God wants us to love darkness and evil!

[thomas t]

So far you seem to have simply not understood or just don't want to fact the fact that you can't refute it.

I understood everything, be sure. I showed the circularity of your argument various times already.

It's all a merry go round now!

since I made no initial assumption about the length of process,

oh that's wrong!
you came up with the odea of shrinking the whole process down to the fastest possible process

Yes - right down to the point at which it represents the fastest possible time in which the mind can react or change.

this was said in addition to your sentence here:
"You can shrink the process and its inputs and outputs down to every tiny change of mind" #74
Moreover, this was your answer to my suggestion that there could be changes in the process.
It is as I said in my last response to you: the moment I say that there can be changes in the process.... you answer by saying "you can shrink the process and its inputs and outputs down to every tiny change of mind" #74

I already told you so!

 

[ratiocinator]

oh that's wrong!
you came up with the odea of shrinking the whole process down to the fastest possible process

Do you not understand that I introduced the logic of the process and its inputs and outputs and then pointed out that we can shrink it down because those were steps in the argument (as outlined in #98)?

As I said, you can go directly from the four principles to the conclusion, the rest of the argument is just an elaboration because you wouldn't accept that determinism and randomness are the only possibilities.

The rest of your post is just a repetition of what I've said, which seems rather pointless and you've also totally ignored the rest of my post where I explained that a possible change in the process doesn't help you anyway.

Regardless, go back to the steps in #98 and the principles in #94 and make some attempt to refute it. Where do you think the flaw is? If you think it's circular, then where is the assumption of the conclusion introduced?

If you think the shrinking (step 4 in #98) is invalid (or assumes the conclusion), then you need to logically refute it. An argument isn't circular because the steps lead to the conclusion, that's kind of what an argument is supposed to do.

 

[thomas t]

I ignored nothing of your post

If you think the shrinking (step 4 in #98) is invalid (or assumes the conclusion), then you need to logically refute it. An argument isn't circular because the step lead to the conclusion, that's kind of what an argument is supposed to do.

The shrinking leads to the fastest possible process, as you said yourself.
However, and I said this before aldready... this leads to only one process being possible (the fastest one).
If there is only one process possible, there is only one free will input possible, too. since the process is where you located free will..

Since this is all part of the underlying set-up of the experiment... you just invalidated free will as being a variable in your experiment.

By doing this you made your reasoning circular.

But I did explain this, already.

So, this is going in circles now. Again and again.
Let's stop this finally.

 

[ratiocinator]

The shrinking leads to the fastest possible process, as you said yourself.
However, and I said this before aldready... this leads to only one process being possible (the fastest one).

No, the process can still be anything we want. Regardless of what the process is you can always subdivide it and then apply the argument to the individual steps. If it's effectively digital, it will be divided into actual discrete steps, each of which may be different. If it's analogue we can still subdivide it arbitrarily. Compare to the fact that (say) the function f=x^2 is different from f=sin(x) but we can still define the gradient (how they are changing) at any point.

I'm sorry if the word 'shrinking' confused you, perhaps I should have used "subdivide and apply" or something. I was talking about "zooming in" and applying the same argument to ever tiny change of mind that is part of any larger choice making or thought process.

If there is only one process possible, there is only one free will input possible, too. since the process is where you located free will..

As I already explained, allowing for different processes doesn't change anything anyway because two (or more) processes plus a way of deciding which to use, is just another process. A "free will" input is not something you can just add in anyway because of the basic principles.

The whole point of the argument is that, if it exists, free will must be manifest in how the minds change, but, because of the reasoning, it can't be there, therefore it doesn't exist (except in the compatibilist sense).

By doing this you made your reasoning circular.

It isn't - it's just the applications of the principles:

1. The only things that can cause an event are those that are its logical antecedents.
2. Specifically in the case of human choices the only possible antecedents are the previous state of mind and the environment.
   
3. To the extent an event is not caused by something it is caused by nothing.
4. Something without a cause must be random.

From which we could directly deduce that only determinism or randomness are possible, however I elaborated it into the 'black box' change argument in these steps:

1. We construct a black box idea of change.
2. Ask the question about whether the output is always fully defined by the inputs.
3. Apply the four principles to find that the process must be deterministic or contain randomness.
4. Note that we can apply it down to any time-scale we want because we made no assumption about it in the previous stages.
5. Note that everything the mind does is just a collection of the smallest times it can operate over.
   
6. Conclude that the whole functioning of the mind must be either deterministic or involve randomness.

If you think something is wrong, then you can point it out. If you think there is circularity, then you can point that out too.

 

[thomas t]

No need to repeat again the general outline of your thought experiment.
I know what this is .

because of the reasoning,

I maintain there is no logic in it.
It's like you telling me "hey the granma is in the closet: let me show you.
1. drawer 1
2. drawer 2.
..
...
..
..
7. drawer 7.
You see?
if there is something wrong tell me which point is wrong"

I know what a closet is. I perfectly understand the description of it. However there is no grandma in it.
The fact that there are drawers and the fact that you correctly described them in points 1 to 7 does not mean the grandma is in there.

Here it's similar, I know about the outline of your thought experiment. You told me 10 times or so.
However, there simply is not any logic in it, as I see it. It is just a description of a thought experiment, that's all.

However, I do acknowledge the civil tone that you apply.
So, it's a friendly debate.

No, the process can still be anything we want.

however...

As I already explained, allowing for different processes doesn't change anything anyway because two (or more) processes plus a way of deciding which to use, is just another process.

so, if the process allows for 2 options, you subdivide the matter splitting it into two parts:
the process to get from A to B1/B2
and the process of making a decision between which route to take... the one leading to B1 or B2.

And there it is again: subdivisions up to the point that free will input demanding time... cannot happen anymore to begin with.

So, at the start of your experiment you assume (without logic) that every process can effectively be subdivided so often that you get to these "ever tiny change of mind" which are so tiny that there is no space left for any interaction with free will.

By doing so, you disable free will decisions right from the start of your process.

So it's all circular.

As I told you before.

 

[ratiocinator]

However, there simply is not any logic in it, as I see it. It is just a description of a thought experiment, that's all.

But you're still not telling me what you think is wrong, i.e. where the thought experiment differs from reality. If it does, then it must be in one or more of the principles or one or more of the steps.

so, if the process allows for 2 options, you subdivide the matter splitting it into two parts:
the process to get from A to B1/B2
and the process of making a decision between which route to take... the one leading to B1 or B2.

And there it is again: subdivisions up to the point that free will input demanding time... cannot happen anymore to begin with.

"Free will input" doesn't really make sense because, as I thought you'd accepted, it must be to do with the process of change. If there's and extra input, it would have to violate one of the principles because it would be an effect that cannot be entirely due to its antecedents and therefore partly for no reason, yet without being random.

So, at the start of your experiment you assume (without logic) that every process can effectively be subdivided so often that you get to these "ever tiny change of mind"...

The logic is that there is nothing preventing us subdividing a process of change over time. It's like saying what's the smallest rational number (fraction)? Well, there isn't one because if we assume there is then we can always divide it by 2 and get a smaller one. Similarly, if a process takes 100ms we can always divide it into two chucks that each takes 50ms. We just take a 'snapshot' of the mind state at 50ms and call that the output of process 1 and the input to process 2.

If the process is inherently digital, then we do get to a point at which we can no longer meaningfully subdivide it, but then, by definition, that is the tiniest change of mind possible.

 

[thomas t]

But you're still not telling me what you think is wrong, i.e. where the thought experiment differs from reality. If it does, then it must be in one or more of the principles or one or more of the steps.

it's circular.
The principles in itself are as they are... but it's the moment you narrow the process down to a tiny little process that cannot contain more than one free will option... you counted the free will out right from the start.
The principles itself just describe something that might contain free will or not.
It's the details that you outline that turns your thought experiment into circular reasoning.

If the process is inherently digital, then we do get to a point at which we can no longer meaningfully subdivide it, but then, by definition, that is the tiniest change of mind possible.

But it's the process where you allocate the free will.... and anytime I want to leave the door open to a free will interaction... you say "now: subdivide"... so you subdivide to an extent that there is no free will interaction possible.
The moment you subdivide this process to an extent that free will cannot interact anymore, you counted the free will out.

This is where it gets circular

The logic is that there is nothing preventing us subdividing a process of change over time.

no, that's not logic. You simply don't see anthing that could prevent you from subdiving a process almost limitlessly.

However, it's your assumption that the process of decision making can be subdivided to an extent that free will cannot have an effect anymore.

Before you could ask me again to show what prevents us from subdividing to an extent that free will input becomes meaningless.... the onus is on you that decision making is a process that can be subdivided like you would subdivide a digital function.

As an example: you can subdivide a family into parents and children. You could go one step further and subdivide the parents into father and mother... but this where it ends. You can't go ahead and subdivide the mother like you could subdivide digital functions.

Decision making could also be limitedly subdividable like a family is... theoretically.

"Free will input" doesn't really make sense because, as I thought you'd accepted, it must be to do with the process of change. If there's and extra input, it would have to violate one of the principles because it would be an effect that cannot be entirely due to its antecedents and therefore partly for no reason, yet without being random.

see above please.

 

[ratiocinator]

The principles in itself are as they are... but it's the moment you narrow the process down to a tiny little process that cannot contain more than one free will option... you counted the free will out right from the start.
The principles itself just describe something that might contain free will or not.

Actually the four principles alone tells us that there can't be free will because they constrain what can cause events and everything that happens is just a chain of events. The rest is just an attempt by me to make that clearer - obviously I'm not having much success .

But it's the process where you allocate the free will.... and anytime I want to leave the door open to a free will interaction... you say "now: subdivide"... so you subdivide to an extent that there is no free will interaction possible.

But that's the essence of the explanation. There is no logical reason why we can't subdivide to an arbitrary degree (or down to a single step if it's digital). You appear to want to complain because I'm ruling out free will but that's the whole point of the argument.

no, that's not logic. You simply don't see anthing that could prevent you from subdiving a process almost limitlessly.

I gave you the logic. If it's analogue, we subdivide it by taking a process that takes (say) 100ms and simply divide it into two processes that take 50ms where the brain state at the 50ms point of the first process is taken as the output of process 1 and the input of process 2. If it's digital, it's already conveniently divided up into minimal steps. The endless division of a continuum (such as time, if it isn't itself quantised) is a basic logical and mathematical fact.

As an example: you can subdivide a family into parents and children. You could go one step further and subdivide the parents into father and mother... but this where it ends. You can't go ahead and subdivide the mother like you could subdivide digital functions.

Yes, that's because human families, in that sense, are digital. As I said, if choice-making is digital we simply apply the black box and its associated question to each step.

 

[thomas t]

Yes, that's because human families, in that sense, are digital. As I said, if choice-making is digital we simply apply the black box and its associated question to each step.

black box yes or no... that's not the point.

Now, this is the crucial part....

The endless division of a continuum (such as time, if it isn't itself quantised) is a basic logical and mathematical fact.

yeah but the comparison between time and the decision making process is not. Decision making does not have to be a continuum, I think.
You did not support that it is anyway.
There is no logic to say: since time is a continuum, so is decision making.
It's your assumption at the beginning of the thought experiment that claims so.

or, if it's digital you say:

There is no logical reason why we can't subdivide to an arbitrary degree (or down to a single step if it's digital).

+

If it's digital, it's already conveniently divided up into minimal steps.

but if the steps get right to the point where there are two options for the process... you go ahead and want to further break it down. So there is no possibility left for the free will to interact. And this is so right from the start of your thought experiment.

You say "it's logic". However there is no logic whatsoever to assume that the minimal step contains less than two options between which you can choose.
It is just compartmentalizing any possibility for the free will to come into play.

It's like subdividing the mother of the family into her molecules and stating: there is no mother, only molecules.
That's a way of ruling out the existence of persons, too.
However, there is no "logical" way of ruling out that the minimal "step" of a family is less than two molecules big, either...


This is exactly where it gets circular.


As I told you already so often.

 

[ratiocinator]

yeah but the comparison between time and the decision making process is not. Decision making does not have to be a continuum, I think.
You did not support that it is anyway.
There is no logic to say: since time is a continuum, so is decision making.
It's your assumption at the beginning of the thought experiment that claims so.

The decision making process happens over time so there really are only two alternatives, either its basically continuous itself (analogue and hence also infinity divisible) or inherently done discrete steps (digital). In fact digital doesn't stop us subdividing time and looking at what's going on, but it means there is a definite cut off point at which it makes sense to do so.

but if the steps get right to the point where there are two options for the process... you go ahead and want to further break it down. So there is no possibility left for the free will to interact. And this is so right from the start of your thought experiment.

If there are two options, then there has to be a way to decide between them and that way has to fall within the principles. This is true regardless of whether we are contemplating a digital or analogue system. So, either two processes and a way to decide between them is the same as one process or one or more of the principles are wrong.

This is exactly where it gets circular.

It's not circular just because the premises lead to the conclusion - that's what a logical argument is supposed to do.

If you think it's circular or invalid you need to be more precise in your objections. Just saying "but then there's no possibility left for free will" is circular in that you've just assumed that there must be such a possibility, and it doesn't undermine the argument. You should be able to point at some step or principle that is wrong for some logical reason.

 

[thomas t]

The decision making process happens over time so there really are only two alternatives, either its basically continuous itself (analogue and hence also infinity divisible) or inherently done discrete steps (digital).

that is a baseless assumption, I think. I mean you referred to human decision making.
You have no scientific evidence to back up what you said here with regard to humans..
It could be anything else, too.
It could be like a mother, or a father, or a child... you can't subdivide into their atoms.
It could also be like a plug-in for software, recently I downloaded one: 1.5 GB. You can't just subdivide the thing saying I only want .15GB.
Either you get and install the whole thing or nothing.

If you want to work with the plug-in... you just cannot cut a tenth of it out. This plug-in is not divisible any more.

Moreover, this plug-in only works if a certain minimum amount of information that is in the right format is presented to it. Otherwise it won't work.
The software program that the plug-in is added to... makes sure the plug-in always gets the minimum information it needs in order for it to work.

Human decision making could be the same.

It's not circular just because the premises lead to the conclusion - that's what a logical argument is supposed to do.

It is, since you assume human decision making to be either infinitely divisible or digital. See above.

you've just assumed that there must be such a possibility,

no, I merely say you ruled out there is one. A priori.

EDIT: before you say: "you compared human decision making to a computer program! - great. you just proved my point!" - please note that all I did was comparing decision making to using a plugin as a user, a plug-in that a user cannot subdivide anymore.
Of course I believe that the decision making itself cannot be compared to a computer program.
My point was that for a plug-in to work, it has to get a minimum of information and not less.
That's why I posted the notion of a (non-reducable) plug-in.

 

[ratiocinator]

that is a baseless assumption, I think. I mean you referred to human decision making.
You have no scientific evidence to back up what you said here with regard to humans..

It's not about science it's about simple logic. If something (anything) is changing over time, then you can, in principle at least, take some arbitrary point in time and see what state it's in at said point in time. Hence we can, assuming time is a continuum, infinitely divide any such process.

It could be anything else, too.
It could be like a mother, or a father, or a child... you can't subdivide into their atoms.

Of course you can. In principle, you could examine the spacial relationship between all of their atoms. We are not talking about physically ripping things apart - we are talking about that fact that something that changes over time must have a state at each point in time. If we have something like a living person then we don't have to take it apart to know that, in principle at least, we can zoom in indefinitely on any one point in their body (at least until we reach the limits of the uncertainty principle) and the same is true for anything that varies over time - it will have a state at any time we choose and we can zoom in on it indefinitely - or down to some limitation to which we can then apply the argument.

 

[thomas t]

It's not about science it's about simple logic.

there is no logic in it, it was a baseless assumption.
It's like declaring "the grandmother is in the closet!"
Even if you describe all the drawers. It remains void of the grandmother.
Same thing here: even if you describe again and again the set-up of your thought experiment, there is no logic in it.
A mere description is not logic.

Of course you can. In principle, you could examine the spacial relationship between all of their atoms. We are not talking about physically ripping things apart - we are talking about that fact that something that changes over time must have a state at each point in time.

theoretically you can. But it must not serve as a disproof of the existence of a father or a mother by saying: there is no mother... there are atoms only.
But there is.

It is the same with a plug-in for software, in order for it to work it has to occupy 1.5 GB (in my case). You cannot compartmentalize it without disabling it, same with free will, I guess,
as I told you already!

 

[ratiocinator]

there is no logic in it, it was a baseless assumption.

I gave you the logic and you've just edited out and ignored it. Yet again: if something (anything) is changing over time, then you can, in principle at least, take some arbitrary point in time and see what state it's in at said point in time. Hence we can, assuming time is a continuum, infinitely divide any such process.

theoretically you can. But it must not serve as a disproof of the existence of a father or a mother by saying: there is no mother... there are atoms only.
But there is.

That's the wrong way around. You can't have a father or mother without them being made of atoms. likewise, you can't have something that changes over time without it having a state at each point in time.

If we want to know how something complicated works, we can consider what it's made up of. Hence a human is a collection of different organs, and each organ can be broken down into its different components and so on right down to molecules and then to atoms. You're certainly not going to learn much at the subatomic level and, in most cases, you can stop at a much higher level but the principle is the same.

The same principle applies to processes that change over time - we can go on zooming in until there's nothing more to be learned by further subdivision, at which point we can apply the argument.

It is the same with a plug-in for software, in order for it to work it has to occupy 1.5 GB (in my case). You cannot compartmentalize it without disabling it, same with free will, I guess,

Again, I'm not suggesting actually taking something apart, I'm just pointing out that it is necessarily made up of its parts. A plugin is a long string of bits. A human is a complex arrangement of atoms.

 

[thomas t]

I gave you the logic and you've just edited out and ignored it.

I did not ignore anything of what you called logic.

As I told you so often in this thread!
I just don't think that a mere description of a thought experiment qualifies as logic.

That's the wrong way around. You can't have a father or mother without them being made of atoms.

however, you can put the same exact amount of atoms it takes for human being ...on a heap and it will be... just that: a heap and no mother. So it does not make sense to argue a mother in itself is a meaningless expression, sinse she is nothing else than the sum of her atoms.

So in this sense, a mother is more than the sum of atoms.

In the same sense, free will can be more than the sum of bits.

Even if you reply: I stick to my opinion, even if I don't reply.

That means: I maintain that your reasoning is circular, that it does not contain any logic, even if you call it that way ... and also that I understood every last point of yours and that I did not ignore anything.

Even if I won't reply to your next reply.

 

[ratiocinator]

I did not ignore anything of what you called logic.

You clearly did. You did not address the fact that anything that varies over time has to have a state at any point in time we arbitrarily choose, hence we can subdivide the process at any point we want and apply the reason to it. (Technically there could be a discontinuity but that would only apply to a single point in time and we can apply the logic to the inputs and outputs around that time.)

What part of that do you think is wrong?

I just don't think that a mere description of a thought experiment qualifies as logic.

It isn't a thought experiment it's an argument based on a basic set of principles that I outlined. You can illustrate the same point with the rewind time thought experiment but this is just an argument in principle.

however, you can put the same exact amount of atoms it takes for human being ...on a heap and it will be... just that: a heap and no mother. So it does not make sense to argue a mother in itself is a meaningless expression, sinse she is nothing else than the sum of her atoms.

I never said anything about a mother being meaningless. A person (mother or otherwise) is a particular arrangement of atoms, just like a choice is a particular set of steps (or a particular continuous process).

That means: I maintain that your reasoning is circular, that it does not contain any logic...

It can't really be both. If it's circular, then it's reasoning (logic) that has somehow assumed its conclusion in its premises. If it doesn't contain any logic, it can't really be circular.

You have also failed to demonstrate either assertion. You haven't pointed to the circularity (you seem to think that the reasoning ruling out free will somehow makes it circular) and neither have you pointed out any actual flaws in the steps.

 

[thomas t]

What part of that do you think is wrong?

this went on for pages.
I'm not going to repeat myself again and again.

Might be interesting to see if circular logic is still logic or not.... in case it is, I maintain it is as I've said so often.
I won't reply and I maintain all my points.
It's just that after a minimum of three pages going round in circles it's the moment to make this stop, I think.
I maintain that I've shown everything there was to show.

That fact that you did not present any new argument in your post (except the notion of circular arguments stilll being logic....) shows that it is going round in circles already.

 

[ratiocinator]

this went on for pages.
I'm not going to repeat myself again and again.

There's no point in repeating yourself because you've never once properly addressed (for example) the specific point about a something that changes over time necessarily having state at each time and hence being (conceptually, for the purposes of just analysing the situation) divisible at any point - except to just assert that it's an assumption or to say that if we actually and physically take some things apart (which was never the point) that they would not work.

There must be something you think is wrong, for example that something that changes over time doesn't have a state at every point or that there's some reason why we can't (conceptually) divide it at that point and treat that as the output of one process and the input of another.

 

[Spiderman]

Yes people,
If you believe Christian Theology, God wanted the early Christians to be persecuted and suffer.

Paul insisted that his afflictions, persecutions, and getting shipwrecked and nearly stoned to death were God's will and made him more of a conqueror and that in his suffering he was completing what was lacking in the sufferings of Christ.

Early Christians said the blood of the martyrs were the seed of Christianity. Peter asked to be crucified upside down because he didn't think he was worthy enough to die the same death as Christ.

A lot of Christians considered it a great honor to be tortured to death for Christ because Jesus did say people must carry their cross daily.

A cross is something you suffer torture and die on.

God could have helped the early Christians like he helped the Hebrews in Gideon's battle and so many battles where they were severely outnumbered, or when they were put into Nebuchadnezzar's furnace to be fried.

Instead they survived in the flames. The people that crucified Jesus were doing the will of God.

In Christian Theology , suffering and dying is the greatest thing that can happen to you. If you take away the cross , you take away the resurrection.

If you aren't being persecuted or challenged through suffering, it's really hard to grow in virtue. God lets evil triumph in our world and gives the Devil permission to kill people like in the story of Job.

The Devil killed Jobs family because God pointed Job out and told the Devil he could, as well as afflict Job with diseases.

It glorified God that the Devil did that. So, God might be asking you to be tortured and violently murdered to glorify him. It's considered a great honor to share the lot of Christ in Christian Theology and Philosophy!

 

[thomas t]

Paul insisted that his afflictions, persecutions, and getting shipwrecked and nearly stoned to death were God's will and made him more of a conqueror and that in his suffering he was completing what was lacking in the sufferings of Christ.

I'm not sure about this.
However, in case you're right here, the reader is not to infer from the single case to the totality of all people.
Paul had a special life.

If you believe Christian Theology, God wanted the early Christians to be persecuted and suffer.

I disagree.
However, if suffering happens, God can use it to to make something good out of it.

In my life, suffering happened, too. But God made something good about it, in my view!