There is no Hope without Jesus

[Nils]

Well, we should agree on terminology, otherwise it is meaningless to discuss. What I mean by heredity is the contents of the genes, the genetic information that the embryo has directly after conception. That is what a have been talking about all the time.

Okay; so going by your definition, heredity is a part of who we are. With that said; do you agree we have the ability to act contrary to this genetic information?

With the environment is mean all physical influences (and hence all higher level influences) there are on the individual, from conceptions onward.

By definition, influence are things we are able to work past, they do not determine what we do. IOW we are able to act contrary to these physical influences. Do you agree?

We may call them HeredityN and EnvironmentN (short H&En) if you please to distinguish them from your definitions. Your definitions are reasonable too but too vague to be used when discussing the metaphysical problem of Free Will.
I ask you to read my reasoning above (starting with "At time t1") with my definitions in mind because this reasoning is central to me. Do you understand what I say? Comments?

I don’t think our definitions are much different from each other. With that said; judging from the above replies, do you agree with me that we are able to act contrary to H&En?

I think saying that you “act contrary to H&E” is misleading. You always choose according to who you are. If who you are is dependent of something else, X, besides H&E, then you choose according H&E&X. But that doesn’t mean you act contrary to H&E.

We are talking about different things. Earlier you have said for instance “just because a person is raised in an environment that puts them at a disadvantage doesn’t mean they will not be able to rise above their environment and become successful.” You then discuss psychology. It is reasonable in that context to say as you do and what you mean is that it seems to us that this person has an environment (and perhaps heredity) that usually would cause her to be unsuccessful but there may be environmental (or heredity factors) that we don’t know about that with make it possible to be successful.

I on the other hand is talking about metaphysics so when I talk about H&E I assume that we know everything. I have to return to the reasoning I did earlier, slightly modified. And note that this has little to do with “the brain development of infants” besides that the brain develops.

At time t(1), say two days after conception, there is an embryo, let’s call it Em. Em is determined by the contents of it’s genes and possibly to some minor degree by the environment but not by anything else. Em doesn’t do any thinking and there is no independent “you”. Let’s call “How Em was” at time t(1) H(1).
How Em was at t(2), i.e. H(2), say a month later, is determined by of how Em was at t(1), H(1), and the environment between t(1) and t(2), but not by anything else (but possibly randomness, but I leave this out).
The same is valid at any times t(n) and t(n+1). How Em was at t(n+1), H(n+1), is determined by of how Em was at t(n), H(n), and the environment between t(n) and t(n+1), nothing else. From that follow that at time n+1 Em is determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and time t(n+1) and nothing else.
This is valid until present time.
During Ems development Em starts thinking but there is never a time m at which it is valid that how Em was at t(m), H(m), was completely determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and t(m) but at time m+1 it was not completely determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and t(m+1).
So, Ems “own” and Ems “independent thinking” is completely determined by H&E. It will never develop a free will.
If you don’t agree, where exactly is my reasoning erroneous?
Nils

[Kenny]

Well, we should agree on terminology, otherwise it is meaningless to discuss. What I mean by heredity is the contents of the genes, the genetic information that the embryo has directly after conception. That is what a have been talking about all the time.

Okay; so going by your definition, heredity is a part of who we are. With that said; do you agree we have the ability to act contrary to this genetic information?

With the environment is mean all physical influences (and hence all higher level influences) there are on the individual, from conceptions onward.

By definition, influence are things we are able to work past, they do not determine what we do. IOW we are able to act contrary to these physical influences. Do you agree?

We may call them HeredityN and EnvironmentN (short H&En) if you please to distinguish them from your definitions. Your definitions are reasonable too but too vague to be used when discussing the metaphysical problem of Free Will.
I ask you to read my reasoning above (starting with "At time t1") with my definitions in mind because this reasoning is central to me. Do you understand what I say? Comments?

I don’t think our definitions are much different from each other. With that said; judging from the above replies, do you agree with me that we are able to act contrary to H&En?

I think saying that you “act contrary to H&E” is misleading. You always choose according to who you are. If who you are is dependent of something else, X, besides H&E, then you choose according H&E&X. But that doesn’t mean you act contrary to H&E.

We are talking about different things. Earlier you have said for instance “just because a person is raised in an environment that puts them at a disadvantage doesn’t mean they will not be able to rise above their environment and become successful.” You then discuss psychology. It is reasonable in that context to say as you do and what you mean is that it seems to us that this person has an environment (and perhaps heredity) that usually would cause her to be unsuccessful but there may be environmental (or heredity factors) that we don’t know about that with make it possible to be successful.

I on the other hand is talking about metaphysics so when I talk about H&E I assume that we know everything. I have to return to the reasoning I did earlier, slightly modified. And note that this has little to do with “the brain development of infants” besides that the brain develops.

At time t(1), say two days after conception, there is an embryo, let’s call it Em. Em is determined by the contents of it’s genes and possibly to some minor degree by the environment but not by anything else. Em doesn’t do any thinking and there is no independent “you”. Let’s call “How Em was” at time t(1) H(1).
How Em was at t(2), i.e. H(2), say a month later, is determined by of how Em was at t(1), H(1), and the environment between t(1) and t(2), but not by anything else (but possibly randomness, but I leave this out).
The same is valid at any times t(n) and t(n+1). How Em was at t(n+1), H(n+1), is determined by of how Em was at t(n), H(n), and the environment between t(n) and t(n+1), nothing else. From that follow that at time n+1 Em is determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and time t(n+1) and nothing else.
This is valid until present time.
During Ems development Em starts thinking but there is never a time m at which it is valid that how Em was at t(m), H(m), was completely determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and t(m) but at time m+1 it was not completely determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and t(m+1).
So, Ems “own” and Ems “independent thinking” is completely determined by H&E. It will never develop a free will.
If you don’t agree, where exactly is my reasoning erroneous?
Nils

Do you see H&E as being within us, or outside of us?

Ken

[Nils]

Well, we should agree on terminology, otherwise it is meaningless to discuss. What I mean by heredity is the contents of the genes, the genetic information that the embryo has directly after conception. That is what a have been talking about all the time.

Okay; so going by your definition, heredity is a part of who we are. With that said; do you agree we have the ability to act contrary to this genetic information?

With the environment is mean all physical influences (and hence all higher level influences) there are on the individual, from conceptions onward.

By definition, influence are things we are able to work past, they do not determine what we do. IOW we are able to act contrary to these physical influences. Do you agree?

We may call them HeredityN and EnvironmentN (short H&En) if you please to distinguish them from your definitions. Your definitions are reasonable too but too vague to be used when discussing the metaphysical problem of Free Will.
I ask you to read my reasoning above (starting with "At time t1") with my definitions in mind because this reasoning is central to me. Do you understand what I say? Comments?

I don’t think our definitions are much different from each other. With that said; judging from the above replies, do you agree with me that we are able to act contrary to H&En?

I think saying that you “act contrary to H&E” is misleading. You always choose according to who you are. If who you are is dependent of something else, X, besides H&E, then you choose according H&E&X. But that doesn’t mean you act contrary to H&E.

We are talking about different things. Earlier you have said for instance “just because a person is raised in an environment that puts them at a disadvantage doesn’t mean they will not be able to rise above their environment and become successful.” You then discuss psychology. It is reasonable in that context to say as you do and what you mean is that it seems to us that this person has an environment (and perhaps heredity) that usually would cause her to be unsuccessful but there may be environmental (or heredity factors) that we don’t know about that with make it possible to be successful.

I on the other hand is talking about metaphysics so when I talk about H&E I assume that we know everything. I have to return to the reasoning I did earlier, slightly modified. And note that this has little to do with “the brain development of infants” besides that the brain develops.

At time t(1), say two days after conception, there is an embryo, let’s call it Em. Em is determined by the contents of it’s genes and possibly to some minor degree by the environment but not by anything else. Em doesn’t do any thinking and there is no independent “you”. Let’s call “How Em was” at time t(1) H(1).
How Em was at t(2), i.e. H(2), say a month later, is determined by of how Em was at t(1), H(1), and the environment between t(1) and t(2), but not by anything else (but possibly randomness, but I leave this out).
The same is valid at any times t(n) and t(n+1). How Em was at t(n+1), H(n+1), is determined by of how Em was at t(n), H(n), and the environment between t(n) and t(n+1), nothing else. From that follow that at time n+1 Em is determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and time t(n+1) and nothing else.
This is valid until present time.
During Ems development Em starts thinking but there is never a time m at which it is valid that how Em was at t(m), H(m), was completely determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and t(m) but at time m+1 it was not completely determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and t(m+1).
So, Ems “own” and Ems “independent thinking” is completely determined by H&E. It will never develop a free will.
If you don’t agree, where exactly is my reasoning erroneous?
Nils

Do you see H&E as being within us, or outside of us?

Ken

'
Heredity is genes, inside. Environment and its causes are inside and outside. But why do you ask, it should be clear from what I write. But "If you don’t agree, where exactly is my reasoning erroneous?"

Nils

[Kenny]

Well, we should agree on terminology, otherwise it is meaningless to discuss. What I mean by heredity is the contents of the genes, the genetic information that the embryo has directly after conception. That is what a have been talking about all the time.

Okay; so going by your definition, heredity is a part of who we are. With that said; do you agree we have the ability to act contrary to this genetic information?

With the environment is mean all physical influences (and hence all higher level influences) there are on the individual, from conceptions onward.

By definition, influence are things we are able to work past, they do not determine what we do. IOW we are able to act contrary to these physical influences. Do you agree?

We may call them HeredityN and EnvironmentN (short H&En) if you please to distinguish them from your definitions. Your definitions are reasonable too but too vague to be used when discussing the metaphysical problem of Free Will.
I ask you to read my reasoning above (starting with "At time t1") with my definitions in mind because this reasoning is central to me. Do you understand what I say? Comments?

I don’t think our definitions are much different from each other. With that said; judging from the above replies, do you agree with me that we are able to act contrary to H&En?

I think saying that you “act contrary to H&E” is misleading. You always choose according to who you are. If who you are is dependent of something else, X, besides H&E, then you choose according H&E&X. But that doesn’t mean you act contrary to H&E.

We are talking about different things. Earlier you have said for instance “just because a person is raised in an environment that puts them at a disadvantage doesn’t mean they will not be able to rise above their environment and become successful.” You then discuss psychology. It is reasonable in that context to say as you do and what you mean is that it seems to us that this person has an environment (and perhaps heredity) that usually would cause her to be unsuccessful but there may be environmental (or heredity factors) that we don’t know about that with make it possible to be successful.

I on the other hand is talking about metaphysics so when I talk about H&E I assume that we know everything. I have to return to the reasoning I did earlier, slightly modified. And note that this has little to do with “the brain development of infants” besides that the brain develops.

At time t(1), say two days after conception, there is an embryo, let’s call it Em. Em is determined by the contents of it’s genes and possibly to some minor degree by the environment but not by anything else. Em doesn’t do any thinking and there is no independent “you”. Let’s call “How Em was” at time t(1) H(1).
How Em was at t(2), i.e. H(2), say a month later, is determined by of how Em was at t(1), H(1), and the environment between t(1) and t(2), but not by anything else (but possibly randomness, but I leave this out).
The same is valid at any times t(n) and t(n+1). How Em was at t(n+1), H(n+1), is determined by of how Em was at t(n), H(n), and the environment between t(n) and t(n+1), nothing else. From that follow that at time n+1 Em is determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and time t(n+1) and nothing else.
This is valid until present time.
During Ems development Em starts thinking but there is never a time m at which it is valid that how Em was at t(m), H(m), was completely determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and t(m) but at time m+1 it was not completely determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and t(m+1).
So, Ems “own” and Ems “independent thinking” is completely determined by H&E. It will never develop a free will.
If you don’t agree, where exactly is my reasoning erroneous?
Nils

Do you see H&E as being within us, or outside of us?

Ken

'
Heredity is genes, inside. Environment and its causes are inside and outside. But why do you ask, it should be clear from what I write. But "If you don’t agree, where exactly is my reasoning erroneous?"

Nils

If Heredity (genes) is inside, and half of environment is inside, whatever actions resulting from that part of you is a part of freewill, because there are no outside sources forcing your hand. do you agree?

[RickD]

Nils,

Did you choose to be a determinist?

[Nils]

Okay; so going by your definition, heredity is a part of who we are. With that said; do you agree we have the ability to act contrary to this genetic information?


By definition, influence are things we are able to work past, they do not determine what we do. IOW we are able to act contrary to these physical influences. Do you agree?


I don’t think our definitions are much different from each other. With that said; judging from the above replies, do you agree with me that we are able to act contrary to H&En?

I think saying that you “act contrary to H&E” is misleading. You always choose according to who you are. If who you are is dependent of something else, X, besides H&E, then you choose according H&E&X. But that doesn’t mean you act contrary to H&E.

We are talking about different things. Earlier you have said for instance “just because a person is raised in an environment that puts them at a disadvantage doesn’t mean they will not be able to rise above their environment and become successful.” You then discuss psychology. It is reasonable in that context to say as you do and what you mean is that it seems to us that this person has an environment (and perhaps heredity) that usually would cause her to be unsuccessful but there may be environmental (or heredity factors) that we don’t know about that with make it possible to be successful.

I on the other hand is talking about metaphysics so when I talk about H&E I assume that we know everything. I have to return to the reasoning I did earlier, slightly modified. And note that this has little to do with “the brain development of infants” besides that the brain develops.

At time t(1), say two days after conception, there is an embryo, let’s call it Em. Em is determined by the contents of it’s genes and possibly to some minor degree by the environment but not by anything else. Em doesn’t do any thinking and there is no independent “you”. Let’s call “How Em was” at time t(1) H(1).
How Em was at t(2), i.e. H(2), say a month later, is determined by of how Em was at t(1), H(1), and the environment between t(1) and t(2), but not by anything else (but possibly randomness, but I leave this out).
The same is valid at any times t(n) and t(n+1). How Em was at t(n+1), H(n+1), is determined by of how Em was at t(n), H(n), and the environment between t(n) and t(n+1), nothing else. From that follow that at time n+1 Em is determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and time t(n+1) and nothing else.
This is valid until present time.
During Ems development Em starts thinking but there is never a time m at which it is valid that how Em was at t(m), H(m), was completely determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and t(m) but at time m+1 it was not completely determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and t(m+1).
So, Ems “own” and Ems “independent thinking” is completely determined by H&E. It will never develop a free will.
If you don’t agree, where exactly is my reasoning erroneous?
Nils

Do you see H&E as being within us, or outside of us?

Ken

'
Heredity is genes, inside. Environment and its causes are inside and outside. But why do you ask, it should be clear from what I write. But "If you don’t agree, where exactly is my reasoning erroneous?"

Nils

If Heredity (genes) is inside, and half of environment is inside, whatever actions resulting from that part of you is a part of freewill, because there are no outside sources forcing your hand. do you agree?

I can only answer you question by relating to my argument with "Em" above. That shows how I think. So please comment on it and if you don't agree, tell me why. If you don't understand something, ask, and I will try to explain. (When and how does Em get free will?)

Nils

[RickD]

[Nils]

It seems to me that Nil either doesn't understand free will of he is committing the same error that Harris does, which is redefining free will in a way that can be shown to not exist.

Free will is simply the ability to CHOOSE between whatever options you are presented.

WIth this definition it seems that also computers have free will.

No it doesn't. A computer doesn't choose anymore than a clock, digital or otherwise, chooses to move to the next second. They don't possess the ability to do other than what they've been instructed or mechanically engineered to do.

A computer program that controls a self-driving car for instance is far more complicated, even if not as complicated as a human. Simulation programs can create new knowledge and self-learning programs can cause the computer to act beyond what the programmers thought of. So in some cases computers do possess the ability to do other than what they’ve been instructed to do.

Your thinking seems to be:
1. Free will is simply the agents ability to CHOOSE between whatever options you are presented.
2. To have this ability the agent should have something more than computers have.
3. This extra ability is free will.
4. Free will is simply the agents ability to CHOOSE ….
etc

or ……… ?

Nils

[Kurieuo]

It seems to me that Nil either doesn't understand free will of he is committing the same error that Harris does, which is redefining free will in a way that can be shown to not exist.

Free will is simply the ability to CHOOSE between whatever options you are presented.

WIth this definition it seems that also computers have free will.

No it doesn't. A computer doesn't choose anymore than a clock, digital or otherwise, chooses to move to the next second. They don't possess the ability to do other than what they've been instructed or mechanically engineered to do.

A computer program that controls a self-driving car for instance is far more complicated, even if not as complicated as a human. Simulation programs can create new knowledge and self-learning programs can cause the computer to act beyond what the programmers thought of. So in some cases computers do possess the ability to do other than what they’ve been instructed to do.

Your thinking seems to be:
1. Free will is simply the agents ability to CHOOSE between whatever options you are presented.
2. To have this ability the agent should have something more than computers have.
3. This extra ability is free will.
4. Free will is simply the agents ability to CHOOSE ….
etc

or ……… ?

Nils

There is still input and output happening. What a program does given a particular input might be randomised into particular responses. That input may not be predictable, which causes a program to carry out a different set of instructions rather than the ones it otherwise would have done (eg a person jumping in front of a computer controlled car which is detected via hardware (input) generating the programmed response in the computer to immediately brake rather than continue accelerating), there is no real decision being made by the program itself. Self learning is simply more sophisticated routines and algorithms, but there is not the freedom there to explore whatever topic it desires, indeed programs don't have desires except to carry out the desires of their programmers.

Compare this to Judeo-Christian framework, where a story is told of our creator giving us a choice, a real choice, to either follow Him or not. We were able to follow our own path, one He did not desire us to pursue for it pushed Him out of the picture. We desired to follow our own path in life, and THAT is why there is so much wrong in the world (so the story goes). Programs on the other hand merely run according to instructions they are given, aren't the true authors of their choices, indeed a robot would have no desire or preference over killing people compared to not killing except any restraints and/or predispositions (ie weightings) the creator may have programmed in.

[Kurieuo]

In summary there is no REAL intelligence when it comes to computers, hence why the field is called artificial intelligence. Computerized appliances, phones, devices, machines, etc are made to APPEAR intelligent, but it's all mere appearance. Perhaps you've been hoodwinked by how well something has been programmed to believe true intelligence actually exists, but it's merely artificial and always will be unless consciousness is had, or the omega factor (if you have watched astroboy), which allows one to make a free response of their own choosing.

[Kenny]

I think saying that you “act contrary to H&E” is misleading. You always choose according to who you are. If who you are is dependent of something else, X, besides H&E, then you choose according H&E&X. But that doesn’t mean you act contrary to H&E.

I see myself as often acting contrary to environment (the “E” in H&E) because I see environment as outside of myself

We are talking about different things. Earlier you have said for instance “just because a person is raised in an environment that puts them at a disadvantage doesn’t mean they will not be able to rise above their environment and become successful.” You then discuss psychology. It is reasonable in that context to say as you do and what you mean is that it seems to us that this person has an environment (and perhaps heredity) that usually would cause her to be unsuccessful but there may be environmental (or heredity factors) that we don’t know about that with make it possible to be successful.

No; that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying this person has an environment (and perhaps heredity) that usually would cause her to be unsuccessful, but this person has an independent mind that allows them to make choices contrary to their environment, that lead her to success.

I on the other hand is talking about metaphysics

Please define metaphysics.

so when I talk about H&E I assume that we know everything.

How do you assume we know everything? I’m a little lost on that one.

I have to return to the reasoning I did earlier, slightly modified. And note that this has little to do with “the brain development of infants” besides that the brain develops.[

At time t(1), say two days after conception, there is an embryo, let’s call it Em. Em is determined by the contents of it’s genes and possibly to some minor degree by the environment but not by anything else. Em doesn’t do any thinking and there is no independent “you”. Let’s call “How Em was” at time t(1) H(1).
How Em was at t(2), i.e. H(2), say a month later, is determined by of how Em was at t(1), H(1), and the environment between t(1) and t(2), but not by anything else (but possibly randomness, but I leave this out).
The same is valid at any times t(n) and t(n+1).

What does t(n) and t(n+1) represent? For the sake of discussion, I will assume t(n) and t(n+1) is now and in the future. If it means something else, please explain, and I will adjust my responses accordingly

How Em was at t(n+1), H(n+1), is determined by of how Em was at t(n), H(n), and the environment between t(n) and t(n+1), nothing else.

If you are saying how the person (Em) is today is determined strictly by whatever he was as an embryo, I disagree. Since evolving from an embryo to a person he has developed a brain and this brain allows him to behave and act contrary to whatever he was as an embryo.

From that follow that at time n+1

I am assuming n+1 is the future. If something else let me know

Em is determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and time t(n+1) and nothing else.
This is valid until present time.

Again; I believe the development of a brain allows us to act contrary to all of that.

During Ems development Em starts thinking but there is never a time m at which it is valid that how Em was at t(m), H(m), was completely determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and t(m) but at time m+1 it was not completely determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and t(m+1).
So, Ems “own” and Ems “independent thinking” is completely determined by H&E. It will never develop a free will.
If you don’t agree, where exactly is my reasoning erroneous?
Nils

[/quote]
This last part you lost me. I have no idea what point you are making.

[1over137]

Hi Nills,

it seems to me you are looking at people like artificial neural networks.
Like programmer saying: Hey, network, I programmed you, go and learn based on what you encounter (environment).
In your example with Em, and in your thinking, (what free will is), Em will never have free will.
It all starts with definition of free will...

[1over137]

This topic made me to look more into neural networks
http://neuralnetworksanddeeplearning.com/chap1.html seems to be a good start for all

[Nils]

So much to comment now, but I take this first. The guy either don't know the arguments for no free will or he doesn't understand them or perhaps he has an agenda that he wants free will to exist. The topic of free will is a philosophical issue that has been debated in thousand of years and still is one of the hottest. It is astonishing that some organisation that calls itself a university can publish this propaganda.
There are lot of things that are correct but much is contentious and still some are plainly wrong. Just one example. He says that many materialist thinks that every mental event can be explained by reducing them to physics. Very few materialists think so. Most, and I, think that the mind is irreducible to physical events (just as a computer chess program is irreducible to logical gates).

To comment the video in full would take many pages, so I have to reftrain.

Again, generally, the more I comment the more comments I get. I don’t complain, not at all, it is fun and interesting, but I hope that you all can be patient if my answers take time.

Nils

[RickD]

Nils,

When you get a chance, I'd rather have you respond to my post #373, before you respond then the video I posted.