Self-ownership

[Zottistan]

It being a finite set of choices doesn't make the result any less random.

The nucleus will decay within a measure of time, or it won't. Does that make it any less random?

Yes. The more constrained the system, the less randomness it contains, and vice versa. If the box depended on four separate nuclei, it would be significantly more random than the version with one. Bringing this back towards the earlier point for some clarity here -

A system is random if it's fundamentally unpredictable. It's an absolute; there are no degrees of randomness. Something is fundamentally unpredictable or it isn't. If there were four nuclei in the box, it would be less likely that our guesses are correct. But it wouldn't change the fact that we ultimately have the same complete lack of ability to make a certain statement.

Assume Brains A-D are (roughly) the same brain.

Brain A goes into an ice cream shop and orders vanilla, because that's its favorite flavor.
Brain B goes into an ice cream shop, but decided to order chocolate, because while vanilla is its favorite, it wants something different.
Brain C goes into an ice cream shop, and orders a maloberry sherbet because in that quantum branch, those evolved instead of vanilla beans.
Brain D goes into an ice cream shop and orders a BLT, because there, "ice cream" means "sandwich".

There's still randomness. There's still order. And there is still choice.

Roughly the same brain isn't the same brain. If they were the same brain, and it was the same situation, they'd make the same choice.

Choice is compatible with neither randomness nor order.

This is a threadjack within a threadjack, so I'll stop. I really enjoy talking about this, though, so if you want, TG me.

[Conscentia]

No, it just makes it unpredictable. It could be unpredictable because it's random, but necessarily because it's random.

The point of that thought experiment was to demonstrate that quantum mechanics and classical physics don't mesh together, so I don't see where you are trying to go with this...

Isn't it random because it's unpredictable?

My point was that a system that has one fundamentally unpredictable/random element is fundamentally unpredictable/random.

No. Unpredictable is a comment our ability to predict. "Predict" is a verb, it requires an actor.
Randomness would explain why we cannot predict.
Alternatively, maybe our theories are wrong.
Maybe we're missing some evidence.
Maybe we're missing an important mathematical concept - it can happen.
Maybe we followed a red herring that messing everything up for us.
All those would explain our inability to predict.

I made the earlier point that if that one element has little influence, it could take a significant length of time before it's effect distorts predictions based on the predictable elements.

[Zottistan]

Isn't it random because it's unpredictable?

My point was that a system that has one fundamentally unpredictable/random element is fundamentally unpredictable/random.

No. Unpredictable is a comment our ability to predict. "Predict" is a verb, it requires an actor.
Randomness would explain why we cannot predict.
Alternatively, maybe our theories are wrong.
Maybe we're missing some evidence.
Maybe we're missing an important mathematical concept - it can happen.
Maybe we followed a red herring that messing everything up for us.
All those would explain our inability to predict.

I made the earlier point that if that one element has little influence, it could take a significant length of time before it's effect distorts predictions based on the predictable elements.

But it would ultimately distort them, making the entire system unpredictable. After a while, anyway.

[Twilight Imperium]

This is a threadjack within a threadjack, so I'll stop. I really enjoy talking about this, though, so if you want, TG me.

Well, yes and no. It was "we have self ownership because free will!"

"we have free will because this!"

"do we? Let's discuss!"

It's tangentially related, but still related

Anyway, yes, you can't predict the results of a system 100% 100% of the time, which does mean it contains randomness - but, that doesn't mean it's not a useful system, nor does it disrupt causality. This is especially handy because there is no such thing as the perfect Newtonian clockwork universe. It's randomness all the way down.

[Zottistan]

This is a threadjack within a threadjack, so I'll stop. I really enjoy talking about this, though, so if you want, TG me.

Well, yes and no. It was "we have self ownership because free will!"

"we have free will because this!"

"do we? Let's discuss!"

It's tangentially related, but still related

Anyway, yes, you can't predict the results of a system 100% 100% of the time, which does mean it contains randomness - but, that doesn't mean it's not a useful system, nor does it disrupt causality. This is especially handy because there is no such thing as the perfect Newtonian clockwork universe. It's randomness all the way down.

Still, I have a feeling it won't be tolerated for much longer.

[Conscentia]

This is a threadjack within a threadjack, so I'll stop. I really enjoy talking about this, though, so if you want, TG me.

Well, yes and no. It was "we have self ownership because free will!"

"we have free will because this!"

"do we? Let's discuss!"

It's tangentially related, but still related

Anyway, yes, you can't predict the results of a system 100% 100% of the time, which does mean it contains randomness - but, that doesn't mean it's not a useful system, nor does it disrupt causality. This is especially handy because there is no such thing as the perfect Newtonian clockwork universe. It's randomness all the way down.

As I previously said, that is not actually verified. There are interpretations of quantum mechanics that preserve causality, eliminating the need for randomness.

[Zottistan]

Well, yes and no. It was "we have self ownership because free will!"

"we have free will because this!"

"do we? Let's discuss!"

It's tangentially related, but still related

Anyway, yes, you can't predict the results of a system 100% 100% of the time, which does mean it contains randomness - but, that doesn't mean it's not a useful system, nor does it disrupt causality. This is especially handy because there is no such thing as the perfect Newtonian clockwork universe. It's randomness all the way down.

As I previously said, that is not actually verified. There are interpretations of quantum mechanics that preserve causality, eliminating the need for randomness.

Quantum mechanics was used as an example for the hypothetical. It wasn't the point itself.

[Twilight Imperium]

Well, yes and no. It was "we have self ownership because free will!"

"we have free will because this!"

"do we? Let's discuss!"

It's tangentially related, but still related

Anyway, yes, you can't predict the results of a system 100% 100% of the time, which does mean it contains randomness - but, that doesn't mean it's not a useful system, nor does it disrupt causality. This is especially handy because there is no such thing as the perfect Newtonian clockwork universe. It's randomness all the way down.

As I previously said, that is not actually verified. There are interpretations of quantum mechanics that preserve causality, eliminating the need for randomness.

What I'm saying is that causality isn't disrupted by randomness, at least with the many-worlds interpretation. It's not proven, but that's what they're working on at the moment.

Also, if quantum mechanics was only the example, what was your point?

[Conscentia]

As I previously said, that is not actually verified. There are interpretations of quantum mechanics that preserve causality, eliminating the need for randomness.

Quantum mechanics was used as an example for the hypothetical. It wasn't the point itself.

Even if there is randomness on a quantum level, that's not free will. It just means that the causes of our thoughts and actions can only predicted probabilistically - they remain beyond our control.

I don't see how having free will would mean we own ourselves. Ownership is a legal concept. The nature of physical reality has little to do with it, given that laws are essentially imaginary.

[Twilight Imperium]

I don't see how having free will would mean we own ourselves. Ownership is a legal concept. The nature of physical reality has little to do with it, given that laws are essentially imaginary.

Yeah, if anything, we would own ourselves through original possession. I'm pretty sure owning people is against the law these days, though.

Well poop, threadjacked my own threadjack.

[Zottistan]

Quantum mechanics was used as an example for the hypothetical. It wasn't the point itself.

Even if there is randomness on a quantum level, that's not free will. It just means that the causes of our thoughts and actions can only predicted probabilistically - they remain beyond our control.

That was the point. It kind of got lost somewhere along the line, but I was initially trying to show that both fundamental predictability and fundamental unpredictability are both incompatible with free will.

As I previously said, that is not actually verified. There are interpretations of quantum mechanics that preserve causality, eliminating the need for randomness.

What I'm saying is that causality isn't disrupted by randomness, at least with the many-worlds interpretation. It's not proven, but that's what they're working on at the moment.

Also, if quantum mechanics was only the example, what was your point?

On that particular issue, that if a system contains any fundamental unpredictability, it is fundamentally unpredictable, even if it has ordered parts.

Initially, that free will is compatible with neither fundamental unpredictability nor fundamental predictability.

[Twilight Imperium]

Even if there is randomness on a quantum level, that's not free will. It just means that the causes of our thoughts and actions can only predicted probabilistically - they remain beyond our control.

That was the point. It kind of got lost somewhere along the line, but I was initially trying to show that both fundamental predictability and fundamental unpredictability are both incompatible with free will.

What I'm saying is that causality isn't disrupted by randomness, at least with the many-worlds interpretation. It's not proven, but that's what they're working on at the moment.

Also, if quantum mechanics was only the example, what was your point?

On that particular issue, that if a system contains any fundamental unpredictability, it is fundamentally unpredictable, even if it has ordered parts.

Initially, that free will is compatible with neither fundamental unpredictability nor fundamental predictability.

I'm still not convinced about the free will thing, but I don't have a counter at the moment, so I'll withdraw for now.

As for the rest, it's officially not related to the topic anymore with that Maybe we could make another thread?

[Zottistan]

That was the point. It kind of got lost somewhere along the line, but I was initially trying to show that both fundamental predictability and fundamental unpredictability are both incompatible with free will.


On that particular issue, that if a system contains any fundamental unpredictability, it is fundamentally unpredictable, even if it has ordered parts.

Initially, that free will is compatible with neither fundamental unpredictability nor fundamental predictability.

I'm still not convinced about the free will thing, but I don't have a counter at the moment, so I'll withdraw for now.

As for the rest, it's officially not related to the topic anymore with that Maybe we could make another thread?

It's a fairly useless and purely theoretical issue in it's own right. It had some relation to my initial point, but I forgot it.

[Twilight Imperium]

It's a fairly useless and purely theoretical issue in it's own right. It had some relation to my initial point, but I forgot it.

Last I checked, that's what NSG was *for*.

[Hladgos]

Self ownership is only a very small part of yourself, as society shapes a lot of how we act, dress, etc. We might not be completely controlled by external forces, but a large amount of our decisions are really consequences of the culture we live in.

[Conscentia]

I'm still not convinced about the free will thing, but I don't have a counter at the moment, so I'll withdraw for now.
As for the rest, it's officially not related to the topic anymore with that Maybe we could make another thread?

Please no. I hate Free Will threads. Every time to manage to get your point across to whoever you were arguing with, someone new joins late who believes in free will and you have to start all over.

[Twilight Imperium]

I'm still not convinced about the free will thing, but I don't have a counter at the moment, so I'll withdraw for now.
As for the rest, it's officially not related to the topic anymore with that Maybe we could make another thread?

Please no. I hate Free Will threads. Every time to manage to get your point across to whoever you were arguing with, someone new joins late who believes in free will and you have to start all over.

I meant a "nature of the universe" thread. Or would that be worse?

[Conscentia]

Please no. I hate Free Will threads. Every time to manage to get your point across to whoever you were arguing with, someone new joins late who believes in free will and you have to start all over.

I meant a "nature of the universe" thread. Or would that be worse?

Sounds like it'll turn into an everyone vs creationism thread.

[Twilight Imperium]

I meant a "nature of the universe" thread. Or would that be worse?

Sounds like it'll turn into an everyone vs creationism thread.

Withdrawn.

[Sociobiology]

then we get back to why this is true and what a mind is.

A mind is that which can think; which can realise that one is self-aware.

now define think, specifically a definition that does not rely on a mind as the part of the definition.
because many organisms we consider able to think are not self-aware.
Then answer why something with a mind owns itself.
and all of this must not use self ownership as an axiom or it is begging the question.

why A is X is A is made from X.
a chicken is made from an egg but an egg is not a chicken.

A chicken is not made up of eggs.

but it is made from one.

[Sociobiology]

No. That doesn't follow at all. Your own mind is bound by causality. It was inevitable that you would decide to be "cheeseball" instead.

I never said there was an external mind, Strawman-maker.

That constitutes a choice. I had the choice to move my fingers to type whatever it was I typed. My fingers moved because of the reaction to stimuli caused elsewhere in the body, all originating in the brain, but what do you think caused the first domino to fall? Does it just happen magically?

no, it is caused by stimuli entering the brain, the pre existing brain state.
you had no more choice than your fingers had a choice.

[Sociobiology]

Give your brain the exact same choice between the exact same cookies, while it's in the exact same state, and it will choose the same cookie every time without fail. How could it not? It's processing the same information in the same way.

http://www.random.org/

From 1-100
First roll: 59
Second roll: 92

The source code has not changed even a single parenthesis, and yet there is still a 1/10,000 chance that the two numbers were the same.

but the input data has changed, do you not know how random number generators work?

[Sociobiology]

Unless free will is based on influencing quantum mechanics, which is really, really unlikely, the point stands.

Why shouldn't it be? It's the act of observing something that collapses a waveform, after all. Perhaps we should make that the standard of free will.

no, its not, that is from a thought experiment done specifically to illustrate why that is not true.

[Arkolon]

So if I write "cheeseball" in this post, that was not a choice? Someone forced me to do it? Did I "force" myself to do so? Doesn't that make it ... a choice, then?

the state of the universe, and thus the state of your brain, gave you no choice, physics forced to do it.

I still had a choice. Physics gave me a choice, if anything. I could have taken a walk, a jog, a run, I could have stopped by in the shop on the way there, I could have run backwards, I could have thrown my shoes at a passing car. If I had done any of these other things, you would still be here trying to tell me that that was my destiny. That's ridiculous. That was my choice. Choice isn't infinite, and there are only a certain number of possibilities to your actions, however that number is very large. You could say that there is a always a rational option, but to assume that humans are always 100% rational is just factually incorrect. It's possible to narrow it down-- to have fewer cookies to choose from every hour, so to speak-- but there isn't always one action that I will always take. You're morphing time and space in your argument: what I have done was not my destiny, it was my past, and how I spent my past was largely up to me.

Derk Pereboom seems to agree with me that "position 6" is one way to both accept and reject the neuroscience of free will. Sounds like we're going to have to modus vivendi on this one.

[Arkolon]

You get to choose between five actions every hour for the sixteen hours that you are awake during the day. That's 152,587,890,625 different choices you can make, and there is a 0.00000000065536% chance you take one sequence during that day. That's limiting it to hourly periods and ONLY five actions an hour. It's limited, sure, but how limited is it? If you plug it in a scientific calculator, the answer reads infinity.

no a good one does not.

How many options do you have right this second? Get up, run, walk, move house, say "hello", say "hi", google whatever you want... it's practically endless. Now work out how many different options you have every minute, and then an hour, and then in sixteen hours. That's a ridiculously large number, and I doubt any good consumer calculator can work that out.