“You’re not allowed to use arguments I haven’t already discredited, and you’re not allowed to question my discrediting of arguments!”

That’s stupid on the scale of “I never borrowed your lawnmower, and besides, it was broken when you loaned it to me”, or “He says there are no WMDs there so we don’t need to look.”

Or “I didn’t do it and I swear I’ll never do it again!”

Ah yes...the “I’m totally smarter than you, be awed by my awesomeness” defense.  A classic Liberal defence mechanism. If you were only as smart, as educated as they were, you would obviously think as they do. Not that you might have more education than they do, or that you might know something they don’t. Your still just as dumb.

Hey!  Thanks JimK!  I really enjoyed The Religion War and Gods Debris.  Didnt realize he had a blog. 

I liked this article.  I dont take anything in the two books Ive read from him as fact, more of a brain teaser.  I see this article in the same way.  Maybe I will have to read more of his blog.  Bookmark, engage.

I can radically alter my brain chemistry, and therefore the rules of physics that result in a particular thought (or choice) any time I want. .....
Hell, I can live in a sensory deprivation chamber, or a medically induced coma and send that external influence rocketing down to zero.

But couldnt Scott just argue that you could do those things, and would, if your brain chemistry already in place were to direct you in that direction?  I dont see a difference between those choices, and his example of a fork in the road. 

I do find this topic interesting though.  I went to Catholic school right up until university.  I remember arguing this with my religion teacher.  He said that both of the following were true:

1> We have free will granted by God.
2> God knows everything we will do.

How can both of those be true?  If I have a choice between A, B, or C.... and God KNOWS I will choose C, then, are A or B really options?  Was I really free to choose anything other than C?

Fun stuff!

[Note to the first person who says, “But I can CHOOSE and a robot can’t! Therefore I have free will!” That’s not an argument. It’s a collection of words.]

Scott?  Love your cartoon.  Dig your blog.  But you’re being an idiot here.  Your entire argument is nothing but a collection of words.  All arguments are nothing but a collection of words.  You can’t prove your theory any more than you can prove or disprove the existence of a God or gods.  All you have are words you can use in a particular order to try to convince others of the wisdom of your thoughts.  A collection of words, if you will.

I think you are missing his point here.  The point is “I can CHOOSE and a robot cant” is not an arguement.  The whole “collection of words” thing is just being an ass to an imaginary comment maker.  I think you are focusing on the wrong sentence here if you are trying to argue against him.  I think he would agree everything written is a collection of words. 

And in this case, I would agree that “I can CHOOSE and a robot cant” is not an argument for free will.  Its too close to simply saying “I have free will and a robot doesnt, therefore i have free will”.  It demonstrates nothing.

The point is “I can CHOOSE and a robot cant” is not an arguement.

Yes. Yes it is. Just because Adams says it isn’t doesn’t make it so. One of the most basic precepts of free will is “I think, therefore I am”, which necessitates the concept of self to formulate.

Guess who involved in this took the five cent philosophy course and who took the ten cent one.

Yes. Yes it is. Just because Adams says it isn’t doesn’t make it so. One of the most basic precepts of free will is “I think, therefore I am”, which necessitates the concept of self to formulate.

Ok.  Maybe I should rephrase.  Its not an arguement I accept.  I see akin to saying “i have free will and the robot doesnt, therefore i have free will”.

You have to define a choice.

Its not an arguement I accept.

Well, how nice that you have the free will to pick and choose which arguments you’ll entertain. ^.^

Not a choice, just instant reaction to the statement :)

Guess who involved in this took the five cent philosophy course and who took the ten cent one.

Ummm.. you have the 10cent one?

Explain it to me then.  Explain that argument to me. 

The reason it doesnt constitute an argument to me, is that you say, you do in fact have choice.  The counter argument to that is simply that you have the illusion of choice.  It is exactly the same as the illusion of free will.  I dont really see the difference. 

Any thoughts?

Because if the “illusion” of free will comes with the “illusion” of being self-aware and having free will… what’s the difference? Prove to me that there is something controlling my actions instead of me deciding on my own. If I think I’m deciding on my own, and everyone else in the world except a few people who are trying to trick themselves into overthinking things thinks they’re making their own decisions… well, the burden of proof that they’re not really rests on you. And if the best arguments you can come up with are “It might be an illusion” and “I refuse to entertain the main argument against this”, it’s apparently too big a burden for you.

Ok Rann, lets back up a bit.  One quick question just so I can see if we are on the same page or not…

JimK said..

Choice equals will.

I believe we can take this as, the ability to choose equals free will.

Do you agree, or disagree with what he says?

Prove to me that there is something controlling my actions instead of me deciding on my own.

Since you may not be back for a while, I will get a jump start on this one.

There is something controlling your actions instead of you just deciding.  Its called physics.  I dont care if you decide to or not, you arent going to lift a Hummer up over your head, and you arent going to slowly walk through a solid brick wall.

... Jesus Christ… that is the stupidest fucking argument I’ve ever seen out of you, up4debate, and that’s saying something.

Strong answer.

Should I take that to mean that physics plays a role in what your limbs can do, but not your brain?

But couldnt Scott just argue that you could do those things

But he’s not allowed to make such an argument, which is, after all, just a collection of words.

1> We have free will granted by God.
2> God knows everything we will do.

How can both of those be true?

Have you ever had a card trick performed on you by a street magician or friend? You had free will in all of the choices you made throughout the illusion, yet the result was already a foregone conclusion for the prestidigitator before he ever spoke to you.

Now, follow that train of thought with an omniscient Being asking you to “pick a card"…

But he’s not allowed to make such an argument, which is, after all, just a collection of words.

I really dont believe that was the root of what he was saying. 

Have you ever had a card trick performed on you by a street magician or friend? You had free will in all of the choices you made throughout the illusion, yet the result was already a foregone conclusion for the prestidigitator before he ever spoke to you.

But isnt part of the trick that my choice is going to be predetermined before I even meet the magician, through some sort of suggestion?  The trick is usually something along the lines of making one, and only one of the wrong choices the most obvious one, or the one that appears correct.  They know the trick will work because even though you feel you can make any selection you want, you are only going to pick the one of his choosing.

I know what you are saying, but I cant wrap my mind around the idea that, although God knows eons in advance which card I will pick, that I actually am free to choose any card I wish at the time the trick is performed.

Should I take that to mean that physics plays a role in what your limbs can do, but not your brain?

Of course physics plays a role.  Chemistry and electricity act according to the laws of the universe to determine thought, action, etc.

The point is, as a self-aware animal with higher-brain function I can alter my chemistry through choice.  Without going at length into detail, you know as well as I do that there are ways to change your perceptions and remove the possibility that the choice was pre-determined by my previous experiences (and hence, my brain chemistry and more basically the physics of my brain).

Adams not only refuses to accept this, he refuses to entertain any arguments that make the point by dismissing them out of hand.  It’s the height of arrogance...his collections of words are no more valid as arguments than mine.  Neither of us has any empirical evidence one way or the other.  Yet here I am, at least HAVING the discussion, and there’s Scott, telling people they aren’t even allowed to make what must be THE most obvious and logical argument to counter his idea.

The point is, as a self-aware animal with higher-brain function I can alter my chemistry through choice.  Without going at length into detail, you know as well as I do that there are ways to change your perceptions and remove the possibility that the choice was pre-determined by my previous experiences (and hence, my brain chemistry and more basically the physics of my brain).

Well, that is certainly one way to look at it.  The way I see it though, is that you cant possibly change the physics of your brain.  Maybe we are thinking the same thing here, but just wording it differently.  But just to make sure…

I dont think you can change the rules of physics in your brain.  What you can do is change the variables that the physics relies upon (external stimulus, mmmmmm mushrooms, etc..).  The point being, the variables entered can be altered.  The result (the choices or actions they lead you to) can’t, if you believe rules of physics run the brain.

In other words, the output cant be controlled.  We can change the inputs, and see what kind of output we get, but you cant just directly choose the output.  Dont know if Im explaining this right, hopefully yer catching what Im saying.

Adams not only refuses to accept this, he refuses to entertain any arguments that make the point by dismissing them out of hand.  It’s the height of arrogance...his collections of words are no more valid as arguments than mine.

I just discovered his blog, through you, yesterday.  I think Ive gone through about 5 months of them in the last 2 days.  I have to say, I think the arrogance thing is his schtick.  Like Dennis Miller, but different.  I believe he even had a blog post about people calling him arrogant.

Neither of us has any empirical evidence one way or the other.

None of us do.  Thats why this stuff is supposed to be fun to discuss!  Its like discussing the theory that we are all just brains in a vat.  Too much fun.

telling people they aren’t even allowed to make what must be THE most obvious and logical argument to counter his idea.

Ya, I guess he did see it coming.  But Jim, seriously, explain that one to me…

Now, Im a programmer.  Ive taken courses in philosophy based on logic that I really enjoyed.  Im just telling you this so that you understand how my brain works…

Note to the first person who says, “But I can CHOOSE and a robot can’t! Therefore I have free will!” That’s not an argument.

If you feel that “I can choose, and a robot can’t!  Therefore I have free will” is valid…

And…

Choice equals will.  Choice determined by the individual, not forced by any other party, equals free will as we humans understand it.

Then, in summary, arent you just saying “I have free will and a robot doesnt, therefore I have free will”, if choice equals free will?

Isnt that the same as saying beer tastes good because I like how beer tastes?

Do you see what Im saying here?  If Im missing something, lemme know.

That you can alter the chemical configuration of you brain doesn’t prove much, after all the chemicals in the trees alter to cause them to lose their leaves. Did the trees “choose” to do this?
The question is “Where did the impulse to change the firing of neurons in your brain come from and what sparked THAT impulse?”, and so on until you trace a series of physical reactions on back to the big bang, as in:
Horror
or you end up at some sort of unmoved mover in your brain creating impulses ex nihlo, since to be free they can’t have been based on any outside force. Beyond this you end up at dualism and have to answer when some wiseass asks “how can an immaterial force work on material objects?”, and then try to prove through empiricism the existence of an otherwise imperceptible object.

Philosophy gives me a headache.

I know what you are saying, but I cant wrap my mind around the idea that, although God knows eons in advance which card I will pick, that I actually am free to choose any card I wish at the time the trick is performed.

Your shortcomings (in not being able to “wrap your mind around it) doesn’t change the fact that it still happens. My 84-yo mother-in-law is kinda hazy on how radio and television works - does that mean they don’t actually work?

In my example, you get to freely choose a card, even though that choice has already been made before you even know you have a chance to make it - even before the magician knows that it will be you that gets to make the choice. It isn’t a contradiction, and it isn’t tricky.

Life is a loaded deck.

I really dont believe that was the root of what he was saying.

That is EXACTLY what he was saying, as evidenced by the fact that he actually, y’know, said it. ("Note to the first person who says, “But I can CHOOSE and a robot can’t! Therefore I have free will!” That’s not an argument. It’s a collection of words.”

Your shortcomings (in not being able to “wrap your mind around it) doesn’t change the fact that it still happens. My 84-yo mother-in-law is kinda hazy on how radio and television works - does that mean they don’t actually work?

Not exactly the same thing.  But, my shortcomings are my shortcomings, I know they do limit what I know, and what I dont know.  Like the existence of God.  I am not smart enough to know either way for sure.  Lots of people believe they are smart enough.  This is another one of my shortcomings.  Me not knowing, or a “smarter” person knowing, does not prove Gods existence one way or another.  IMHO.

In my example, you get to freely choose a card, even though that choice has already been made

I still see a contradiction there.  Maybe its a timing issue.  Maybe its just that I feel at the time of the choice, I dont really have one.

That is EXACTLY what he was saying, as evidenced by the fact that he actually, y’know, said it.

I’know.  I read it too.  What Im saying is, and I think you know this, is that the last sentence is not the main point of his statement.  Its more of a snide remark.  “Thats not an argument” is the main point.  You may see it differently. 

The reason it is not an argument is because its basically the same as saying something like…

Having opposable thumbs equals free will.  I have opposable thumbs, therefore I have free will.

See, its not an argument.  I havent shown why opposable thumbs equals free will.  Ive simply, without backing it up, equated something to free will, shown I have it, and drawn the conclusion that it means I have free will.