The underlying premise is that the label art is a subjective attribution. — JosephS

Even saying "this isn't art" doesn't prevent the viewer/recorder from deriving art from it, at which point the viewer becomes the artist in extracting it/framing it. — JosephS

Well if you agree with both of these statements then our differences are not all that important :grin:

Things artistic, if I understand your meaning, are [1] things that might be considered art. Arguably unbounded. How about [2] things closely related in form or type to other things that are already typically perceived as art. Art and artists, as social disruptors, should rightfully chafe at this restriction. If the label art is essentially subjective so is artistic. It remains that my morning commute isn't art (it's a pain in the ass, daily slog) unless I call it so, and at which point you tell me that my art is lame-ass crap, which I agree with.

Is the set of things artistic larger than the set of things that are art? With definition [1] above it would seem the proposition is true. [2], to my eye, is not as clear. If 'artistic' gets us to the clouds that look like Mickey and Minnie Mouse, but doesn't include my latest bowel movement, or if artistic includes my dog barking chopsticks but not the sound of my coughing up phlegm, this proposition is not nearly as clear cut. — JosephS

I think I need to explain what I meant by 'artistic' with an example...I think language is the easiest. Most figurative language is artistic. If there was a clearer and more direct way of saying something then the ONLY reason for figurative language would be aesthetics or to gain an emotional response. While aesthetics and emotional responses are not art, they are the defined purpose of art.

And I do get that I am basically inventing word usage here (although it seems to meet the second definition of artistic - relating to or characteristic of art or artistry). But I have had too many art arguments like this, where I find myself generally agreeing but feeling like we just don't have the words to bridge our misunderstanding.

Once we fully develop the cognitive capacity to interact with and understand the universe from this position, then the will is potentially unconstrained. — Possibility

Any chance you have seen the South Park episodes about Imagination Land? These lines remind me of that.

When you say "develop the cognitive capacity" are you referring to current individuals or future evolution? Are there intellectual exercises I can do to achieve this? Or when you say "develop" do you mean after a few thousand generations of positive evolution?

Also, when you say 'unconstrained' do you mean "unconstrained except for the laws of physics?" or "truly, entirely, unconstrained"? The second option is why I thought of imagination land.

Perhaps you mean it is unconstrained BECAUSE it is JUST in our imagination?

Again, I apologize if none of these ideas have anything to do with what you are actually saying.

My John Donne never saw a film and never wrote a screenplay. He died in 1631, London; he was 59. He is considered one of the greatest love poets in English. He was a poet and a clergyman, Church of England. What my Donne and your Dunne have in common is that they are both dead. — Bitter Crank

That makes more sense. I was rather shocked that a poet had written that much non-poetry.

He is certainly funny and has a way with words, but he also has that Seinfeld ability to find comedy in everyday situations. To bad he wasn't born 350 years later, I would imagine his comedies would be very enjoyable (that flea poem almost feels like a monty python soliloquy).

Should a cloud that combines characteristics of Donatello's David with Michelangelo's be considered art? — JosephS

This gets to my point. If I take a picture of those clouds and frame then it is art no question, right? (your next paragraph agrees)

When did it become art? When the picture was done printing? When it was put in a frame
and hung on a wall? Or my assertion, it became art as soon as the viewer thought of it as art?

Your definition of art seems to include some aspect of sharing that experience with other humans. So I could not create anything just for myself that would be considered art?

It's music and music is an art form. But I'd have difficulty calling the software the artist.

Where does that leave us? I suppose until the AI can be considered as having an identity separate from the programmer, it means the artist would be the programmer. — JosephS

But you just said that if the creator did NOT intend to create art it is not art. Couldn't the programmer say they were not trying to create art, they were trying to create a computer program that generated previously unknown pleasant sounding noise?

I think saying that "art" can only be created intentionally, is quite limiting and can result in music, paintings, poetry etc NOT counting as art. Meanwhile, EVERYTHING that is created by humans counts as art IF the person that made it said it is art? This seems problematic.

Maybe I can solve our disagreement by using the word artistic? By making it an adjective does it soften the meaning? Those clouds are artistic, but they are not 'art' until a picture is taken and framed? I think I could get behind that.

The funny thing about our current system is when you consider what are called "externalities," if these were actually factored into a companies cost to do business, many of the companies that are currently profitable, (often through accounting voodoo) would no longer be profitable. — rlclauer

Indeed. Even worse is the new business idea that NO PROFIT IS REQUIRED. The plan is to just lose a few million every year but sell billions worth of stock. However, if capitalism has a strength it would the market ability to determine value/supply and demand. Once profits don't matter, that function is lost. And the whole system becomes just a matter of consumer confidence. Which means it has become a "complicated confidence scam". Maybe we should start calling the leaders con artists?

Presumably they do, though I am not that familiar with the psychological machinations of insects and fish. Why wouldn't it count as desire? — Tzeentch

Interesting. When I said it, I thought it was obvious...upon reading your question, I immediately began to doubt it. Let's see if i can justify the claim:

Hmmm, well first, desire is an emotion (correct me if wrong). Do all living things have emotion? I don't know...it seems it depends on definitions, but I would lean toward needing a certain level of mental complexity before it seems like the same type of emotion we humans understand? Does a dog experience some emotions similar to humans...seems VERY likely. Fish don't demonstrate behaviors that make their emotions obvious, but I can imagine they exist. As I keep moving down the food chain toward less complex organisms, it seems I am less convinced of their emotional capacity.

Colloquially, I also feel that 'desire' STRONGLY implies "more than need". I get that by definition, we can desire the things we need...but we don't usually say things like "I desire to breath". In this sense, an ant and a fish would not (seemingly) have desires.

In the same way (to try to get back to thread topic, haha), I am not sure a human desires life. We live life. So I would struggle to follow that slave owners get their power from slaves desire to live? Their power comes from guns, germs and steel (so to speak) right?

And now you also know where Ernest Hemingway got the title for his novel, "For Whom The Bell Tolls". — Bitter Crank

As I read the end, I was thinking "for whom the bell tolls" is one of the only phrases I find aesthetically pleasing. Now I know it wasn't invented by Metallica or Hemingway :grin:

O death where is thy sting?" — Bitter Crank

Another good one. While my patience for poetry is basically non-existent, I can say that I would imagine that John Dunne would have been a fun person to talk with...perfectly phrased jokes and all that.

Is John Gregory Dunne the right John Dunne? Looks like he wrote books and screenplays which I would expect I would enjoy a bit more than poetry.

No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. JOHN DONNE, 1572 -1631 — Bitter Crank

So I have heard that "no man is an island" phrase hundreds of times. I just assumed it was some idiom. Thanks for the cultural learnin'.

If you are talking about physical coercion: the desire to continue material existence. — Tzeentch

So ants and fish have that same desire? Not sure if it counts as a desire at that point?

where do we begin to create a system which enables free enterprise and the rewarding of ingenious or hardworking person's — rlclauer

Well a simple start would suggest that "rewards" should come in millions (of dollars) while leveraged power for future exploitation comes in billions. When 100 people own as much as HALF THE WORLD combined, it has NOTHING to do with "rewarding" their genius; they are using their "genius" to exploit the rest of the world.

You can decide to call it art when you see it, and some regard this as the step that makes it art, the viewer, but it became art immediately by his actions. — Brett

Hey Brett, you seem pretty informed when it comes to art (I enjoyed arguing with you last time - and I am not trying to say you are not informed on other subjects, haha), this thread has brought up a question for me:

Take as an example a work that WAS NEVER INTENDED to be "art" but was deemed "art" by a viewer. Has the viewer become the artists in that case? Or is this somehow NOT "art"?

When an AI can engage in artwork that involves not just novelty but mutual adaptation as part of the reflection on the art, as art, I'll be satisfied we're dealing with art (maybe not good art). — JosephS

Ok, but in the meantime...what do we call the original piece of music created by an unthinking machine? Is the programmer the artist? Or is the piece not art?

Let's say I paint a picture, and then someone says, "hey, that's a nice piece of art". Then I respond, "actually, I did not intend to create art, so that is not art; that is just me painting the idea that popped into my head." Is the work art or not? What is the difference between the above example and the "art" that a machine spits out?

It seems we all need to agree on "what is art?" before we will make much progress on whether AI could create such a thing. And what are the odds we all agree on what art is?

As Carlo Rovelli says in ‘Reality is Not What You Think’:

“When we acquire new information about a system, the total relevant information cannot grow indefinitely, and part of the previous information becomes irrelevant, that is to say, it no longer has any effect upon predictions of the future.

In quantum mechanics when we interact with a system, we don’t only learn something, we also ‘cancel’ a part of the relevant information about the system.” — Possibility

I feel like these quotes can only be true...and they certainly add an interesting perspective to the discussion.

but our will is free in relation to the future. Not what could be - but what can be, when we include ourselves. — Possibility

But I am still struggling to accept this. To be fair, I think there is still an aspect of what you are saying that I am not understanding.

Are you saying that "will" emerges from a deterministic system, but once it emerges it is not subject to determinism?

Can computers be genuinely creative and/or create art? — m-theory

Can most humans? I hear the phrase "truth is stranger than fiction" quite a lot. For me, anyone who says or agrees with such a phrase has little to no imagination and I question whether they understand the meaning of "truth", "stranger", and "fiction". But then I just assume that people like idioms and don't care if they make sense. Anyway...

The definition of "creative" may answer the OP:

creative: relating to or involving the imagination or original ideas, especially in the production of an artistic work.

I would be most impressed by a computer that interrupted its performance of the task you had assigned to it, by saying, "Your work is just too boring. Here, listen to this song I have been composing."

A computer becoming bored and deciding to make up a tune would be a sign of computer intelligence. Emily Howell is a demonstration of David Cope's skill in instructing the computer. I find Emily Howell's composition interesting enough, but it did begin at David Cope's instigation. — Bitter Crank

I think this highlights the fact that, SO FAR, machines do not have imagination. But that does not seem to be a REQUIREMENT of creativity. Since it is an "or" in the definition, we can drop the "imagination" from the definition and we get:

creative: relating to or involving original ideas, especially in the production of artistic work

Emily Howell seems to meet this definition entirely?

When we talk about creativity in art, aren't we talking about how a 'thing',an art-work, reaches out to us in a way that goes beyond it self as a thing qua thing. — Cavacava

Yes, but it seems the viewer of art is just as capable of adding this extra meaning as the creator of the art. So even if 'art' is created by a machine with no 'intention' of creating 'art', it becomes art when the viewer views it as such. Kind of the inverse of how a blank white canvas becomes 'art' when some famous 'artist' puts a frame on it and sells it for 8 million bucks.

As I’ve said before, I don’t think this is a case of EITHER determinism OR free will. We need to get away from this dichotomy and the ‘apologists’ of compatabilism in order to understand and develop a practical model of the will. — Possibility

Well I may have missed your first mention (more likely I was just overly focused on some other point), but I definitely like where you are going here. We just need the idea to catch-on.

Free will isn’t a force, it’s a capacity within us to be aware of, connect and collaborate with the potential in our experience of interacting with the unfolding universe. It doesn’t really matter to the past (that’s already been determined) - only to our experience of what lies ahead. — Possibility

I like the sound of this. But I would imagine a lot of people (like me) might get hung up on perceived definitions (their understanding of free will); I hope you have a lot of patience (so far so good, haha) as you get this idea out there.

Your final sentence actually brought it together for me and helped really understand what you were getting at...and as of now, to me, it seems accurate.

Is there anything I could be reading, particularly on that last sentence

It doesn’t really matter to the past (that’s already been determined) - only to our experience of what lies ahead. — Possibility

, that could help thoroughly explain the idea? Or are you sort of inventing it as you go along? (I hope that doesn't come across negatively, in my mind, all of the now-famous philosophers were "inventing it as they went along")

↪ZhouBoTong ↪S

It seems we are in...agreement? — DingoJones

Good enough for me :smile:

What you’re explaining here is, in my view, a five dimensional subjective experience. The ‘conscious self’ (‘I’) exists as an experience of interacting four dimensional events, both internal and externally observable. The ‘evidence’ I have that my self exists consists of the experience of internal events; your ‘evidence’ that I have a ‘conscious self’ comes from your experience of externally observable events. Yet neither of us are certain that what we experience (‘know’) is ACTUAL, except that we agree on the experience (‘knowledge’) that these events interact with what we can agree is actual by its relationship to mutually observable/measurable data: the body, heart rate, etc.

Thoughts exist in much the same way. They’re ‘real’ because of the relationships that exist between 5D subjective experiences of 4D events interacting with 3D observable objects consisting of measurable data.

It is in this 5D structure of the mind that the experience (knowledge or understanding) of any event in spacetime has the capacity to interact with the experience of any other event. — Possibility

I have never thought of these things as extra dimensions, but it does not seem unreasonable. Aside from having to do a bit of research on dimensions, I think I would agree with everything up to this point.

It is here that I think this ‘ontological freedom’ is ours: insomuch as we are aware of, connecting and collaborating with the potential in each experience. We have the capacity to intervene, to prevent predicted events from occurring, to change the causal conditions of future events, even to alter the ongoing effect of past causes, etc. by changing how we relate to the significance of an experience. — Possibility

This is where philosophy gets complicated for me. At first glance, what is said here can only seem true. Especially if we consider common language usage. However, once I am in philosophy mode (haha, whatever the heck that means), I can't help but see questions:

to prevent predicted events from occurring — Possibility

doesn't knowing the prediction give a "cause" for your changed behavior?

All of my other questions would probably be tied to the idea that if we completely understood thought (along with everything in the first 4 dimensions), MAYBE we could establish a causal chain?

I can't fully accept determinism until it is shown (until it is 100% proved, I can't 100% dismiss the emotional feeling of having a choice).

But I don't find arguments for "free will" all that convincing (you are causing me to rethink, but not quite convincing :smile:). I end up feeling like we are just using certain words differently. So, I don't find (the good) free will arguments to be wrong, but more insignificant (sure that MIGHT be true, so what?).

If I had to guess, I would think it is MOSTLY (like 99%) determinism, but it makes sense to leave room for some randomness. However, it starts to feel like a 'god of the gaps' argument the more events are shown to be determined.

To be fair, overall, I don't find the free will argument to matter as long as everyone admits that MOSTLY we did not have a lot of control in who we are today. We were born with 'x' genes and raised in 'y' environment. Sure free will MAY have played a small role in the development of a few humans (mostly those who are naturally inclined to 'buck the trends' so to speak), but I don't see it as a particularly significant force.

Unfortunately, an unfiltered belief in free will (christians, libertarians, et al) leads to bigotry and dysfunction. (if life is ALL free will and ZERO determinism, then everyone DESERVES exactly what they have).

“I dont know” leaves the answer to whatever question completely open, saying you don’t know means the answer could be anything. A person could start eliminating certain possibilities after that of course to determine what isnt the answer but the possibilities of what IS the answer is inherently open by nature of not knowing.
an hour ago — DingoJones

Yes. Exactly my thoughts, but clear, hehe. Thanks.

They simply don't have an opinion on it. Maybe they don't have enough information, or they think it's not something that can be known, etc. — Terrapin Station

Sounds like it is a possibility? I get they don't typically think about it, but once asked directly, they would have to acknowledge the possibility that is inherent in "I don't know".

No, an agnostic, by virtue of being an agnostic, isn't committed to the existence of God being possible, just that they don't know whether or not God exists. — S

So does the word agnostic tell us anything about the person other than they believe (hehe) that atheists and theists are wrong? I don't get why "I don't know" doesn't leave the possibility of god's existence open?

The 'third type of person' is supposed to be the agnostic fyi, and i don't think agnostics think they are better than the other folks, what they're simply stating is that; — Philosophical Script

Yeah, I was joking a little there. When I say "better" I mean that some think they are "above the fray". Some also think they are "better" in that they have honed there mind so perfectly that "belief" no longer occurs...psssh.

I cannot see any difference, aside from semantics and disagreement on specific meanings of certain words, between my views (which I would call agnostic atheist) and those of Agnostics.

what they're simply stating is that; atheists can't be 100% certain that deities don't exist, — Philosophical Script

Do you believe in god(s)?

Are you sure? — ZhouBoTong

The first question is about theist or atheist. The second is about agnostic or not.

what they're simply stating is that; atheists can't be 100% certain that deities don't exist, — Philosophical Script

You ignored the second question. An atheist who is unsure is agnostic.

how can they even prove that? — Philosophical Script

I don't know. But it may be possible. I am agnostic about the idea that "it is impossible to know if there is a god". Similarly, I am agnostic to the idea that "it is impossible to know if there is no god".

But there is no god I have ever heard of that I do believe in, so I call myself atheist.

could someone care to explain the concept of agnostic theists and agnostic atheists because personally i don't think the concepts of agnosticism and the latter are compatible — Philosophical Script

Do you believe in god(s)?

Are you sure?

The first question tells us if you are theist or atheist (or a third type of person with strange grammar understanding that thinks they are better than the rest in some way).

The second one tells us if you are agnostic or not.

.

Whether or not they have free will doesn’t change what the purpose of punishment is or it’s effectiveness. — khaled

I entirely agree. But remember for the pro free-will crowd, especially if they happen to be religious too, THE PURPOSE of punishment is PUNISHMENT. They are all about retributive justice. This is part of the reason some are so attached to free will. They can't justify THEIR punishments without it. They also believe they DESERVE all the good that has happened to them because they are good.

But how are we so sure these internal 4D events exist? Perhaps it’s because internal experience shows us how they interact with observable/measurable (actual) internal 4D events, such as heart rate. — Possibility

I like the actual evidence for internal reality you mention: things like heart rate, etc.

But I also "know" my thoughts exist in the same way I "know" that "I" exist. More specifically, I don't know either. But my thoughts provide me with evidence of my existence more than any external factor possibly could (ANY and EVERY external factor can only be measured if thought occurs...it seems there must be an exception...but how could there be? oh, maybe A.I.? or is that just a different type of thought? Even A.I. could only "measure" for other A.I., any human explanation would require thought).

Sorry if I am rambling. I feel you have a more academic (advanced) understanding of ideas that have been bouncing around in my head for years...So I just keep going to see what else you can add :smile:

Feel free to ignore me, as I doubt I am adding much that will help you:

tease out Hegel’s idea of dialectic process and reach some level of synthesis that is more convincing than compatibilism. — Possibility

But I do appreciate hearing your thoughts.

I've had more or less the same views about a lot of philosophical issues for 30 to 40 years, and even longer for a few things. And I've been talking about that stuff with others in the manner that we do here for just about that long, including remotely via computer, starting almost 40 years ago via BBSs, and then for the past 25+ years on the Internet. — Terrapin Station

Well I have only been reading your stuff for a year or two, but you are remarkably consistent.

And 40 years experience makes your patience for nitpickers like me all the more impressive :smile:

or the actions that might be required to sharply reduce population growth, or worse, or to reduce population already born, are to many people unthinkable. — Bitter Crank

I think this is a big part of the problem. With each passing day, painless solutions are less likely. And it seems difficult to ethically justify the Thanos solution (a random lottery to decide who dies), not to mention that people will fight to save themselves and their loved ones.

I think once it is too late, and famines, etc. are killing many millions or billions of people, then people may approve of harsh (like killing people) measures. But not until we are sitting on the precipice of total annihilation.

Due to my natural disposition, I don't want kids. Is that enough for me to say it is everyone else's problem because I did my part? I don't think so. But is there any other "painless" approach other than convincing the vast majority of people to have less kids, with a large portion needing to have zero? In my mind, if the misery of raising children does not deter people, why would some logic about saving the world convince them?

Should we all start donating money to @schopenhauer1 and maybe he can convince the rest of the world?

What say you? — Bitter Crank

From that jumbled response, I think you can see that I am not sure :grimace:

Definitely a big problem though.

After god created us he fled in horror like Victor Frankenstein — Evil

hahaha, seems plausible

I concur. I LOVE reading my own posts (and short stories, essays, etc.) It's equivalent to a person loving his or her own voice in speech. — god must be atheist

Damn. I got to learn to own it like that :smile: Here I am reading my own posts out of neurotic insecurity. Your version sounds so much better.

Again I concur wholeheartedly. I just had re-read my favourites so many times in the past, that I expect no new nuances to crop their heads. Which is most likely a mistake. There are nuances everywhere that you hadn't before noticed, because appreciating art of any form is very much dependent on the mood you are in at the time. — god must be atheist

This rings true to me. I actually don't like MOST fiction so when I read (or watch) a story that I like, I am happy to re-read. I found that with the books I like, I actually liked them even more, on the 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th read. However, after the 5th or 6th read, I need like a decade off before I will get the same enjoyment again.

Best to ask a modern Gnostic Christians what his beliefs are because Gnostic Christianity is a perpetual seeking religion that has evolved along with man's moral thinking. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Dang...I thought the entire gnostic religion was playing off sarcasm...kind of like certain versions of satanism. And it made perfect sense as sarcasm...now I don't think I get it.

In the past, I would have seen a comment like the following as having missed the point:

Before anyone can make these claims, they must prove the existence of these gods. — Sir2u

I would have said, no actually the gnostic is atheist, hence the sarcastic "is god a coward?"

The original gnostics had like a good and bad god (I think demiurge was the bad one?) or something right?

So what do you actually believe - in the very basic sense - god or no? - if yes, what powers does your god have? Are there more than 1 gods?

Yes — Noah Te Stroete

:up:

Thanks for helping me think this through. Thanks to @god must be atheist, @PoeticUniverse, and @Terrapin Station as well (although I think Terrapin has solidified his stance on this issue enough that he could have the discussion in his sleep, he still makes a great foil)

We can, though, say that what did happen, non randomly, trumps as actuality the claims such as "should have", making those to be of a fantasy world stance. — PoeticUniverse

That seems fine to me. But I would struggle to add: "so there is no choice/decision/other possibility". I think I am viewing these things as existing in reality the same way I view all thoughts as existing in reality. The thoughts are unquestionably part of "reality", even if what is being imagined is not.

That there is only one reality is not a reasoning, but an observation. — god must be atheist

Have you 'observed' everything? "There is only one reality" is not an observation the same way "the sun will rise in the east" is an observation. Is 'reality' a thing? or a concept?

Show me more than 1 reality. Show me that reality is a multiplicity by and in itself. Evidence suggests there is only one reality. — god must be atheist

Well grammatically that seems easy. If yesterday's reality was different from today's, haven't we described multiple realities? Is "my" reality the same one as "yours"? What EXACTLY do we mean by "reality"? Can we describe reality IN ANY WAY outside our subjective experience of that reality?

Time to consider sober, reasonable thinking. I don't mean to be mean or demeaning or insulting, but it is an insult to intelligence to claim that reality exists in more than one expression of itself. — god must be atheist

Sober, reasonable thinking...in Philosophy? Aren't most of the topics being discussed considered nonsense to 90%+ of humans?

This seems about as sober and reasonable as one could get:

The way I see it, it boils down to one assertion: I have and can make a choice. — Terrapin Station

And yet we both disagree with it to some extent.

I’m trying to work out what you’re arguing with me about. I agree with pretty much everything you’ve written here. — Possibility

That seems possible. It likely stems from some misunderstanding on my part. When I am confused, I argue until the point is clarified :grimace:

Sure, but does that help us to understand how it happens and how it interacts with everything else? I’m using ‘fifth dimension’ because it relates to other discussions and other areas of philosophy, where ‘abstract thought’ is too vague a concept. For instance, I’m of the belief that a sixth dimension (also involving abstract thought) structures our interactions, too - but that’s off topic here. — Possibility

Prime example. But I will do a bunch of reading on this topic before I continue to bug you, haha.

That they exist ‘in the abstract’ is enough. Whether they could/would/should have existed tangibly is something we think/believe subjectively based on value/significance/logic/moral structures, and we internally interact with these abstract possibilities and integrate related information accordingly - even though they may have never had a tangible existence. — Possibility

Now this I can get. Sounds good.

I’m not talking about ‘knowing’, though - I’m talking about subjective experience: awareness, connection and collaboration. Recognising that there are always infinite possibilities that we may never have imagined precludes any claim to ‘knowledge’. As Rovelli says in relation to QM and Information Theory: ‘There is always more information to be obtained about a system’. So i’m not suggesting that we have to know the exact outcome of every possible possibility - only that it’s out there as information to be sought. — Possibility

I may have some minor quibbles/clarification with this portion, but I think you are right that I mostly agree with your overall position (I think if I argued my quibbles we would see that again it was just a minor misunderstanding on my part).

The dictionary definition of WILL says: ‘the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action’, with these obvious assumptions built in that I’ve been trying to eliminate. — Possibility

hahahahah. And here I am trying to ensure everything matches definitions perfectly. "So there's your problem!"...thank you for clarifying.

The dictionary definition of FREE is ‘unconstrained’, and this is the one I have been working with throughout this discussion, despite the tendency for contributors to bring their own meanings with them - include conceptual definitions of ‘free will’ that allow them to delve into apologist style arguments to support its apparent existence. — Possibility

Yep, your position definitely seems close enough to my own that I should not be arguing.

I can relate to this, too. My aim here is not to argue one way or the other, but to tease out Hegel’s idea of dialectic process and reach some level of synthesis that is more convincing than compatibilism. I’ve found there are may people who’ve reached an externally manageable/arguable viewpoint that is nevertheless internally unconvincing. — Possibility

Sounds great (and a rather interesting approach). If I have time, I may even do some extra reading so I can actually add something of value to the discussion.

I think it's more like: only one possibility exists, but you don't know what it is, therefore you imagine all kinds of different possibilities exist. (You meaning the general you; human.) — god must be atheist

Would there be any way to prove or test this idea? (saying "there is only one reality" is a type of reasoning but a long way from actual evidence) Is it any different in actual practice from "there are many possibilities but only one is actualized"? I mean, wouldn't I act the same either way?

This all just feels like a debate about what exactly we all mean when we say 'choice' or 'possibility'. If I eliminate those words and put in 'decision making process', are we good to go? Can we admit that whether or not there are actual possibilities and therefor an actual choice would be made, our minds go through a decision making process? Wouldn't hard determinism include that decision making process?

This is a good post and I agree with you. though I am still skeptical that this is an issue amenable to philosophical resolution. — Arne

That is certainly the struggle I am having. I find myself agreeing quite often (with both sides), but still being thoroughly unconvinced.

Years ago I read someone on another site who said something along the lines of, "it seems likely there is no free will, but life operates better if we act as if there is" - they were more eloquent but you get the idea. I am still basically stuck in that view.

"Free" in this case means "not causally determined." If you can choose between two options you have a free--that is, not a causally determined--choice. — Terrapin Station

I still doubt whether that makes will free, but I am happy to be given a definition - so I won't bug you along those lines again.

because probabilities is a human-only oriented knowledge prediction. A mind could potentially foreknow or precognize all events in the future, but a human mind can't as its lack of ability to encompass all that is to know to know the future manifests in less and less accurate predictions with each iteration of the causation process; the further into the future, the less accurate the prediction, the less probable that a foretelling is precise. But it is only from the point of view or from the limited capacity of the human mind. In effect, the future is knowable, and precisely knowable, since there is no cause without an effect, and no effect without a cause. — god must be atheist

So because I can't know all the possibilities, they can't exist? I don't get it.

Your opinion extrapolates from what is knowable by humans, to what is theoretically knowable. That is a mistake. — god must be atheist

I think it mostly extrapolates from an understanding of the common usage of infinite (which is certainly not exactly right...but I am still Ok with it). If a centimeter can be infinitely divided (in the abstract) then so can possibilities. Wouldn't any single 'possibility' have infinite variability (one atom out of position, etc)?

To me, this whole discussion feels like philosophy has delved far further into words like 'possibility' and 'choice' than their definitions can possibly encompass. It is not wrong, but it begins to lose meaning ("there are no possibilities because there is only one reality" suggests that the words possibility and choice should not exist - if I say pick a number between 1 and 10...you are making a 'choice' by defintion...even if determinism suggests there is only one possible answer you could give).

I guess I am saying that science and philosophy need to be far more careful with their words if they expect a significant percent of the population to understand them. Heck I just learned from @Terrapin Stationthat in this discussion "free" means 'not causally determined' but I doubt I could find a dictionary that includes that meaning (the plato.stanford philosophy site suggests Terrapin is right, but they keep it vague and refuse to even say anything as clear as "not causally determined").

I guess I should learn a lesson from some of my other discussions to accept "better than the alternative." I vastly prefer that people believe there is no free will, than believing there is. So even if I think you are too absolute, I should just be happy you are not absolute in the opposite direction :smile:

The ‘infinite possibilities in any given moment’, for me refers to the fifth dimension. — Possibility

The fifth dimension? Wouldn't we just call it abstract thought?

We can only verify the existence of one ‘actual’ moment because to do so it must be measured/observed in relation to the rest of the 4D structure of our experience. — Possibility

Isn't science a LONG way from being able to explain everything about "the existence of one 'actual' moment"?

Once science has completed the chain of determinism then I will be able to get behind these sorts of ideas. Until then I will struggle to accept 'proof' of an absence of choice.

For most of the universe, the infinite possibilities in each moment are not only beyond awareness, but they’re also beyond any deliberate interaction. — Possibility

Aren't imagination and abstract thinking a method of deliberately interacting with possibilities?

And yet they exist, otherwise you wouldn’t be asking the question, would you? — Possibility

Well the possibilities certainly exist in the abstract. I can admit that we can not know (yet?) whether they could have existed tangibly.

How are you vaguely aware of them? — Possibility

I am acutely aware of the possibilities that "I" can imagine. I am vaguely aware that there may be infinite possibilities that I have never imagined.

Was there a possible moment that you would have preferred to have occurred, instead of what actually occurred? Can you experience this preferred moment occurring in your mind? Does that impact on physical events in your bodily systems, even though it didn’t actually happen in time and space? Perhaps the un-actual moment wasn’t so much ‘preferred’ or more valued as calculated to be more probable. Different value/significance system, same dimensional relation - interacting ‘outside’ spacetime, in the fifth dimension. — Possibility

This to me this portion has gone beyond knowing if there are possibilities. You seem to be suggesting that for me to "know" possibilities exist that I would have to "know" the exact outcome of every possible possibility. That is omniscience. Seems different.

Well, what if instead of the regret of experiencing a preferred unactual moment, you had been aware of and been capable of interacting with what you could do differently prior to the moment you did it? — Possibility

Isn't this why we read/watch fiction? It allows us to experience emotions and events we typically never experience. We can then imagine the decisions we would make in those scenarios. Discussing philosophy also brings up many hypothetical situations where we can prepare our wills.

Free will. Because of the choice part. — Terrapin Station

But your 'choice' is severely limited, right? "Free" means unrestrained.

I really hope that you do not believe that just because a person that is in favor of free speech, that they are by default a person who believes in acts of violence. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

As far as I can tell, @Pattern-chaseris describing an "is", while @Terrapin Station, @ArguingWAristotleTiff, and @DingoJones are talking about an "ought".

I can agree that people SHOULD not be bothered by words. But the fact is that most people ARE (whether 'most' is 51% or 91% may be debatable).

Humans are emotional beings. In High School, my friends and I had an unspoken game of "see who can make the others mad using only words". The 'loser' is the one who gets upset...and if you can make the other person tackle you or swing at you, you are the champion...and everyone else laughs at the emotional person. What did we learn? Well 3 of us (out of about 8 or ten) would not show emotion in response to anything (I am not saying for sure no emotions were felt). Most everyone else had a 'trigger'. For some, all it takes is suggesting their mom has a few promiscuous habits. For others, you can just bring up some girl they like. The point being, more than our random insults, I can easily see comments that basically say "you and everyone like you are inferior scum that has nothing to offer society" being a 'trigger' for some people.

We SHOULD not be bothered by words, but we SHOULD also never resort to violence, right? But I never hear that we should remove assault laws, because people should know better??

If 'the data' shows that people respond to 'hate speech' with violence, then what is the easiest way to stop that violence?

The way I see it, it boils down to one assertion: I have and can make a choice. — Terrapin Station

Does this mean you have 'free will' or just 'will'?

For instance, if I bought a watch (one watch) and chose and bought a Berghammer watch and a Rolex watch, then there would be separate histories happening in time concurrently. That is not happening, so when you set out to buy one watch, your choice is always one watch of the kind that you choose. — god must be atheist

That is one way of looking at it. But why couldn't the universe just have infinite possibilities in any given moment, but only some actually occur?

I would point out, I am against the idea of free will. But I don't view the fact that we only know of one reality, as a reason to eliminate choice as a possibility. We can't know for sure this was the only possible reality (in fact believers in free will would automatically assume today would be different if people made different choices).

For me the only problem with 'free will' is the 'free' part. I don't spend much time questioning the existence of will (what purpose would it serve?)

I think the reason it is important to question 'free will' is the elimination of retributive justice. Proponents of 'free will' are more likely to see purpose in punishment for the sake of punishment, whereas others find that logic ridiculous.

I’m here and that is my singular ‘privilege’ and with such ‘privilege’ comes a substantially greater weight of responsibility to myself and others that makes petty squabbles of skin tones, languages spoken and culinary preferences so mind-bogglingly unimportant it almost makes me hysterical. — I like sushi

Yes, petty squabbles such as slavery, disenfranchisement, violence, police brutality, inequitable court systems, generalized suspicion and distrust, job and housing discrimination, etc. — T Clark

Are you playing devil’s advocate or making an attempt to mock me? Funny response either way. Thanks for reinforcing my point better than I ever could :) — I like sushi

I think maybe you missed something here Sushi? You referred to 'petty squabbles of skin tones'.
T Clark's response was along the lines of, 'you mean petty squabbles like slavery, etc?' which implied that he thought, that you were saying, that issues like slavery and disenfranchisement were 'petty squabbles'.

Is that what you meant? How did he reinforce your point?

Upon re-reading, maybe your point was 'life is tough and none of this crap will matter in a billion years, so EVERYTHING is just petty squabbles'...but that seems a meaningless point...?