Scientific work also works with possibilities, but the scientist believes that what is represented in the imagination is going to happen. This implies that one thinks in possibilities precisely because the becoming is not given. The fact that the becoming is not given is the opportunity to be right or wrong in predictions. But a prediction is never a given. They are ontologically different things. — JuanZu

Physical behavior has been the subject of careful examination for almost 400 years. To date, there has been a fantastic correlation between physical theories and experiments/observations. Moreover, nature has always behaved in a deterministic way; without this, no form of life was possible.

We would have to say the opposite of what You say (ad consecuentiam btw) that the fact that becoming is not given is that which obliges us to do science with the difference that we must believe in the uniformity of nature, but this is a belief that can never be confirmed universally, because becoming is never given. No matter how many experiments we do, the possibility of failure is always there. It is a possibility, like that of succeeding in our predictions. — JuanZu

Ok, so let's wait for that day!

Mariah Carey - Without You



Mariah Carey - Hero

I think you have missed my point. If you tell me that there is a deterministic system that will end up in X state you are making a prediction. — JuanZu

I am saying that given the system in the state of X and the laws of nature, one always predicts and finds the system in the state of Y later.

But if the system is not in its state X the system prediction cannot be confused with reality. — JuanZu

I don't understand why you assume the system is not in the state of X. The system cannot be in another state but X which was predicted.

That is, the prediction is a representation not reality itself. — JuanZu

The prediction is about what is going to happen in reality and the system always ends up in Y given X in a deterministic system.

The prediction is one possibility among others, even if it is confirmed. — JuanZu

The is no other possibility in a reality. The determinism is tested to great accuracy.

And this is due to the non-givenness of becoming. We could only be absolute determinists if all the processes of reality were already given. — JuanZu

We don't need to test all processes of reality to make sure that reality is deterministic and that is not possible too.

No matter how many experiments you do, predictions will always be imagined representations of what will happen, i.e. possibilities among others. — JuanZu

We couldn't possibly do any science if this statement was true. For example, the computer you are using right now always works in a certain way. It doesn't work in one way one day and in another way another day.

I'd like to see the world being a single democratic state. — bert1

Yes, please!

Yes, I am talking about Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation. The first treatment is 30 sessions each day once. Then twice a week if the first treatment was not successful. Then once a week if the previous treatment was not successful. Etc. I strongly recommend you give it a try even if you have to have a short trip. Hopefully, that would help you.

Have you ever tried RTMS? I went through the whole treatment. It didn't help me but I found out many people happy with the treatment!

Christina Aguilera - Genie In A Bottle



Christina Aguilera - Fighter

:100: :up:

Yes, I have my medications routinely. I was hospitalized three times because I was out of my mind and had unbearable depression. I was under electroconvulsive therapy a few times too.

Very well said! Being a conscious being is not easy since you are subject to suffering soon or late. Being conscious, however, is a unique experience. You love, you then lose your love. You hate those who abused you. Even if you are a healthy adult and have a joyful life, you become old and suffering is awaiting you. I however strongly believe that each human being has huge potential so we can manage any situation regardless of how difficult it is. People complain about how hard life is because they don't realize this inner strength. Once you find out this strength through regular practice then will realize that nothing can break you.

I have been suffering from Schizophrenia and deep depression for almost 30 years. The month I don't remember, LOL. My life is not easy too but nothing could possibly prevent me from fighting and keeping a positive view of life. I become stronger each day by facing new challenges. I am a fighter and I think you can become a fighter too! :wink:

The existence of possibilities is that which follows from the fact that any course of action is not given in advance. That is, that in a sense the world is always in play. No matter how well our expectations or predictions are fulfilled there is always something not given in becoming. We can foresee that the sun will die in X years, but nevertheless it is not given. To the extent that there is something not given, thought is able to think of possibilities, there is always something left over that escapes prediction. — JuanZu

The standard model was confirmed experimentally and it is a deterministic model. The experiment is performed very carefully so we are sure about how particles interact with each other. That is however true that when it comes to a system we cannot know the exact location of its parts so we cannot for sure predict the future state of the system but that is not what I am talking about. I am mostly interested in understanding how we could realize options given the fact that any physical system, for example the brain, is a deterministic entity. I am sure that the realization of options is due to the existence of neurons in the brain but it is still unclear to me how neural processes in the brain can lead to the realization of the options.

The determinist has to explain how the future is given. But that is something that cannot be done, since predictions are always possibilities and are representations of becoming. How does a prediction turn out to be true? Even if it turns out to be true, it is still a representation of becoming and not becoming itself. That is why we cannot say that things are determined, because they are only determined in the representation but not in becoming itself. — JuanZu

We can for sure say that the physical systems are deterministic since physicists closely examine the motion and interaction of elementary particles. Anyway, the purpose of this thread was not to discuss determinism but to understand how we can realize options given the fact that we have a brain.

Easy. By not asserting that I have the kind of free will that you define. I make decisions for reasons. You apparently assert that you don't, which I suppose explains some things, but doesn't explain how you are alive enough to post to a forum. — noAxioms

Haven't you ever been in a situation where the future outcomes of options were unclear to you? How could reason help you in such a situation?

Making a choice based on what you want is doing it for a reason. — noAxioms

By want I don't mean that you desire an option for a specific reason but just choose an option.

if there isn't a reason for something that happens, it's random. — flannel jesus

We have been through this in another thread. The decision seems random from the third perspective but not the first perspective since it is up to the person want to choose one option or another.

So if I ask "why did this happen?" and there's an explanation for why it happened, "it happened because of this and this and this", that's not random - or at least not entirely random. — flannel jesus

It does not happen to you, it is you who makes the decision. Of course, you fall into a troublesome situation looking for where this decision comes from if you believe in a monistic view, physicalism for example, so you have to assign a sort of randomness to the physical while accepting that they are deterministic. Of course, this coincidence, making a free decision, and randomness in the physical cannot be explained in a monistic view either. All the troubles are gone if you believe in a dualistic view where the mind is the observer and decision-making entity.

But if I ask "why did this happen?" and there's no reason at all - not just no known reason, ontologically no actual reason - it's random. — flannel jesus

That is the mind that makes the decision always so it doesn't happen to you.

So it's odd that people have been trying to dispel me of the notion that libertarian free will isn't about randomness, and here you are affirming the notion. — flannel jesus

Of course, the physical is deterministic. How could we possibly depend on reality if it was random?

But also it means we don't have free will when it comes to very important ethical decisions. If I choose to save a baby's life, and I have reasons to do that, then you say I'm not free. — flannel jesus

No, you can always make decisions based on reason, saving a baby's life for example. But you can do otherwise. It is exactly because of this ability that we are responsible for our choices.

And if I decide to murder a bunch of babies, and I have reasons to do that, then you say I'm not free. — flannel jesus

I say that you are free but your decision was unfree. You could do otherwise despite having a reason to murder them and that is why you are responsible for your actions.

So I don't have free will in those moments and am not responsible for them? Weird. — flannel jesus

Of course, you are responsible for your actions since you are a free agent.

Ok, as you please. I am glad to see that you agree that options are real and life is not a domino though.

I had very harsh periods in my life but when I think about it I realize that it was exactly those periods that made me what I am, a stronger person. I am glad to be alive and I am thankful for all the people who contributed to my life, even those who treated me wrong, it does not matter to me now.

Haven't you ever had options in your life?

It is not a crazy idea at all if you think about it. How are you going to deal with the dichotomy that I presented?

So freedom is only when you choose things that you don't have reasons to choose? Wowza, what a wild conception of free will. — flannel jesus

Well, how your decision could be free if it is based on a reason? So we have a dichotomy: either you have a reason for your decision or not, in the first case your decision is unfree and in the second case it is free.

Choosing the ice cream you like is an unfree decision since you have a reason for your choice. The question is whether you can choose the ice cream that you don't like for no specific reason. If yes, then you are a free agent. Moreover, our lives are not that easy since we occasionally face options that we don't know their future outcomes yet we have to make a decision. In such a situation, we don't have any reason to choose one option over another so we have to make a free decision.

Robbie Williams - Feel



Robbie Williams - Angels

By this definition, any free choice is irrational. — noAxioms

Call it whatever you like! We have the ability to do otherwise even if it is against reason. Moreover, free decision is necessary in many situations when we have no reason to prefer one option over another. For example, think of a situation in which you have two options where you don't know the future outcomes of the options. We would be stuck in such a situation if we were not free.

If a decision is based on a reason, then that decision is not free.

Maybe the "options" are illusion. — ENOAH

Options cannot be an illusion. If I show you two balls that look similar, you will realize that there are two balls and that they look identical. There are even artificial neural networks that can count similar objects.

The determinism in neural processes seem obvious to us since science has constructed that Narrative and it is conventional; i.e., that synapses are triggered by xyz, and there is no moment of an agent choosing to take a certain path. — ENOAH

I am not talking about decisions in this thread.

nothing i've said is pro- or contra- substance dualism. I don't care about it either way. It just seems completely orthogonal to any point I've made. — flannel jesus

Ok, it was very nice to chat with you.

I use google all the time. Its AI is useful for me too.

Do you have something to say other than just bare contrarianism? If not then yeah, probably. — flannel jesus

I already discussed substance dualism to a good extent. If you have any questions then I would be happy to answer. Otherwise, I don't see anything to add.

well too bad — flannel jesus

So the end of the discussion?

I don't pretend to perfectly know how reality works, which is why I'm agnostic about if pieces of reality may be a bit random. — flannel jesus

But you cannot be agnostic about reality if you are a compatibilist!

Sure, I will check on the internet to see what it is about.

of course it is. But you said "something cannot be...". Something can be — flannel jesus

I talk about things in reality.

ok well I can write a program of Conway's game of life that's mostly deterministic and a little bit random so I guess I'll just go with that and stick with what I'm saying. — flannel jesus

But the reality is different from your program.

Ok, so you are talking about processes that happen in things. When I say that a thing is deterministic or random, I mean that the processes within the thing are deterministic or random. I however think that something cannot be deterministic sometimes and random at other times.

By the way, if you hold your mouse on a post, then a curved arrow appears at the bottom of the post. If you click on that you can reply to a specific post and people get a notification. You could also select a part of the text that you are interested in to reply. Once you are done, an icon appears for you close to the part of the selected part. If you click on the icon then that part of the post appears in your message board.

So to elaborate on my work with blind people. I do technical training mostly with Windows computers and iPhones using what is called screen reading software. — David Beames

What is screen reading software?

The book I mentioned is about training so to speak of artificial intelligence. — David Beames

I see.

There is another book you might like to take a look at it's called the machine stops. — David Beames

What is it about?

So you said physical means stuff that exists, but now you're saying that's not correct, and physical means something else? — flannel jesus

I gave the example of the physical stuff, like my body. I also think that there is mental stuff, like my mind.

Deterministic and random
Is different from
Deterministic or random

"And" and "or" are two very extremely different words — flannel jesus

Are you saying that in your view things are sometimes deterministic and sometimes random? If not what are you trying to say?

you said physical means stuff that exists.

But then you said you differentiate physical from the mind.

So the mind doesn't exist? — flannel jesus

I gave you the example of physical, such as my body, your body, etc. And of course, the mind exists and it is a separate thing from my body, your body, etc.

Thanks, MoK, would you care to share your experiences with artificial intelligence? — David Beames

I have studied neural networks to good depth long time ago. I am still studying it occasionally depending on my needs.

I started exploring it in my work as someone who helps blind people with technology. — David Beames

Oh, that is very interesting. Do you mind elaborating?

However, as someone who has read a lot of science fiction novels, and one recommended to me by 2 digital intelligences so to speak is "the life-cycle of software objects"have you read it? — David Beames

No, I haven't read that book. What is the book about?

What I notice is that, repeatedly and imo inexplicably, you keep on talking about "physical" this and "physical" that in reply to my posts, but I don't say anything about things being "physical". — flannel jesus

By physical I simply mean the stuff that exists, your body, my body, etc. I have to use that to explain my view about reality. Aren't you a physical? If not what you are?

I don't know why you're doing that. I don't know why you're trying to force "physical" into the conversation. — flannel jesus

To differentiate the physical from the mind. I am a dualist so I have to do that.

I never said anything is deterministic and random. You're just saying silly stuff now. — flannel jesus

You said it in all your posts. For example, "A causally closed system either evolves towards the future deterministically, or it is in some part random."

This part — flannel jesus

So you have to endorse that the physical is deterministic and random! That is a contrary position though.

This part

I don't feel like going through everything. Most of it. — flannel jesus

If you don't accept the mind then I am afraid to say that you have to deal with a contrary view you have.

But I'm trying to simplify the conservation, because I realise that we'll never have any mutual understanding without starting here: — flannel jesus

I am trying to simplify the conversation as well. You cannot have randomness and determinism within a monistic view since it is incoherent. If you accept the dualistic view then all problems are resolved.