I propose choice is irellivent for 2 reasons

1. given the example of 3 boxes with one containing the prise, the chance of getting the right one is always 1/3 however long you dither for.

2. if all the particles are in the same place in the brain the same choice will always be made. thus efectivly you could press rewind and fastforward as many times as you like to the world and the sme ending would always come about.

If you could work out the movement of all the particles int eh world you could prodict the future perfectly.

1.depends if the person who put the prize in the box is around at the time

2.no

If you could work out the movement of all the particles int eh world you could prodict the future perfectly.

:runaway:

:roflmao:

:wallbang:

Cybernetics, although most would not, I actually agree with you that the world could be deterministic but that doesn't mean that choice is irrelevant. If you adopt the attitude that choice is irrelevant then you are actually influencing the choices that you would otherwise make.

Cybernetics, although most would not, I actually agree with you that the world could be deterministic but that doesn't mean that choice is irrelevant. If you adopt the attitude that choice is irrelevant then you are actually influencing the choices that you would otherwise make.

If the universe is wholly deterministic (which it isn't) then you HAVE no choices.

one_raven, we're kind of opening a box of worms here, but I disagree. I think free will is experienced just like pain or sweet. It is a qualia whose definition IS the experience. By that definition, one may "experience" free will while still being "forced" into a decision.

Ask yourself this question: are you able to make a decision that you did not choose? If not, then you were FORCED to make that decision!:p You "choose" what you do based on your values, which is determined by your genetics, life experiences, personality, etc, which are all things out of your control...

This one is a slippery slope; if I have to accept that this post I'm typing wasn't a free choice, but a compulsion, does it make any difference?
Does it mean I can predict everything I'm going to do, even in principle? Why don't I 'know' that I'm being compelled to do everything I do, but instead have a sense of making a choice?
Does it matter?

I agree it is a slippery slope, but I believe that most people's objection to a deterministic world is that it makes them "feel yucky", like we're just trapped in a story whose future has already been written. To me, this reason is irrelevant, and I believe as the OP said that if we were able to be 'transported back in time' to make a decision under the same exact circumstances we we make the same choice every time. This seems obvious to me, and yet I don't believe that this excludes the experience of free will...

This seems obvious to me
It is not nearly as obvious to me.
We have the higher faculties which allows us to act outside our nature and override our instincts.
We have the ability to rationalize, justify and change rapidly for many different reasons - even for no reason.
This is the core of free will.

and yet I don't believe that this excludes the experience of free will...
Regarless of which of us is correct, believeing you have free will is not the same as having free will.
Choice, therefore woud be completely irrelevant if there was no free will.
If you "decided" to sit under a tree and do absolutely nothing at all until you starved to death or if you "decided" to solve world hunger, that would simply mean that was what was determined for you and you made no choices at all.
Your fate was determined Billion of years before the earth even existed.
I think that's ridiculous nonsense, but there is no way to prove it either way - oh well.
I say long live free will, Chaos Theory and karma. :D

This thread belongs in philosophy

This thread belongs in philosophy

Definitely.
I didn't even notice it is in Physics/Math.

So the thought of no free will makes you "feel yucky", does it Raven? :p
If Free Will has a definition outside of what we attribute to it, then it exists by default. Otherwise, it means exactly what say it does. And my version of Free Will is experienced, and does not exist outside of this experience.

Yes, this thread belongs in Philo. I knew where this was headed when I said "you're opening a box here..."

So the thought of no free will makes you "feel yucky", does it Raven? :p
If Free Will has a definition outside of what we attribute to it, then it exists by default. Otherwise, it means exactly what say it does. And my version of Free Will is experienced, and does not exist outside of this experience.

Yes, this thread belongs in Philo. I knew where this was headed when I said "you're opening a box here..."

When you think life is pre-destined you've essentially taken away your own free will.

Go try and kill yourself, and try as hard as you can. Take comfort in knowing that, if you die, you had no part in it and if you live, you also had no choice in it. I have a feeling you won't attempt suicide, why's that? Because you already made up your mind? Or because you really don't wanna die, and you do have a choice. If you truly think we do not have a choice in life, do whatever the fuck you wish to, and know that there were no other choices available. I also present this challenge to all theists who currently believe in an all knowing God, go kill yourselves.

well hokely dokely then...

Go try and kill yourself, and try as hard as you can. Take comfort in knowing that, if you die, you had no part in it and if you live, you also had no choice in it. I have a feeling you won't attempt suicide, why's that? Because you already made up your mind? Or because you really don't wanna die, and you do have a choice. If you truly think we do not have a choice in life, do whatever the fuck you wish to, and know that there were no other choices available. I also present this challenge to all theists who currently believe in an all knowing God, go kill yourselves.

I like that post!

I think maybe he means that if something knows EVERYTHING in the universe, from every atom, photon to even what each living thing likes and how it behaves.

Maybe it can predict the actions of others and even on a bigger scale predict the future. Of course such a machine would be impossible to make, but if it was possible - it could then predict choices people will make BUT!! that still doesn't mean people do not individually make that choice when they go through the moment.

If you could work out the movement of all the particles int eh world you could prodict the future perfectly.

I can't clearly express the utter stupidity portrayed here. Then again, your talent for butchering the English language does that for me.

BetrayerOfHope the timbre of your post matches that of your handle. Are you a happy person?

Chris4355 nailed it. Just because my ultimate choice is predictable doesn't mean I did not make it. BetrayerOfHope you give supporting evidence in your little rant - you believe that I won't kill myself; does that mean only if I DO kill myself did I make a free will decision? Of course not!

I can't clearly express the utter stupidity portrayed here. Then again, your talent for butchering the English language does that for me.

not bad for your 8th post! your coming in this forum strong!:rolleyes:

not bad for your 8th post! your coming in this forum strong!:rolleyes:

Sorry I was unaware of the rule that your post count is relative to the size of your e-peen.

Since I'm new you can forgive me, right?

Sorry I was unaware of the rule that your post count is relative to the size of your e-peen.

Since I'm new you can forgive me, right?

Well, I guess. Its not like I have 50 thousand posts like most of the members here, at your rate you'll pass me in a week or two.

I have been ghosting on these forums for years however. :rolleyes:

Nin: What's an e-peen? If you're going to make fun of a guy for making typos you should preview your own posts. If you were claiming he's stupid because he apparently believes in Determinism you'd better be careful because many great minds throughout History have held the same view...:cool:

I agree it is a slippery slope, but I believe that most people's objection to a deterministic world is that it makes them "feel yucky", like we're just trapped in a story whose future has already been written. To me, this reason is irrelevant, and I believe as the OP said that if we were able to be 'transported back in time' to make a decision under the same exact circumstances we we make the same choice every time. This seems obvious to me, and yet I don't believe that this excludes the experience of free will...
One objection to any argument for determinism is that the arguer, in this case you, CANNOT possibly know if they are making sense. Their arguments would have a 'making sense' qualia, but really they are compelled to write what they are writing and compelled to think it makes sense.

Given that they 'ought' to know this - that they can never know if they are being rational or not - I find it odd that this knowledge never seems to slow down their presentations of their position as if it were rational and as if it could be judged so by others.

IOW - they may be right, but the entire enterprise is, truly, a waste of time. Before they realize this, of course, they are compelled to engage in the useless enterprise of telling other people, but I find it very odd that anyone would continue AFTER being informed that they cannot, in their worldview, have any idea if their arguments are actually rational.

Yet, somehow the dominos never fall in that RATIONAL line. They tend to continue asserting that they know they are being rational, when in fact all they would be feeling - if their worldview is correct - is that feeling I am being rational qualia.

Trent, is that you?

Nin: What's an e-peen? If you're going to make fun of a guy for making typos you should preview your own posts. If you were claiming he's stupid because he apparently believes in Determinism you'd better be careful because many great minds throughout History have held the same view...:cool:

Someone hasn't been on the internet for very long have they?:p

An e-peen is an electronic penis, which is synonymous with 'toughness or arrogance over the internet.' It's just a silly internet term.

Also, Determinism is and old hat because of Quantum Physics.

Trent, is that you?If you mean me, no Im not Trent, but get Trent in here!!!!

Just because my ultimate choice is predictable doesn't mean I did not make it.
Of course it means you didn't make it.

BetrayerOfHope you give supporting evidence in your little rant - you believe that I won't kill myself; does that mean only if I DO kill myself did I make a free will decision? Of course not!
It means that if you do kill yourself it was your time to go anyway, and if it was not your time to go, you would not be successful, so you have nothing to worry about.
If you have faith that everything is pre-determined, then you should have no problem at all, putting a gun to you head and oulling the trigger. After all, it is what you were pre-determined to do.

Someone hasn't been on the internet for very long have they?:p

An e-peen is an electronic penis, which is synonymous with 'toughness or arrogance over the internet.' It's just a silly internet term.

Also, Determinism is and old hat because of Quantum Physics.


Ok, Trent. Have you moved out of Louisiana yet? I never heard what you did about the Hurricanes and stuff. I just want you to know that, although I will stalk you until the day I die, I only want to lick you once. One lick and I'll go away, Trent. Is that too much to ask?

Trent Reznor is NIN.

Of course it means you didn't make it.
I am with you totally on this one. It would be foolish to talk about decisions and choices as discrete events. A ball dropped does not, just before impact, choose to fall that last millimeter and hit the ground.

Simon Anders: I think your point is that if we are irrational then we are clearly unpredictable - is that what you meant? If that wasn't your point then I'm not sure what rationality has to do with Determinism. Anyway, my response to that (and the part about it being impossible to kill yourself "if it's not your time to go") is that fate has already taken your choices into account. I'm surprised I have to point this out. You couldn't "fool" fate in a deterministic world - your very actions, whether rational or not (and despite any last-second trickeries) have been accounted for and brought into the fold. When I say the Universe is Deterministic I mean that it has a single future, determined precisely and uniquely by its single past. I DO NOT mean that we would ever be able to know enough to predict that future, even in theory (big difference)!

one_raven:
“
Originally Posted by RJBeery
Just because my ultimate choice is predictable doesn't mean I did not make it.
”

Of course it means you didn't make it.
Free Will is only experienced if we are unpredictable? That is false and silly. My child chooses McDonald's every time he's given the choice for picking fast food, and I can reliably predict this; does he lack Free Will? What if I asked you what your favorite color was and I had 1000 people "predict" your answer? Are you telling me that, BECAUSE your answer was (most likely) predicted, you have no Free Will in choosing your favorite color?:bugeye:

nin: (if you're really Reznor I've been a fan for a long time!) Contrary to current thought Quantum Physics does not necessarily rule out Determinism! It's a complex subject but one which I deal with heavily. The ultimate measurement at the wavefunction reduction may be deterministic (and I believe it is) whether or not that outcome is knowable to the observer before the measurement is made. And I still think your first post in this thread was rude and "e-peen"ish.;)

Ok, Trent. Have you moved out of Louisiana yet? I never heard what you did about the Hurricanes and stuff. I just want you to know that, although I will stalk you until the day I die, I only want to lick you once. One lick and I'll go away, Trent. Is that too much to ask?

All jokes aside I actually was in Houston when Ike hit.:)


And I still think your first post in this thread was rude and "e-peen"ish.;)

No, it was 'trollish.' I was attempting to incite a little controversy.

If you have faith that everything is pre-determined, then you should have no problem at all, putting a gun to you head and oulling the trigger. After all, it is what you were pre-determined to do.

Exactly, I couldn't have said it better myself :)

Exactly, I couldn't have said it better myself :)

I thought you did say it better yourself. :)

I call it "Betrayer's Challenge" :D

I call it "Betrayer's Challenge" :D

I plan on stealing it form you in future arguments.
Do you mind?
Think of it as your legacy living on.

I plan on stealing it form you in future arguments.
Do you mind?
Think of it as your legacy living on.

Long as you attribute it to me, lol. I love using it in arguments, and I thought of it all by myself! One day, I dream there will be a wikipedia article about it.

Betrayer and one_raven, for the love of God stop circle jerking each other and give me your response to my post (if you have one)...

nin: Gotcha thx for explanation

Free Will is only experienced if we are unpredictable?

Free Will is only experienced if we exercise choice.
If all is pre-determined we have only the illusion of choice, which is not the same - in fact it is antithetical to Free Will.

As the challenge was made...
If you pull the trigger and live, you were not meant to die. If you pull the trigger and die - it was your time to go anway.
Regardless of any other external factors, you were meant to pull the trigger and can not avoid it.

If this is not true, Free Will must necessarily exist.
If you have complete faith that Free Will does not exist, pulling the trigger would pose no problem for you what-so-ever.

1. given the example of 3 boxes with one containing the prise, the chance of getting the right one is always 1/3 however long you dither for.

Maybe if the box with the prize was chosen in a truly random manner.
Otherwise it can be helpful to stop and think which box is most likely to be the right choice.
If you could work out the movement of all the particles int eh world you could prodict the future perfectly.

This would not be possible.

Do you think it would be possible to predict what would happen after the initial prediction has been viewed by someone?

Another prediction would have to be made based on the reaction to the prediction, and so on for ever.

The very fact that something is predicting makes it impossible to predict something accurately.

All jokes aside I actually was in Houston when Ike hit.:)



No, it was 'trollish.' I was attempting to incite a little controversy.

I already hate this guy.

He's officially on my blocked list.

one_raven, did you read my full response, or just that sentence? How do you describe free will in my anecdotes regarding restaurants or color choices? Also, again, with the gun shooting scenario you know and I know that the trigger will not even be pulled (by CHOICE!) which is simply another example of "predictable free will"...

one_raven, did you read my full response, or just that sentence? How do you describe free will in my anecdotes regarding restaurants or color choices?
I read the whole thing, and I think it proves nothing at all because you started out with a premise that was not at all what I said.

Free Will is only experienced if we are unpredictable?
No.
Nothing of the sort.

My child chooses McDonald's every time he's given the choice for picking fast food, and I can reliably predict this; does he lack Free Will?
If one day he surprises you because a friend of his was talking up Burger King at school and he was influenced to try it, then what?

What if I asked you what your favorite color was and I had 1000 people "predict" your answer? Are you telling me that, BECAUSE your answer was (most likely) predicted, you have no Free Will in choosing your favorite color?:bugeye:
Of course I am not saying that, and frankly I have no idea where you get that from.
Yes, our actions are most certanly influenced by our surroundings, but that does not mean they are determined by them.
This ability of us to reason, justify, consider and weigh value in any given moment makes this so.
Someone who knows me very well, may be able to predict what I am likely to do in certain situations, but certainly not with 100% accuracy.
Perhaps I am feeling depressed one day and I pass up an opportunity to go to a Dali exhibit and sale at a local gallery. That would shock everyone I know, but it certainly IS possible.
Even if you can predict that you child will pick McDonald's, that does not mean he is not making a choice. He weighs his options, considers what he wants and makes a decision - he just happens to love McDonald's.



Also, again, with the gun shooting scenario you know and I know that the trigger will not even be pulled (by CHOICE!) which is simply another example of "predictable free will"...
Do you consciously make the decision to not pull the trigger, or are you unable to pull the trigger because the universe will not allow it?
It is your choice whether or not to kill yourself - you will certainly be influenced by your world, surroundings, state of mind, past decisions and countless other factors, but ultimately YOU decide whether or not to pull the trigger.
Again, if that is not true, then pull the trigger.
If you have complete faith that the universe is entirely deterministic, then whether you live or die is completely out of your hands and is determined already.

Free Will is only experienced if we exercise choice.
If all is pre-determined we have only the illusion of choice, which is not the same - in fact it is antithetical to Free Will.

As the challenge was made...
If you pull the trigger and live, you were not meant to die. If you pull the trigger and die - it was your time to go anway.
Regardless of any other external factors, you were meant to pull the trigger and can not avoid it.

If this is not true, Free Will must necessarily exist.
If you have complete faith that Free Will does not exist, pulling the trigger would pose no problem for you what-so-ever.

If it's predetermined, it could be predetermined that he is unable to pick up the gun & do that.

One objection to any argument for determinism is that the arguer, in this case you, CANNOT possibly know if they are making sense. Their arguments would have a 'making sense' qualia, but really they are compelled to write what they are writing and compelled to think it makes sense.

Given that they 'ought' to know this - that they can never know if they are being rational or not - I find it odd that this knowledge never seems to slow down their presentations of their position as if it were rational and as if it could be judged so by others.

IOW - they may be right, but the entire enterprise is, truly, a waste of time. Before they realize this, of course, they are compelled to engage in the useless enterprise of telling other people, but I find it very odd that anyone would continue AFTER being informed that they cannot, in their worldview, have any idea if their arguments are actually rational.

Yet, somehow the dominos never fall in that RATIONAL line. They tend to continue asserting that they know they are being rational, when in fact all they would be feeling - if their worldview is correct - is that feeling I am being rational qualia.

That all applies to everyone.
Not everyone who thinks they are rational, are rational. But they continue to think so.

If it's predetermined, it could be predetermined that he is unable to pick up the gun & do that.

Are you unable to pick up a gun? No, the majority is not. The fact is that people do not, because there is no determinism, but it's also pretty funny because you don't really even believe in determinism unless you pass this test. Want me to come up, and shoot you in the face? If you die, oh well.

one_raven said...

“
Originally Posted by RJBeery
Just because my ultimate choice is predictable doesn't mean I did not make it.
”
Of course it means you didn't make it.


“
Originally Posted by RJBeery
What if I asked you what your favorite color was and I had 1000 people "predict" your answer? Are you telling me that, BECAUSE your answer was (most likely) predicted, you have no Free Will in choosing your favorite color?
”
Of course I am not saying that, and frankly I have no idea where you get that from.


I think it's quite obvious where I concluded that you believe Free Will only exists if it is unpredictable!

Let's try a different tack...do you believe that that the mind can be completely described by its physical components, or do you believe that a "soul/spirit/etc" resides outside of physicality? If you answer that the mind is a purely physical component then we can discuss the deterministic nature of physical systems...

Yet another tack...I contend that any choice you make in a given situation would be the SAME every time you were placed in that identical situation. Since it is obviously impossible to duplicate an entire "situation" (including state of mind, memories, time, place, etc) this is purely speculation, but I feel it is quite obvious! Every factor that would go in to making what ever choice you did the "first time" would be present the "second time", and you would therefore make the same decision. Perfectly predictable in theory (yet impossible in practice), therefore predictability and Determinism does NOT rule out Free Will!

one_raven said...





I think it's quite obvious where I concluded that you believe Free Will only exists if it is unpredictable!

Let's try a different tack...do you believe that that the mind can be completely described by its physical components, or do you believe that a "soul/spirit/etc" resides outside of physicality? If you answer that the mind is a purely physical component then we can discuss the deterministic nature of physical systems...

Yet another tack...I contend that any choice you make in a given situation would be the SAME every time you were placed in that identical situation. Since it is obviously impossible to duplicate an entire "situation" (including state of mind, memories, time, place, etc) this is purely speculation, but I feel it is quite obvious! Every factor that would go in to making what ever choice you did the "first time" would be present the "second time", and you would therefore make the same decision. Perfectly predictable in theory (yet impossible in practice), therefore predictability and Determinism does NOT rule out Free Will!

He and you define predictable as two completely different things. All of my friends know my favorite color, cyan, but if asked, I may say green, or it may really be green, and I have changed my mind. There is a possibility they will not get the question right. You define predictable as if it can be predicted, it is predictable. He, and me, define predictable as something one can know with 100% certainty. Sorry one_raven if I got this wrong.

Are you unable to pick up a gun? No, the majority is not. The fact is that people do not, because there is no determinism, but it's also pretty funny because you don't really even believe in determinism unless you pass this test. Want me to come up, and shoot you in the face? If you die, oh well.

Psychologically/ emotionally unable.
People don't shoot themselves because they mentally can't.
If you pull a gun on me, I will have to defend myself. I CANNOT CHOOSE OTHERWISE.

Psychologically/ emotionally unable.
People don't shoot themselves because they mentally can't.
If you pull a gun on me, I will have to defend myself. I CANNOT CHOOSE OTHERWISE.

No you won't. You can easily choose to not do anything. At least I can.. Hmm.. Cool, I guess. Fine, I'm a sniper. Next time you go outside, I'mma shoot you in the face.

You operate under the delusion that you can choose.

Betrayer, if that's true then I agree with you. We can't, even in theory, predict the future, and we never will be able to (with 100% accuracy). But there being only one future and us knowing what it is are two different things.

That all applies to everyone.
Not everyone who thinks they are rational, are rational. But they continue to think so.I don't disagree with the latter part of what you say, but the determinist, given the nature of the claim they are making, is specifically denying their own ability to be objective. No completely determined being can be objective.

Simon Anders: I think your point is that if we are irrational then we are clearly unpredictable - is that what you meant? Not at all what I meant. You are a determinist. This means all of your actions and thoughts are completely determined. An entity like this cannot be objective about its thoughts. It must think what it thinks. You would simply experience a qualia of 'what I think and argued makes sense' AND THAT'S IT.

Since you are compelled to think what you think it will 'look right on paper' or on the computer screen. But in fact you have no way of gaining perspective on it since you are a completely determined being.

Once told that this is the case, it should create disinterest in pursuing such 'logical' arguments in favor of determinism, because you cannot really know if they are logical or not.

If one truly believes in determinism, one must accept the fact that there is no objectivity and that what seems to you to have been a logical argument on your part may simply have seemed that way and your determined nature is compelled to take it as sound reasoning.

IOW - perhaps you are right about determinism, but you have no idea if your reasoning about it is correct.

Simon, I see your point but I don't agree. A deterministic system would still allow for the recognition of logic by a subject. The lessons (whether pre-determined or not) that give one the ability to follow and appreciate logic could still be imparted onto subjects. I would also like to point out that the inability to recognize logical and consistent thought demonstrably exists with many people in this world...are you saying that is proof that their thought processes are predetermined? ;)

Simon, I see your point but I don't agree. A deterministic system would still allow for the recognition of logic by a subject.
The lessons (whether pre-determined or not) that give one the ability to follow and appreciate logic could still be imparted onto subjects.
They could be given to subjects, but the subjects would never be able to tell whether they are applying them correctly. They would never know if the definitions they are using for the terms in their argument are correct. They would never know if they simply were seeing the conclusion that they felt compelled to believe and feeling the qualia of 'I argued that well.'

I would also like to point out that the inability to recognize logical and consistent thought demonstrably exists with many people in this world...are you saying that is proof that their thought processes are predetermined? ;)
That is not a logical conclusion. For example, it assumes that the ONLY way one can be irrational is if one is completely determined, an argument I did not make. But I will bet when you wrote the above last point the qualia 'this was logical' was present to you. Perhaps you are determined while others are not.

And how would you know otherwise, in any case.

Simon, then maybe your point is that the stronger my conviction in Determinism, the less I can be sure that it is correct? Let me ask you this: do you believe that anyone has the ability to not only possess "true and correct" logic but to also KNOW this? I submit it is impossible whether we are predetermined or not.

Simon, then maybe your point is that the stronger my conviction in Determinism, the less I can be sure that it is correct? I can see where you are going and I think a case can be made for that. But if one is a determinist it does not matter. The 'not totally sure' position could merely seem to be that. One would also not be able to judge the level of one's convictions. This could be yet another qualia.

I am not a determinist, so for me I do think that in some cases one's sense of sureness can indicate needs to see something is a certain way. But I don't think a general rule works.

Let me ask you this: do you believe that anyone has the ability to not only possess "true and correct" logic but to also KNOW this? I submit it is impossible whether we are predetermined or not. Then this submission and its explication will fall under the same epistemolological obstacle.

(but it was an excellent tack to take in our discussion - For me I am happy when determinists - and other forms of what I call reasonists - realize that there are problems with their certainty and apparant logic)

Before you think, you decide what to think? You must then think to decide. Do you decide to have that thought? Then that requires a previous thought. Something(s) causes you to think whatever you think.

Before you think, you decide what to think? You must then think to decide. Do you decide to have that thought? Then that requires a previous thought. Something(s) causes you to think whatever you think.Then this thought you just wrote is one of these dominos and you would really have no idea if it makes any sense, since the thought that follows it - like 'there that made sense' - was just the next domino in line. IOW you may be right, but if you are, you are simply lucky, and can have no idea whether your reasoning is correct or why you believe what you do. Belief happens. Period.

Then you have no way to know if you're correct in your theory that I have no way to know if I'm correct.

Simon, there are two separate discussions here. The first is whether one's perception of the world is valid or not (including a given set of axioms which may themselves be founded on inconsistencies which we would be unable to recognize), and the second is whether or not you and I can see can conclude that the other is being logical within this possibly flawed framework. Since the former is untestable and completely unfalsifiable we should disregard discussion on it -- it's like "arguing" whether we're really in a Matrix-like cocoon and only seemingly experiencing the world around us...

Most currently accepted science was unfalsifiable until someone found a way to test it.
The Matrix or some simulation may be so. It would explain everything in the simulation & is the simplest explanation. Why not discuss it?????

Well we certainly could, and it would be an interesting Philosophical discussion, but I feel it is outside the scope of a discussion on whether or not the Universe is Deterministic.

I propose choice is irellivent for 2 reasons

1. given the example of 3 boxes with one containing the prise, the chance of getting the right one is always 1/3 however long you dither for.

2. if all the particles are in the same place in the brain the same choice will always be made. thus efectivly you could press rewind and fastforward as many times as you like to the world and the sme ending would always come about.

If you could work out the movement of all the particles int eh world you could prodict the future perfectly.

OMG irrelevant. effectively. prize. in the. predict. For a 14 year old, you seem to lack any skill at speech. Perhaps english is not your primary language?

I was going to respond to this in detail, but until it is SOMEWHAT intelligible, I refuse. Perhaps you should befriend a dictionary and thesaurus, you useless stool.:mad:

Cybernetics was wrong on #1. One might be able to discern information about the person that "hid" the prize, such as where they would more likely hide it, or "read" the reaction of that person as you walked in front of the various boxes. Yes his grammar and spelling are atrocious.

odds of 1 in 3 can equal 2 or 3 into infinity. He could have just as easily said that the possibility for accurate prdiction is zero, and been just as correct. As far as having particles in one's brain that make decisions, that is simply unacceptable.

Surely you know what he was trying to say. If you measured everything in existence, and perhaps took into consideration of God if he exists, then we sure be able to determine what happens next. Think of it this way, you roll a pair of dice, they reveal two ones, snake eyes. You think this is luck, chance. But, if you knew how you rolled the dice, how your hand moved and how much force you used, you should be able to predict the numbers they will fall on. That being said, I do not believe in Determinism.

Edit: couldn't resist saying this: I'm 14-years-old too :)

Then you have no way to know if you're correct in your theory that I have no way to know if I'm correct.Certainly a determinist cannot know. I also think that linear step by step reasoning is weak in general with an issue like this.

Simon, there are two separate discussions here. The first is whether one's perception of the world is valid or not (including a given set of axioms which may themselves be founded on inconsistencies which we would be unable to recognize), and the second is whether or not you and I can see can conclude that the other is being logical within this possibly flawed framework. Since the former is untestable and completely unfalsifiable we should disregard discussion on it -- it's like "arguing" whether we're really in a Matrix-like cocoon and only seemingly experiencing the world around us...I am making no case that we are in a matrix like cocoon. I am saying that one of the consequences of a totally determined univerise would be that creatures in it would not know why they believe certain things. And closely related to this is that they could not evaluate their own - or other people's - arguments, because they could never know what make these arguments seem wrong or right to them. They would have to react the way they would. It would have to seem right or wrong to them.

Which is why I find arguments in favor of complete determinism humorous.

Do you believe that the mind's processes are purely physical? Can one's exact state of mind be copied if the physical components of it are copied exactly?

Do you believe that the mind's processes are purely physical? Can one's exact state of mind be copied if the physical components of it are copied exactly?

I tried asking that question in Human Science. Although, I phrased the question in a very stupid way. I encourage you to revive the topic or create your own on the subject, but yes, I believe that to be true.

The minds processes are electro-chemical. I'd say that would make them very copiable.

Do you believe that the mind's processes are purely physical? No, I don't. In fact physical things don't seem all that physical to me.

Can one's exact state of mind be copied if the physical components of it are copied exactly?I have no idea.