Skeptic134

Explain "choose to believe", is that like pretending or trying to convince yourself you believe? Nothing I know/believe is by choice... You would never force anyone perhaps but religion is all about evangilzing. Free will, that's an entire other discussion...

So you need a further citation as this is second hand...

Well... Football fans don't try and control what gets taught in school or pass laws limiting the rights of others or try and dictate everyone's morality because of their favorite team. So in someways I suppose there is a little bit more to being a non theist than a non football fan...

How sensitive is the data you are encrypting? How large is the amount of data being encrypted? With a sufficiently sized key (compared to the data length) xor encryption can be decent.

The traditional view, based upon faith, of religious followers is just as powerful as the view of historical scholars? Saying "that's what I've always been told" by people that have an obvious vested interest in you believing their story is just as convincing as historical evidence?

Sure, what people were/are ignorant of has changed tremendously over time, people for the most part no longer need a god for different meterological phenomenom today thanks to science. Fear of the unknown is still probably a common theme of humanity, the unknown has receded thanks to science but death remains perhaps one of humanities biggest fears, and thus religion remains in our modern cultures. As far as having evolved to be more likely to find agency and cause where none exist; I don't know how much that has changed in just a few thousand years. I will paraphrase Dawkins... Science answers the questions that make sense to ask, like how a mountain exists. As far as answering why a mountain exsits, sure science has nothing to say, but perhaps the question doesn't make sense and there isn't anything meaningful to say.

Determining what is true and based in reality isn't decided by a popularity contest. What makes people believe in myths? Ignorance, fear, and a biological proclivity toward false positive errors in pattern recognition. Science is what allows us to accurately determine from an objective perspective what is true; when ancient claims run counter to repeatable observation we know it is mysticism and not truth.

Wouldn't the gravitational losses be taken into account by the specific impulse portion of the rocket equation?

An overly simplistic way of looking at it is using Newton's second law and understanding the relationship between force, time and velocity. If a certain force is applied over a specific amount of time and the net force is calculated, the acceleration of a mass and subsequently the change in velocity is straightforward. In rocketry the mass of the system isn't static however and that complicates the calculation so for your question the correct way to perform the calculation is using the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation. [math]\Delta V = Isp * g * ln (MR)[/math] Where Isp is the specific impulse and MR is the mass ratio.

The mass ratio tells you the amount of fuel available to be burned by the rocket which correlates to how long the rocket can produce an accelerating force. The specific impulse provides information on the energy density of the fuel and thus the amount of force that can be produced will the fuel is burning. With those two pieces of information, force and time, you can calculate the final velocity of the rocket.

This.

I have to disagree. Probability isn't choice, it isn't volition so determinism isn't lost. Just because you have several potential next states from the current and therefore as you correctly point out all known past and future states cannot be 100% calculated from one known state that doesn't mean the system isn't still determined. The next state (whichever that turns out to be of the possible states) is still determined based upon the physical laws of the universe even when they contain weighted terms. Neither the universe (fundamentally) nor the conscious entity (specifically) is making a choice simply because there exist probabilistic conditionals; the next state can only be one of the potential ones determined by the nature of the universe. Why do you feel that probability or randomness equates to volition or choice?

I can tolerate these definitions; I just have a hard time embracing the totality of the baggage associated with the concept of volition. A synonym for forced is involuntary. I would say a stone falling is involuntary, coming into existence is involuntary, who you are is involuntary, and making a decision with a gun to the head is involuntary. I suppose you could ask if the concept of involuntary makes sense if everything is involuntary. I think it does because it still accurately describes the reality of the situation and the opposite, voluntary, even if non-existent fundamentally, still has meaning too. This is all starting to be highly linguistic, perhaps that is inevitable when discussing philosophical ideas like free will. So this makes sense in my head... Disregard the messy idea of free will and assume that (hard) determinism is the reality of existence. Even if an individual arrives at a final choice where the next action will lead to what society has deemed illegal (detrimental to others) entirely due to determined genetics and environment, it doesn’t matter. It is the proper, moral thing to attempt to provide the environmental stimulants (punishment, rehabilitation) to modify the E in the G + E of this individual to prevent subsequent detrimental actions to minimize future harm to others and also improve the circumstance of the individual. Maybe, you don't need to have the concept of free will for morality and progression of civilization... From what I can tell there are 3 potential ways to define free will. The first, the common definition, is something along the lines of the ability to make choices that are not subject to fate or prior causes. I don’t believe most philosophers agree with this definition. The next, is the compatibilist’s definition of free will which is something along the lines of acting according to your own motivations, but these motivations are determined. A compatibilist being anyone that feels there isn’t any mutual exclusion between free will and determinism. And then, the final way to view free will (how I lean) is that it is entirely an invented concept that isn’t an explanation of consciousness at all. In your pool table example above, I don’t see how choice was introduced simply because a probabilistic term was part of the state equations. The outcome of the system is still not the result of a choice. Much like when I throw dice, they don’t choose to come up snakeyes.

The second definition is definitely inaccurate; it is much more specific than the first. It is the vagueness of the first that I suppose makes me dismiss it; what is humorous about the first definition is that it uses the word voluntary to define free will, when the definition of voluntary is defined as acting on one’s own free will, nice circular definition! It is difficult to pin down a good definition for free will as the concept does mean different things to different people. I believe we are on the same page though that “typically” what someone means when they say free will isn’t what compatibilist mean. You bring up that for a compatibilist the opposite of a voluntary choice is being forced to do something. I don’t see a difference and thus I suppose that is why I’m not a compatibilist. I feel that on the most fundamental level all of our actions are forced. As an example, suppose there is a gun to your head and you are being told to do something. All the events of your life have lead to the current circumstance you find yourself. If you do as instructed you would consider that a forced action and not free will? Whereas, what if you don’t comply, you would claim that would be free will? But the reality is that both compliance and non-compliance in that situation were forced on you due to the circumstance of the sum of your existence that lead to that point. As far as accountability in that situation, I believe logically and judiciously there is a difference between performing an action for immedidate self preservation or not, even if all actions are forced; all aren't forced by equally dire circumstances. Agreed, pattern recognition alone is not sufficient for consciousness which would be a prerequisite for a compatibilist's free will. Pattern recognition is a large part of general intelligence though and so is learning. We don’t know yet what all it takes to create genuine AI or consciousness but I see no reason that it is something that cannot be figured out. I don’t think there is anything magical about consciousness and to create strong AI I don’t think there will need to be considerations on how to instantiate free will. Instead, focus will be on producing general intelligence as opposed to specific expert systems. I agree with the first part entirely and I suppose halfheartedly with the second part. If free will is a social construct there must exist some level of complexity necessary for socialization to exist. I think the second part alone is not as meaningful; sufficient complexity leads to free will because the concept is then able to be invented by the entities with the necessary complexity. It is merely a conceptulaization and not necessarily reality. I don’t know of a better way to make accountability and morality make sense without a concept similar to free will, that doesn’t mean something couldn’t be devised that worked as well or better. Until then perhaps free will needs to exist as a social concept. It just isn’t a convincing explanation of the reality of consciousness though. I'm not sure how a probabilistic factor changes the idea of determinism. Just because there are weighted outcomes possible does not mean there aren't governing physical laws by which all events still abide. And yeah, theism is highly inconsistent in regards to the concept of free will. Huh... That almost makes me think I am a compatibilist.... I really don't like the word free will though...it isn't an accurate explanation of reality, its an invention for moral clarity

I agree, the common definition(s) (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20will) are wrong. Ok, analysis before and/or after making a decision which modifies future decisions; how is that different from learning and pattern recognition? A machine learning algorithm combined with pattern recognition capabilities wouldn’t exhibit free will would it? I think some of your descriptions of free will are more applicable to general intelligence, however I suppose it is all in how you define free will. That is a fairly subjective way to determine whether a person has free will, or the person is still merely the sum of genetics and environmental interactions. From one judge to another there could be different conclusions after observing the same interaction. I guess it comes down to how free will is defined; I agree that the common definition is clearly inappropriate. I think free will is a concept we invented that helps make sense of morality and accountability and not so much about providing the best explanation or description of reality.

Hrm, I don't disagree with your explanation here, just to be clear what I posted before was that a determinist does not believe free will exists whereas a compatibilist believes that free will is not mutual exclusive from determinism. How compatibilist define free will isn't perhaps identical with the common definition though. Interesting. I've always liked definitions of intelligence which include the idea of being able to make accurate predictions based on previous experiences; pattern recognition. So you are saying that fundamentally pattern recognition is the basis for free will? If that were true would algorithms exhibit free will too simply because they are capable of pattern recognition? Ok, so free will arises when we critique our choices after the fact? This is an interesting idea, but it matches what I pointed out about compatibilist and how they define free will. This doesn't suggest we are anything more than observers of what our brain decided but we "think" about it afterwards and that molds future "choices". How is this different from learning from experience (intelligence)? I agree, arbitrarily defining free will as only a characteristic of humans seems inappropriate, but this sounds a lot like describbing cooperation which is another indication IMO of intelligence. I understand the point you are making here but I can't help but still ask, how does an individual's ability to coerce require free will? Couldn't coercion be defined simply as a combination of a learned behaviour and ability to predict an outcome, basically intelligence? The individual has learned from previous competitive encounters that with certain behaviours a certain outcome is possible and this outcome is preferred. Would this not just be an innate programming of biological competitiveness? If you are a compatibilist When do we know this transition, becoming in control of my life, has occurred? When does the genes + environmental inputs = me equation run it's course and the new model of conciousness arise, genes + environmental inputs + FW = me? How do we measure and know when this happens?

This clearly isn't going anywhere... First, you claimed humans have free will and animals don't because dogs "see food and eat it, whereas humans can decide not too". Animals can decide not to accept food too, I've seen that myself when offering treats to dogs/pets before. And similarly young children who haven't learned manners can behave just as you describbed your hypothetical dog, eating what they can get their hands on. Next, your evidence of why humans have free will over animals is because we study rats in labs but rats don't study humans in labs. As if this has anything at all to do with free will and determinism. And now, hospitals are an example of free will in humans and since no other species builds hospitals they clearly don't have free will. Not a single explanation, assertion or "evidence" of yours has demonstrated or pointed to any fundamental difference in the cognition of homo sapien from any other species. The only things your attempt at rationale has demonstrated is differring levels of intelligence and ability to interact with the environment. Further, with just minimal searching, there is evidence of other species caring for sick or injured http://www.releasechimps.org/chimpanzees/chimpanzee-society so that isn't something only humans do. Now I suppose to you the lack of brick and motor buildings is where the free will difference really kicks in between chimps and humans. You appear to be wanting to define free will as entirely a function of complexity and "superiority" but you cannot outside of providing examples of things humans do (like performing lab experiments or building structures) provide any criteria about how human neurology is fundamentally different, how human psychology is fundamentally different, how there is a major difference in what "choice" means between humans and every single other species. Under this indescriptive assertion of yours all species aside from one do not exhibit free will despite that the range in variation in intelligence and complexity is staggering; ant to elephant. But you cannot provide a concrete foundation of why you are able to separate homo sapien from the millions of other species. I have no idea how anything I've posted has dinegrated humanity and I have no clue how determinism is a green consideration... And I'm not sure homo sapien pride even makes sense as a concept...

You are still just defining human behavior as somehow fundamentally different without reasons as to why it is different. We “freely choose”, how do you know? How do you know that we aren’t just biologically programmed to be curious about our world the same way that dogs are programmed to eat food they find? What does perceived human superiority have to do with free will? Are chimpanzee not equally superior to ants, and yet you claim that both are merely acting according to preprogrammed instinct? At what level of superior cognition did you decide to draw the “free will arises” line and what were the parameters that allowed you to pin point where the line should be? Responding with the likes of “of course we have free will and animals don’t, penquins don't even go to college” just doesn’t cut it.

How does presenting the vague idea “humans and dogs are very different” answer the question about what the fundamental differences are between the way our brains work, consciousness unfolds, and how to differentiate between instinct and free will? You asserted that species outside of humans are merely driven by instinct or biological programming whereas somehow humans are special and have free will, never mind that humans also exhibit similar instinctual behaviours. What are your criteria for determining when a behavior should be classified as instinct or when it is a choice made via free will? You are saying “humans are special” when it comes to the concept of free will but you don’t provide anything that clearly differentiates human cognition from animal cognition that would support that all other animal behaviours are simply "programming" but we have free will.

Humans have instinct as well (suckling for one), what evidence do you have or can you cite which shows a fundamental difference between the neurology, instinctual behaviour and decision making process that other species exhibit versus humans? To say “other animals don’t have free will because it is merely biological programming” when humans have similar “biological programming” and not point to any study or any evidence just isn’t compelling. Your example isn’t convincing either. A dog is merely executing programming to eat discovered food whereas a young child that similarly sees cookie, grabs cookie and eats cookie is exhibiting free will? IMO merely citing higher complexity as why homo sapien exhibit free will but canine don’t is not sufficient. After all, complexity is merely a lack of complete understanding.

Even before reading Sam Harris’s book, Free Will I leaned determinist, I still do, but I get why compatibilist dont want to completely dismiss the concept of free will. Completely rejecting accountability and responsibility could be detrimental to society and progress since the environment portion of the equation is a feedback loop and thus the society we build does factor into what eventually comes to fruition. I do find it interesting that while determinist and compatibilist disagree on whether free will exists they both agree that what people think free will means isn’t the reality. To me it seems a little bit like compatibilist “want” there to be free will because it makes things less messy thus the difference in how they define free will compared to what the average person means when they say they “have free will”. Even though 60% of philosophers consider themsevles compatibilist they still agree with “that you don’t know what you are going to do before you do it” but they say “So”. Anyway, this is a rebuttal by Daniel Dennet on Sam Harri’s Free Will, long but interesting. http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/reflections-on-free-will <additional thoughts> What are the requirements for free will to exist? If humans do have free will, do other species? Do chimpanzees have free will, what about dolphins? What about dogs, cats, or birds? How far down the ladder in neurological complexity can we go before we stop considering that the creature exhibits free will? What about ants, do they exhibit free will or are they merely a biological finite-state machine? What are the criteria that make us draw the line and say no, that specimen doesn’t exhibit free will but this specimen does? What is different about the decision made in an FSM and a choice made by an agent with free will? If it is only complexity that differentiates “if X and Y or Z then Q” from “No mayonnaise” how is one fundamentally an example of free will and the other isn’t?

From what you posted how can we tell it is a "knowledge processor" vs a chat bot, vs a random selection of finite possible responses, vs just you typing? Why is it revolutionary? What are your claims in regards to what it can do and where is the evidence supporting it can meet the claims? Help us out, what are we going to discuss here? What you've posted doesn't really foster discussion, I'm not sure what to make of it.

So you’ve written a natural language processing program? What do you want to discuss, what is your point? You haven’t provided any pertinent information, the language (prolog?), is it truly a natural language processor, what methodology did you use, how it is different from other bots, how is it revolutionary to the field of AI, what if any implications does what makes your bot unique have toward strong AI?

I don't know... all I can tell is the OP was something about exclusive homosexuality in different species, he hasn't provided many sources though, other than it occurs in rams.

I think he is referring to exclusive homosexual activity vs bisexual activity.