works and the plane flies.

But yes I do not know if Im a Muggle or I'm in the Matrix and no observation could ever disprove that - whether choice exists or not. So even if choice(for some given definition) exists how do you know that you aren't in a world which operates on Hogwart laws? Magic is well Magic!
 

And yet you insist it exists?

As I have said time and time again, I don't insist it exists. I point out that Coyne, you and virtually every other person insists on talking and acting as if it exists and that the denial of choice has certain "logical" consequences that virtually no one holding that position is willing to accept, such as the meaninglessness of concepts such as "logic," "reason," "science," etc.

But we can't get here unless we know what we mean by choice - in what sense does our brain "allow" choice if we don't have a meaningful definition of the word choice which can be applied in general to any black box?

We've been through this before. In what sense can we get to "gravity" if we don't have a meaningful definition of how it works at a distance? But if you deny that gravity can be real because we can't define how it works, I can only advise you to stay away from cliffs ...

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. pseudo random sequences are used everywhere and they work. I can never know for sure if science is correct , but the computer works and the plane flies.

But if you have no choice to believe they work because the laws of physics and chemistry dictate that, how can you "know" that pseudo random sequences work? It could be Harry Potters all the way down but you couldn't tell.

But yes I do not know if Im a Muggle or I'm in the Matrix and no observation could ever disprove that - whether choice exists or not.

But, at least, you'd have a reason to say "I've evaluated the evidence and I choose to believe that science, for example, works and there is no need to posit Potters.

The issue here isn't what is "real" but whether we even have the capacity to contemplate it. Coyne, even if he doesn't fully realize it, denies we can while, at the same time, asserting in other areas that he does. I don't have an objection to determinism ... it may be true. But I reserve the right to be an environmental influence that somehow, in some way, "impinges" on other peoples' brain by pointing out his failure to appreciate the deep irrationality of his position ... by those "reasoned arguments" he somehow insists exist.
 

Read the previous thread, this is what I gathered from what you kept saying. Wonderful outputs (Art, writing a book) only possible with choice (or your new word volition).

You gathered wrong. I wrote that art and science were functions of choice. Whether or not they are "wonderful" is beside the point, which was just that you can't have science and art without choice any more than you can have math without numbers or music without notes. This is because both art and science require discernment, the ability to distinguish between alternates and to select the one that is superior. (In art, the aesthetically superior, in science the heuristically superior).

You simply cannot talk about science or reason or art in a meaningful way without these components--as evidenced by the fact that even proponents of Coyneiansism use volitional language when making reasoned arguments. ("I maintain," "I contend").

if different black boxes can repeat the same observation, multiple times, then it is likely to be true

I agree, and yet our species survived for hundreds of thousands of years without this insight. The Ancient Romans (excellent engineers, FWIW), observed the pecking patterns of roosters to determine whether someone was a thief or not. There's no clear reason to suppose the species couldn't have gone on for another hundred millennia relying upon divination. Clearly divination can give an impression of efficacy. Yet we prefer science. This calls for explication.

Saying that the calculator can never know that it is adding correctly does not mean it cant be used.

True enough, but unlike calculators, humans do claim to know things--even those who claim not to have free will. It is difficult to see how these knowledge claims can be given any priority over one another without a faculty for discernment--without some heuristic capability. And it is further difficult to see how such a heuristic capability could be made to work without a faculty of choice.

Decide what you mean by choice first.

I'm simply paraphrasing Coyne here, and pointing out a failure of logical consistency, wherein he maintains that criminals have no choice but to commit their crimes, but--paradoxically--argues that society can make adjustments to allow for this insight. Does this not imply that society (or those decision makers within it) has a capacity to select between the alternatives of maintaining the jurisprudential status quo, and adopting new policies and laws that treat criminals like malfunctioning machines whose behavior can't be helped?

I've gone on at great length in this post and others concerning my definition of "choice." If you are still unclear about it, perhaps you could tell me what in particular still seems ambiguous to you?
 

Which, I think, wouldn't fit comfortably with a deterministic view since some tendencies or preferences might not have arrived in a subject's communal interaction set yet (and I don't think I'm talking about memes).

Well if you won't, TB, I will, since they've been on my mind since this conversation started (and the topic of memes is a nice bridge between the free will and scientism threads occupying so much bandwidth lately.) Memes seem to me the corner one paints oneself into when one insists upon the unreality of subjective experience--a conclusion demanded by the (yes) scientistic view that only confirmable, third party statements are meaningful. And they fit in really nicely with the Coyneian doctrine of No-Choice because they permit an explanation for beliefs that needs no human agency.

The problem with memes, though, is ultimately that they are self-refuting. Dennett calls natural selection a "universal acid," though he seems willing to renege on that characterization where it collides with rational thought, which is apparently uncorruptible after all. The fact that we know what memes "are" is in effect proof of their non-existence, since the ability to understand concepts rationally obviates any need for a competing theory.

On the other side of the ledger, if memetics is true, it's difficult to see how we could ever be made aware of this as a fact, rather than mere belief. By what deus ex machina can we declare that Reason isn't just another meme?
 

By the way Deepak, Coyne concedes (in comments) the point that John and I are trying to make--except that he neglects to apply it to his own side (which is the other point we are trying to make):

The real practical implications for no freewill are twofold. The trivial one is that it takes away the idea of religious people that they have souls and are able to decide freely whether to accept Baby Jesus.

If "religious people" cannot choose to accept baby Jesus, it would logically follow that they can't choose atheism and materialism either. And since non-religious people are just as bound by the laws of physics as religious people, neither can they "decide freely" whether to accept science or Jesus (or both).

Given this, is there really any point to his having a blog devoted to promoting science and skewering religious foolishness? Shouldn't he just step away from the computer and go out and get some barbecue?
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

@John
I don't insist it exists.
Really? Direct question time then - Does choice (as defined by Coyne) exist or not? Bear in mind that you believe that science and reason are meaningless without choice. I believe you think science and reason are meaningful. Hence a logical conclusion is?

that the denial of choice
I cannot deny what I do not know.
I maintain that what people seem to call choice, is the very definition of Random. Choice is not supposed to be the same as Random. Hence the concept of choice is incoherent.

But if you deny that gravity can be real because we can't define how it works,
Don't mix the threads. I did not ask for how choice works in this thread, I merely asked when you would say a black box has choice or to define choice in a way that it works for a generic black box.
Gravity has a definition.
I can only advise you to stay away from cliffs ...
Ah but this is a point in my favor. Whether you choose to believe in gravity or not - it works and can be seen by observation. So physical laws exist whether you choose to believe or not. A methodology that we have developed seems to help identify those laws. Whether or not I have a choice in believing those laws is rendered irrelevant by the fact that law works.
Hence the methodology has meaning.

But if you have no choice to believe they work
When you see an aeroplane fly do you need to choose to believe in the laws of aerodynamics?

But, at least, you'd have a reason to say "I've evaluated the evidence and I choose to believe that science, for example, works and there is no need to posit Potters.

How the heck does it matter if I say the brain I have has evaluated the data ,following all known physical laws, (aided by repeated independent observations by other reasoning engines) and arrived at the conclusion that Harry Potter is fiction. The brain I have can't know for sure if that conclusion is correct , but the world works as well with this conclusion and my brain has also concluded that adding Potter adds nothing to the explanation of how the world works.
 

Agreed Chris.
Memes were an afterthought in my comment, as what I was writing sounded suspiciously like memes but I don't think that's what these thinkers are studying. I'll try to find the article I read.
Interestingly, I looked up memes on Wikipedia and found that the word was coined by Dawkins.
 

I don't insist it exists.
Really? Direct question time then - Does choice (as defined by Coyne) exist or not? Bear in mind that you believe that science and reason are meaningless without choice. I believe you think science and reason are meaningful. Hence a logical conclusion is?


Um ... I think some sort of choice exists that makes science and reason meaningful. The other "logical conclusion" is that Coyne (and you?) are asserting that science and reason are meaningless ... right? Or have I missed how you have demonstrated that choice (as defined by Coyne) does not exist but science and reason are meaningful concepts?

Ah but this is a point in my favor. Whether you choose to believe in gravity or not - it works and can be seen by observation.

But Coyne (and you?) has denied the ability to choose between "observation" and "belief." You are assuming a "privileged position" where "you" can "know" or "report" something other than the subatomic state of your brain and that can be wrong about "reality" ... maybe only those who displease Harry Potter fall.

The brain I have can't know for sure if that conclusion is correct , but the world works as well with this conclusion and my brain has also concluded that adding Potter adds nothing to the explanation of how the world works.

How else but through your brain can you know how the world works?
 

@John
Or have I missed how you have demonstrated that choice (as defined by Coyne) does not exist but science and reason are meaningful concepts?
We are missing where you demonstrate, by means empirical or logical, that these concepts are meaningless without choice(sort of hard to do when you say you cant define choice).

Ive also maintained that a calculator does add (in my opinion). It isn't relevant to me whether a human programmed it, a God created it or it just naturally evolved.
If the laws of mathematics/physics/logic exist independent of us(as I believe they do) then choice doesn't seem to be(to me) what makes science/reason meaningful - Its awareness/consciousness. Your mileage may vary.

"know" or "report" something other than the subatomic state of your brain and that can be wrong about "reality" ... maybe only those who displease Harry Potter fall.
But it's not necessary that the subatomic state of my brain is wrong. Can I absolutely positively know that Im right or wrong - no. But I can't know that even when choice exists. So it doesn't bother me. I cannot prove that there isn't a dragon in my garage either any more than I can prove that people who displease Harry Potter fall (shouldnt that be Voldemort anyway?)

How else but through your brain can you know how the world works?
Hmm? What does this have to do with choice?
 

Well... the brain is a level of indirection from "know". If you know something 100%, then that knowledge is absolute and takes precedence over everything else. If less than 100%, then it is provisional knowledge and can be challenged. So if you know provisionally that scientism is true and you have no choice, then there is uncertainty in your claim. If you know absolutely that scientism is true and that you have no choice, then that knowledge trumps science itself, thus invalidating scientism. The 100% claim is thus incoherent. So you cannot say conclusively that there is no choice. All of this eventually leads to deeper epistemic territory anyway (can there any knowledge without a knower?)
 

Eveгything is veгу opеn with a сlear clагification of thе іssues.

It ωas гeаllу іnformative.

Υοuг websitе
is useful. Thanκ you for shaгing!

Also visit my web-sіte - New Bingo Sites
 

curry shoes
supreme new york
jordan shoes
curry 7 sour patch
pandora
moncler jacket
kyrie spongebob
kobe shoes
kenzo clothing
air jordan