i'm sorry, lolf. i manipulated your input datastream and contaminated your output buffer. ... and all he was doing was following his reaction tables :cryface:
<!--quoteo(post=1602879:date=Jan 30 2007, 11:43 AM:name=Jimmeh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jimmeh @ Jan 30 2007, 11:43 AM) [snapback]1602879[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> But why believe in the first place?
You don't wake up and think "I think today I'll believe... that I have 3 testicles!" because it's ###### stupid. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You could believe that if you choose to. And it's not stupid, but you can place place that value over that belief.
I'm going to do a speech that tries to prove that God does not exist for my speech class. But does that mean I have to be atheist? Or rather, I simply chose to do it.
<!--quoteo(post=1602943:date=Jan 30 2007, 08:19 PM:name=SmoodCroozn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SmoodCroozn @ Jan 30 2007, 08:19 PM) [snapback]1602943[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You could believe that if you choose to. And it's not stupid, but you can place place that value over that belief.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's the entire point. Obviously you can in principle believe whatever the hell you want. But if you expect people to not think you're insane (and if you have any interest at all in the truth) then you need to find reasons to provide evidence for what you believe.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm going to do a speech that tries to prove that God does not exist for my speech class. But does that mean I have to be atheist? Or rather, I simply chose to do it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> There's a huge difference between making a speech to play devil's advocate and what you actually believe. Not to mention this just has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about...
I can't believe this is even a discussion. How can religion fck rational discussion so hard that we are to the point of discussing whether or not you need evidence to believe something?
<!--quoteo(post=1602970:date=Jan 30 2007, 09:26 PM:name=Nadagast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nadagast @ Jan 30 2007, 09:26 PM) [snapback]1602970[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> There's a huge difference between making a speech to play devil's advocate and what you actually believe. Not to mention this just has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about... <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
to the original question: "do we exist as deterministic devices" his speech has everything to do with what we <i>were</i> discussing before this became a thread about the bible. he is reacting (output) to statements made (input) based on his current state of mind (state table)
"But if you expect people to not think you're insane (and if you have any interest at all in the truth) then you need to find reasons to provide evidence for what you believe."
Reasons do not determine our actions. Our choices do. Why must you link actions to society when they are our own?
So what you're saying essentially is that you don't care about what's true? That's fine, just don't try to speak up and act like you know something if you want to believe things with no evidence.
And reasons (evidence) do determine our actions, at least for most rational people they do.
<!--quoteo(post=1603004:date=Jan 30 2007, 11:23 PM:name=Nadagast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nadagast @ Jan 30 2007, 11:23 PM) [snapback]1603004[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> at least for most rational people they do. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
irrational people are either unable to parse input correctly (according to "rational people") or have a corrupted reaction/state table (according to the same).
<!--quoteo(post=1603004:date=Jan 30 2007, 09:23 PM:name=Nadagast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nadagast @ Jan 30 2007, 09:23 PM) [snapback]1603004[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> So what you're saying essentially is that you don't care about what's true? That's fine, just don't try to speak up and act like you know something if you want to believe things with no evidence. And reasons (evidence) do determine our actions, at least for most rational people they do.
Our choices determine our actions? What? Our choices *are* our actions. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It doesn't matter if I care about what's true or not. Again, you could make up whatever reason you want, but that would not make an action automatic. It's rather the choice, then the action proceeds after it.
Choosing something is not the same as acting the action. Decision-making is seperate from execution.
Do I really have to parse all this? <!--quoteo(post=1603182:date=Jan 31 2007, 05:50 PM:name=SmoodCroozn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SmoodCroozn @ Jan 31 2007, 05:50 PM) [snapback]1603182[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It doesn't matter if I care about what's true or not.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It definitely does. If you care about what's true you'd have to accept that you need evidence for your beliefs, that's the best way we know of of finding the truth. If you don't care about what's true then stop posting since it doesn't take evidence for you to form your belief.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Again, you could make up whatever reason you want, but that would not make an action automatic. It's rather the choice, then the action proceeds after it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" /> You can't make up evidence.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Choosing something is not the same as acting the action. Decision-making is seperate from execution.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok?
Hah, you've completely lost him Smood. And its SOOOO entertaining to watch, too. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
{takes some jabs at Nadagast that were better left unsaid}
<!--quoteo(post=1603213:date=Jan 31 2007, 04:56 PM:name=Nadagast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nadagast @ Jan 31 2007, 04:56 PM) [snapback]1603213[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Do I really have to parse all this?
It definitely does. If you care about what's true you'd have to accept that you need evidence for your beliefs, that's the best way we know of of finding the truth. If you don't care about what's true then stop posting since <b>it doesn't take evidence for you to form your belief.</b> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And since I'm the exception, I prove the theory that reasons do not determine our actions.
@cxwf: Yeah I didn't realize the original thread wasn't about religion. Thanks for informing me. You're so damn good at <b>reading</b>. It's not like there is some holy law that says threads can't change subject. It's not my fault that after Smood initially replied to my post about the bible he started to change the subject back on topic, making his replies have less and less to do with what our (me and smood's) discussion was about in the first place.
I will add that I don't think questioning the reason that someone gives for having an opinion on the original subject is a huge derail. It's pretty relevant. I'm sure you'd do the same if I came in here and said that I believe that there is some other way to come to an outcome other than determinism and randomness. You'd ask what it was and what evidence I had for it. And you wouldn't be out of line.
@Smood: Either you're insane, or evidence does determine your actions. It's really as simple as that. Do you just walk around all day making decisions based on random nothingness? I don't think so... If you don't base your decisions on evidence, and reasons, then what do you base them on?
My point is that our actions aren't linked by reasons. You could give me 50 reasons why you drive a car and I could give you 50 reasons why I wouldn't.
I say this because people tend to say to such situations like "I killed him because he shot my wife". You can choose NOT to shoot him for the same reasons. So really, you shot him because you CHOSE to do so, not because some reason spiritually controlled your finger to press the trigger.
If someone were to hold a gun to your head saying suck my ######, it would be your choice to do so. Even at gunpoint, the other guy can only suggest what you can or cannot do; it's still ultimately your decision.
<!--quoteo(post=1603241:date=Jan 31 2007, 10:12 PM:name=SmoodCroozn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SmoodCroozn @ Jan 31 2007, 10:12 PM) [snapback]1603241[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My point is that our actions aren't linked by reasons. You could give me 50 reasons why you drive a car and I could give you 50 reasons why I wouldn't.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> But all reasons are not created equal. The reason people drive cars is because the benefit they gain from using a car is greater than what they think they lose from using a car.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I say this because people tend to say to such situations like "I killed him because he shot my wife". You can choose NOT to shoot him for the same reasons. So really, you shot him because you CHOSE to do so, not because some reason spiritually controlled your finger to press the trigger.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're failing to account for all the reasons that hold people back from shooting people. Societal pressure, fear of punishment, and empathy are three possible reasons that could (for this particular person) outweigh or lose out to the fact that the man shot his wife.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If someone were to hold a gun to your head saying suck my ######, it would be your choice to do so. Even at gunpoint, the other guy can only suggest what you can or cannot do; it's still ultimately your decision.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, it is your decision but you're failing to take into account that this guy has reasons (and if he has a gun pointed to his head, pretty powerful ones) to do whatever he chooses to do in this situation. It's not random.
<b>If you're contending that we don't make choices based on evidence and reasons, then you need to show us a mechanism that makes decisions based on no evidence and no reason.</b> Do you think we are just a random number generator? I think the evidence shows that we aren't... And there aren't any other processes known for deciding outcomes other than random and deterministic. Of course we are probably an insanely complicated mix of random and deterministic, but if you're proposing we operate on some other principle you need to define it.
<!--quoteo(post=1603238:date=Jan 31 2007, 08:57 PM:name=Nadagast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nadagast @ Jan 31 2007, 08:57 PM) [snapback]1603238[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> @cxwf: It's not like there is some holy law that says threads can't change subject. It's not my fault that after Smood initially replied to my post about the bible he started to change the subject back on topic, making his replies have less and less to do with what our (me and smood's) discussion was about in the first place.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, certainly they can. This particular thread has changed topics three or four times, for example. I was just commenting that you seemed to have been the only one to miss the last turn. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
However, I will admit that post came off a bit arrogant so I'll go edit it down to size.
On topic: I've long thought that humans were inherently irrational creatures. That doesn't necessarily mean they aren't deterministic, but its really asking a big leap of faith to say humans act entirely on logical reasons. There's just so much evidence that isn't the case.
Can you really prove that some reasons are "greater" than others? Or is this just your opinion?
So if someone were to shoot a wife, does that mean the person would automatically think about killing the killer? Is that preprogrammed into our heads as instincts? Or perhaps that is what society has been reinforcing into ourselves. Revenge. Payback. Arnold Governator. Or you could CHOOSE not to get this revenge. It's not automatic; it's a choice.
I already showed you an example. I'll show you another. I could walk outside and into the rain with only my boxers. Are we going to sit back and think up a reason why I should do it? Or why I shouldn't? No, what happens is I made my choice and did it.
Again, for all the reasons you say for you doing something, I could give those same exact reasons for not doing that activity. You eat vitamins to keep you healthy. I don't eat vitamins because they keep me healthy. Therefore reasons and actions are not linked. It is our choice that causes our actions.
<!--quoteo(post=1603267:date=Feb 1 2007, 12:22 AM:name=SmoodCroozn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SmoodCroozn @ Feb 1 2007, 12:22 AM) [snapback]1603267[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Can you really prove that some reasons are "greater" than others? Or is this just your opinion?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, obviously it's an opinion, and it depends on the circumstances. I don't mean 'greater' in an absolute sense.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So if someone were to shoot a wife, does that mean the person would automatically think about killing the killer? Is that preprogrammed into our heads as instincts? Or perhaps that is what society has been reinforcing into ourselves. Revenge. Payback. Arnold Governator. Or you could CHOOSE not to get this revenge. It's not automatic; it's a choice.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You totally ignored my entire post. It's a choice based on the facts of the situation and other circumstances. Not just a choice based on... (?? you still haven't defined what a choice is based on if not facts)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I already showed you an example. I'll show you another. I could walk outside and into the rain with only my boxers. Are we going to sit back and think up a reason why I should do it? Or why I shouldn't? No, what happens is I made my choice and did it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Reasons don't necessarily have to be conscious. You need to define choice or stop using it really. You need to tell me what mechanism humans use to choose what they are doing if it's not random and not based on facts.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Again, for all the reasons you say for you doing something, I could give those same exact reasons for not doing that activity. You eat vitamins to keep you healthy. I don't eat vitamins because they keep me healthy. Therefore reasons and actions are not linked. It is our choice that causes our actions.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What? Yes there are probably some reasons against doing just about anything, but it can easily be outweighed by the reasons for it. And obviously it comes down to the individual's circumstances and upbringing and many other things I'm sure.
You have to tell me what Humans use to make decisions if not reasons, facts, and evidence. Otherwise you're just making a very obfuscated argument from incredulity...
<!--quoteo(post=1603267:date=Jan 31 2007, 11:22 PM:name=SmoodCroozn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SmoodCroozn @ Jan 31 2007, 11:22 PM) [snapback]1603267[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Again, for all the reasons you say for you doing something, I could give those same exact reasons for not doing that activity. You eat vitamins to keep you healthy. I don't eat vitamins because they keep me healthy. Therefore reasons and actions are not linked. It is our choice that causes our actions. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
there's the rub. you're acting in accordance with a reaction set. you take input stimuli (dead wife, rain, pancakes) then send it through a reaction table (dead wife => crusade against killer, rain => dance in shorts, pancakes => delicious. must eat.) and then execute the reaction. the illusion of free choice is simply a stimulus causing you to change an entry in your reaction table. ie: (forum post on free will => update(rain, dance))
If the reaction table entries for both presence and absence of many different stimuli are all the same though, can those stimuli still be considered to have triggered that reaction? Or is that reaction now a property of the actor, and not the immediate stimuli that caused it?
so, if we define a table as (w=>a,x=>a,y=>a,z=>a) then yes, we can state that either w, x, y, or z triggered the a response. we can also define a table as (x=>a,!x=>a) where either with or without x, we trigger a. (ie: "even if sony doesn't lower their price, i want a ps3"). the thing is that this table was probably created by some other stimulus (w=>update(x=>a,!x=>a)) which roughly translates to (w=>a) (ie: "metal gear looks hawt, i will sell my soul")
The thing is that any action stimuli is also a reaction stimuli for about an infinite number of possible things, yet the machine still runs. If the human brain is a traditional computer by the standard definition, it divides by zero and makes infinite loops all the time but still functions quite effectively. There is currently no class of machine that accurately describes what the human brain is.
a_civilianLikes seeing numbersJoin Date: 2003-01-08Member: 12041Members, NS1 Playtester, Playtest Lead
<!--quoteo(post=1603988:date=Feb 5 2007, 07:04 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Feb 5 2007, 07:04 AM) [snapback]1603988[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The thing is that any action stimuli is also a reaction stimuli for about an infinite number of possible things, yet the machine still runs. If the human brain is a traditional computer by the standard definition, it divides by zero and makes infinite loops all the time but still functions quite effectively. There is currently no class of machine that accurately describes what the human brain is. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Careful. It is a trivial matter to divide an infinite set into a finite number of subsets.
Also, you haven't explained how that would lead to division by zero and infinite loops in the first place.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=1603988:date=Feb 5 2007, 07:04 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Feb 5 2007, 07:04 AM) [snapback]1603988[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The thing is that any action stimuli is also a reaction stimuli for about an infinite number of possible things, yet the machine still runs. If the human brain is a traditional computer by the standard definition, it divides by zero and makes infinite loops all the time but still functions quite effectively. There is currently no class of machine that accurately describes what the human brain is. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What decision problems can human brains compute that machines are theoretically unable to?
<!--quoteo(post=1604091:date=Feb 5 2007, 05:48 PM:name=moultano)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(moultano @ Feb 5 2007, 05:48 PM) [snapback]1604091[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> What decision problems can human brains compute that machines are theoretically unable to? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Weather a function will loop indefinitely or not. We still don't have a slightly reliable algorithm for that, humans just kinda look at them and know. Even if we start calculating and can't figure it out we don't stop functioning. Computers can't "error handle" an infinite loop.
a_civilianLikes seeing numbersJoin Date: 2003-01-08Member: 12041Members, NS1 Playtester, Playtest Lead
<!--quoteo(post=1604108:date=Feb 5 2007, 06:35 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Feb 5 2007, 06:35 PM) [snapback]1604108[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Weather a function will loop indefinitely or not. We still don't have a slightly reliable algorithm for that, humans just kinda look at them and know. Even if we start calculating and can't figure it out we don't stop functioning. Computers can't "error handle" an infinite loop.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <i>Non sequitur</i>. Error handling for infinite loops is possible regardless of whether the computer can determine beforehand whether the loop is infinite. Simply break the loop after some finite number of iterations. This method will certainly also break some finite loops prematurely, but that is of little concern.
In addition, humans cannot in general look at a function and determine whether it will end. They can look at some functions and decide based on obvious indicators or experience. A computer could do this too. But neither human nor computer can decide generally. (See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem#Can_humans_solve_the_halting_problem.3F" target="_blank">halting problem</a>.)
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=1604108:date=Feb 5 2007, 06:35 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Feb 5 2007, 06:35 PM) [snapback]1604108[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Weather a function will loop indefinitely or not. We still don't have a slightly reliable algorithm for that, humans just kinda look at them and know. Even if we start calculating and can't figure it out we don't stop functioning. Computers can't "error handle" an infinite loop. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually that's not true. I can give you plenty of programs that you will not be able to tell whether they will terminate. This is a well known problem in computer science called the Halting Problem.
Consider a program that tests the Riemann Zeta Hypothesis, and outputs the first counterexample it finds. Neither you nor anyone else in the world at the moment can tell whether or not it will ever terminate. The same is true of a lot of programs that test conjectures in number theory.
If a human can prove that it will terminate, a computer can also prove that it will terminate, because proofs by definition are no more than a sequence of symbol manipulations and could be generated by a computer, though it might take quite a bit longer.
Comments
... and all he was doing was following his reaction tables :cryface:
But why believe in the first place?
You don't wake up and think "I think today I'll believe... that I have 3 testicles!" because it's ###### stupid.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You could believe that if you choose to. And it's not stupid, but you can place place that value over that belief.
I'm going to do a speech that tries to prove that God does not exist for my speech class. But does that mean I have to be atheist? Or rather, I simply chose to do it.
That's the entire point. Obviously you can in principle believe whatever the hell you want. But if you expect people to not think you're insane (and if you have any interest at all in the truth) then you need to find reasons to provide evidence for what you believe.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm going to do a speech that tries to prove that God does not exist for my speech class. But does that mean I have to be atheist? Or rather, I simply chose to do it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's a huge difference between making a speech to play devil's advocate and what you actually believe. Not to mention this just has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about...
I can't believe this is even a discussion. How can religion fck rational discussion so hard that we are to the point of discussing whether or not you need evidence to believe something?
There's a huge difference between making a speech to play devil's advocate and what you actually believe. Not to mention this just has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
to the original question: "do we exist as deterministic devices" his speech has everything to do with what we <i>were</i> discussing before this became a thread about the bible.
he is reacting (output) to statements made (input) based on his current state of mind (state table)
Reasons do not determine our actions. Our choices do. Why must you link actions to society when they are our own?
And reasons (evidence) do determine our actions, at least for most rational people they do.
Our choices determine our actions? What? Our choices *are* our actions.
at least for most rational people they do.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
irrational people are either unable to parse input correctly (according to "rational people") or have a corrupted reaction/state table (according to the same).
So what you're saying essentially is that you don't care about what's true? That's fine, just don't try to speak up and act like you know something if you want to believe things with no evidence.
And reasons (evidence) do determine our actions, at least for most rational people they do.
Our choices determine our actions? What? Our choices *are* our actions.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It doesn't matter if I care about what's true or not. Again, you could make up whatever reason you want, but that would not make an action automatic. It's rather the choice, then the action proceeds after it.
Choosing something is not the same as acting the action. Decision-making is seperate from execution.
<!--quoteo(post=1603182:date=Jan 31 2007, 05:50 PM:name=SmoodCroozn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SmoodCroozn @ Jan 31 2007, 05:50 PM) [snapback]1603182[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It doesn't matter if I care about what's true or not.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It definitely does. If you care about what's true you'd have to accept that you need evidence for your beliefs, that's the best way we know of of finding the truth. If you don't care about what's true then stop posting since it doesn't take evidence for you to form your belief.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Again, you could make up whatever reason you want, but that would not make an action automatic. It's rather the choice, then the action proceeds after it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
You can't make up evidence.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Choosing something is not the same as acting the action. Decision-making is seperate from execution.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok?
{takes some jabs at Nadagast that were better left unsaid}
Do I really have to parse all this?
It definitely does. If you care about what's true you'd have to accept that you need evidence for your beliefs, that's the best way we know of of finding the truth. If you don't care about what's true then stop posting since <b>it doesn't take evidence for you to form your belief.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And since I'm the exception, I prove the theory that reasons do not determine our actions.
I will add that I don't think questioning the reason that someone gives for having an opinion on the original subject is a huge derail. It's pretty relevant. I'm sure you'd do the same if I came in here and said that I believe that there is some other way to come to an outcome other than determinism and randomness. You'd ask what it was and what evidence I had for it. And you wouldn't be out of line.
@Smood: Either you're insane, or evidence does determine your actions. It's really as simple as that.
Do you just walk around all day making decisions based on random nothingness? I don't think so...
If you don't base your decisions on evidence, and reasons, then what do you base them on?
I say this because people tend to say to such situations like "I killed him because he shot my wife". You can choose NOT to shoot him for the same reasons. So really, you shot him because you CHOSE to do so, not because some reason spiritually controlled your finger to press the trigger.
If someone were to hold a gun to your head saying suck my ######, it would be your choice to do so. Even at gunpoint, the other guy can only suggest what you can or cannot do; it's still ultimately your decision.
But all reasons are not created equal. The reason people drive cars is because the benefit they gain from using a car is greater than what they think they lose from using a car.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I say this because people tend to say to such situations like "I killed him because he shot my wife". You can choose NOT to shoot him for the same reasons. So really, you shot him because you CHOSE to do so, not because some reason spiritually controlled your finger to press the trigger.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're failing to account for all the reasons that hold people back from shooting people. Societal pressure, fear of punishment, and empathy are three possible reasons that could (for this particular person) outweigh or lose out to the fact that the man shot his wife.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If someone were to hold a gun to your head saying suck my ######, it would be your choice to do so. Even at gunpoint, the other guy can only suggest what you can or cannot do; it's still ultimately your decision.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, it is your decision but you're failing to take into account that this guy has reasons (and if he has a gun pointed to his head, pretty powerful ones) to do whatever he chooses to do in this situation. It's not random.
<b>If you're contending that we don't make choices based on evidence and reasons, then you need to show us a mechanism that makes decisions based on no evidence and no reason.</b> Do you think we are just a random number generator? I think the evidence shows that we aren't... And there aren't any other processes known for deciding outcomes other than random and deterministic. Of course we are probably an insanely complicated mix of random and deterministic, but if you're proposing we operate on some other principle you need to define it.
@cxwf: It's not like there is some holy law that says threads can't change subject. It's not my fault that after Smood initially replied to my post about the bible he started to change the subject back on topic, making his replies have less and less to do with what our (me and smood's) discussion was about in the first place.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, certainly they can. This particular thread has changed topics three or four times, for example. I was just commenting that you seemed to have been the only one to miss the last turn. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
However, I will admit that post came off a bit arrogant so I'll go edit it down to size.
On topic: I've long thought that humans were inherently irrational creatures. That doesn't necessarily mean they aren't deterministic, but its really asking a big leap of faith to say humans act entirely on logical reasons. There's just so much evidence that isn't the case.
So if someone were to shoot a wife, does that mean the person would automatically think about killing the killer? Is that preprogrammed into our heads as instincts? Or perhaps that is what society has been reinforcing into ourselves. Revenge. Payback. Arnold Governator. Or you could CHOOSE not to get this revenge. It's not automatic; it's a choice.
I already showed you an example. I'll show you another. I could walk outside and into the rain with only my boxers. Are we going to sit back and think up a reason why I should do it? Or why I shouldn't? No, what happens is I made my choice and did it.
Again, for all the reasons you say for you doing something, I could give those same exact reasons for not doing that activity. You eat vitamins to keep you healthy. I don't eat vitamins because they keep me healthy. Therefore reasons and actions are not linked. It is our choice that causes our actions.
Can you really prove that some reasons are "greater" than others? Or is this just your opinion?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, obviously it's an opinion, and it depends on the circumstances. I don't mean 'greater' in an absolute sense.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So if someone were to shoot a wife, does that mean the person would automatically think about killing the killer? Is that preprogrammed into our heads as instincts? Or perhaps that is what society has been reinforcing into ourselves. Revenge. Payback. Arnold Governator. Or you could CHOOSE not to get this revenge. It's not automatic; it's a choice.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You totally ignored my entire post. It's a choice based on the facts of the situation and other circumstances. Not just a choice based on... (?? you still haven't defined what a choice is based on if not facts)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I already showed you an example. I'll show you another. I could walk outside and into the rain with only my boxers. Are we going to sit back and think up a reason why I should do it? Or why I shouldn't? No, what happens is I made my choice and did it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Reasons don't necessarily have to be conscious. You need to define choice or stop using it really. You need to tell me what mechanism humans use to choose what they are doing if it's not random and not based on facts.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Again, for all the reasons you say for you doing something, I could give those same exact reasons for not doing that activity. You eat vitamins to keep you healthy. I don't eat vitamins because they keep me healthy. Therefore reasons and actions are not linked. It is our choice that causes our actions.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? Yes there are probably some reasons against doing just about anything, but it can easily be outweighed by the reasons for it. And obviously it comes down to the individual's circumstances and upbringing and many other things I'm sure.
You have to tell me what Humans use to make decisions if not reasons, facts, and evidence. Otherwise you're just making a very obfuscated argument from incredulity...
Again, for all the reasons you say for you doing something, I could give those same exact reasons for not doing that activity. You eat vitamins to keep you healthy. I don't eat vitamins because they keep me healthy. Therefore reasons and actions are not linked. It is our choice that causes our actions.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
there's the rub. you're acting in accordance with a reaction set. you take input stimuli (dead wife, rain, pancakes) then send it through a reaction table (dead wife => crusade against killer, rain => dance in shorts, pancakes => delicious. must eat.) and then execute the reaction. the illusion of free choice is simply a stimulus causing you to change an entry in your reaction table. ie: (forum post on free will => update(rain, dance))
we can also define a table as (x=>a,!x=>a) where either with or without x, we trigger a. (ie: "even if sony doesn't lower their price, i want a ps3"). the thing is that this table was probably created by some other stimulus (w=>update(x=>a,!x=>a)) which roughly translates to (w=>a) (ie: "metal gear looks hawt, i will sell my soul")
The thing is that any action stimuli is also a reaction stimuli for about an infinite number of possible things, yet the machine still runs. If the human brain is a traditional computer by the standard definition, it divides by zero and makes infinite loops all the time but still functions quite effectively. There is currently no class of machine that accurately describes what the human brain is.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Careful. It is a trivial matter to divide an infinite set into a finite number of subsets.
Also, you haven't explained how that would lead to division by zero and infinite loops in the first place.
The thing is that any action stimuli is also a reaction stimuli for about an infinite number of possible things, yet the machine still runs. If the human brain is a traditional computer by the standard definition, it divides by zero and makes infinite loops all the time but still functions quite effectively. There is currently no class of machine that accurately describes what the human brain is.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What decision problems can human brains compute that machines are theoretically unable to?
What decision problems can human brains compute that machines are theoretically unable to?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Weather a function will loop indefinitely or not. We still don't have a slightly reliable algorithm for that, humans just kinda look at them and know. Even if we start calculating and can't figure it out we don't stop functioning. Computers can't "error handle" an infinite loop.
Weather a function will loop indefinitely or not. We still don't have a slightly reliable algorithm for that, humans just kinda look at them and know. Even if we start calculating and can't figure it out we don't stop functioning. Computers can't "error handle" an infinite loop.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<i>Non sequitur</i>. Error handling for infinite loops is possible regardless of whether the computer can determine beforehand whether the loop is infinite. Simply break the loop after some finite number of iterations. This method will certainly also break some finite loops prematurely, but that is of little concern.
In addition, humans cannot in general look at a function and determine whether it will end. They can look at some functions and decide based on obvious indicators or experience. A computer could do this too. But neither human nor computer can decide generally. (See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem#Can_humans_solve_the_halting_problem.3F" target="_blank">halting problem</a>.)
Weather a function will loop indefinitely or not. We still don't have a slightly reliable algorithm for that, humans just kinda look at them and know. Even if we start calculating and can't figure it out we don't stop functioning. Computers can't "error handle" an infinite loop.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually that's not true. I can give you plenty of programs that you will not be able to tell whether they will terminate. This is a well known problem in computer science called the Halting Problem.
Consider a program that tests the Riemann Zeta Hypothesis, and outputs the first counterexample it finds. Neither you nor anyone else in the world at the moment can tell whether or not it will ever terminate. The same is true of a lot of programs that test conjectures in number theory.
If a human can prove that it will terminate, a computer can also prove that it will terminate, because proofs by definition are no more than a sequence of symbol manipulations and could be generated by a computer, though it might take quite a bit longer.