The Cosmic Slot Machine: a metaphor of free will

[oldcelt]

There is no slot machine. Free will is what it has been since we climbed down from the trees. In my view…

John

 

[blase6]

Sure doesn’t sound like you are.

Yet you dare to call me a psychopath (and insult my hobbies on the side). This is philosophy?

It’s more than just lack of certainty. It’s how that lack of certainty could’ve very well opened my eyes to real truth.

Then again, I’m talking to someone who would doubt a punch to the face but then mock anime characters as unrealistic while calling fans of them (such as myself) as dangerous psychopaths.

Well for someone who claims to seek truth, you seem rather closed off to the truth presented in more basic Church teachings.

Rather odd that a lapsed Catholic like myself, of all people, would be telling you this.

Well obviously, fantasizing about having the power to push others out of the way of your plans is bordering on psychopathic thought process. Not that you are a psychopath, but I thought that what you initially said didn’t sound so good.

I don’t know much about anime but I figured that a bunch of the shounen type shows would inspire a desire for power over others. You seem like the kind of person to like that. So don’t take it so much as an insult. 失礼します。

I will keep trying to find the truth without emotional bias or prejudice. Pray for me.

 

[Bahman]

You use all of those terms to mean things that others do not understand as the meaning of those words. Until you are able to refine your terms to the point where they can be understood for your specific understanding of them, repeating them on every topic is wholly futile and a waste of time.

So, lets see how do you make a decision in a given point. You experience a situation which define options within. Then you decide consciously/freely based on circumstances. Your mistake is that you are trying to analyze consciousness in order to find a mechanistic structure behind. There is not such a thing. Consciousness is simple and it is not designable or creatable.

 

[onenow1]

There is not such a thing. Consciousness is simple and it is not designable or creatable.

Not by us !

God Bless

 

[blase6]

So, lets see how do you make a decision in a given point. You experience a situation which define options within. Then you decide consciously/freely based on circumstances. Your mistake is that you are trying to analyze consciousness in order to find a mechanistic structure behind. There is not such a thing. Consciousness is simple and it is not designable or creatable.

And you would know because you understand consciousness perfectly. Sorry buddy, there is enough evidence that one can be conscious of what they are doing and still not freely choose it.

Let’s see, you are probably aware of: Your heart beating, your cells making energy from food and oxygen, your brain processing sensory (name removed by moderator)ut and sending signals to your organs, and you are breathing. None of which (I hope) was initiated by your preexisting and free choice. You don’t have any evidence that consciousness requires freedom, even if you keep repeating it.

 

[Bahman]

And you would know because you understand consciousness perfectly.

Yes. How we could possibly miss the very notion of us? It is very simple and real. Consciousness.

Sorry buddy, there is enough evidence that one can be conscious of what they are doing and still not freely choose it.

You can simply go against all influences, couldn’t you? It is up to you.

Let’s see, you are probably aware of: Your heart beating, your cells making energy from food and oxygen, your brain processing sensory (name removed by moderator)ut and sending signals to your organs, and you are breathing. None of which (I hope) was initiated by your preexisting and free choice. You don’t have any evidence that consciousness requires freedom, even if you keep repeating it.

There is a difference between being aware and conscious decision, the former is necessary for a decision but it does not lead to decision.

 

[blase6]

You can simply go against all influences, couldn’t you? It is up to you.

I don’t know how this is related to what I said.

There is a difference between being aware and conscious decision, the former is necessary for a decision but it does not lead to decision.

OK, so you admit that people’s bodies do things that they do not choose to do?

 

[Bahman]

OK, so you admit that people’s bodies do things that they do not choose to do?

Yes.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Well obviously, fantasizing about having the power to push others out of the way of your plans is bordering on psychopathic thought process. Not that you are a psychopath, but I thought that what you initially said didn’t sound so good.

Again, my point is who are you to declare such things when your own views doubt the very fabric of reality?

I don’t see how you can call my position psychopathic, imply to be on the side of reason, and then shoe-in your solipsism as if it weren’t any less insane.

I don’t know much about anime but I figured that a bunch of the shounen type shows would inspire a desire for power over others. You seem like the kind of person to like that. So don’t take it so much as an insult. 失礼します。

Interpretations like yours is atypical among fatalists and cynics who deem resignation as the only point in life. And if you actually knew a thing or two about even the most cliched shounen stories, protagonists are closer to being responsible Ubermensch than dictatorial nutcases.

Thus, we reach one of the most disturbing implications of your own views. If people are so resigned to their fate, if they refuse to seize whatever power to change their circumstance, what defense do they have?

Nothing.

I will keep trying to find the truth without emotional bias or prejudice. Pray for me.

If you ask me, your decision to root out emotions is part of the problem here. That’s a bias in of itself.

 

[blase6]

Again, my point is who are you to declare such things when your own views doubt the very fabric of reality?

I don’t see how you can call my position psychopathic, imply to be on the side of reason, and then shoe-in your solipsism as if it weren’t any less insane.

In this world people who have an obsession with the pursuit of power over others are generally called psychopaths.

Interpretations like yours is atypical among fatalists and cynics who deem resignation as the only point in life. And if you actually knew a thing or two about even the most cliched shounen stories, protagonists are closer to being responsible Ubermensch than dictatorial nutcases.

Thus, we reach one of the most disturbing implications of your own views. If people are so resigned to their fate, if they refuse to seize whatever power to change their circumstance, what defense do they have?

Nothing.

Well, a person who did not believe in free will could still have the character and self-control to improve their life, even if they thought it was set up for them to seek control of their life. But whether or not free will exists, living under the idea that one has control of their own decisions in life is very uplifting and wonderful, so it is worth even maintaining an illusion of control.

I have come to see that free will is a possibility in this world but is not necessary to explain the actions of human beings. But I will still try to believe in it.

If you ask me, your decision to root out emotions is part of the problem here. That’s a bias in of itself.

I am not trying to “root out” emotions. I just see that they are poor indicators of truth compared to reason.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

In this world people who have an obsession with the pursuit of power over others are generally called psychopaths.

So do people who question empirical evidence of the fist flying to their face.

Well, a person who did not believe in free will could still have the character and self-control to improve their life, even if they thought it was set up for them to seek control of their life. But whether or not free will exists, living under the idea that one has control of their own decisions in life is very uplifting and wonderful, so it is worth even maintaining an illusion of control.

Actually, you would be living a very troubled existence where your actions say one thing but your subconscious says another. The result? You undermine yourself without any awareness of what real control is.

Funny thing is, the Church essentially says the same thing about faith.

I am not trying to “root out” emotions. I just see that they are poor indicators of truth compared to reason.

Again. Still a bias.

 

[blase6]

So do people who question empirical evidence of the fist flying to their face.

No. But a psychopath may use skepticism as an excuse for antisocial behavior. But there is a difference between a skeptic and a psychopath.

Actually, you would be living a very troubled existence where your actions say one thing but your subconscious says another. The result? You undermine yourself without any awareness of what real control is.

Funny thing is, the Church essentially says the same thing about faith.

Certainly it would be difficult for a very smart and wise person to convince themselves of an apparent falsehood, even if it would make their life “better”. But there are plenty of people in the world who live like this. I don’t know what you mean by “the Church essentially says the same thing about faith”…

Again. Still a bias.

The word “bias” implies more of a preexisting attitude towards something without a good understanding of it. My belief that emotions do not provide a good indication of the truth compared to reason comes from a lifetime of evidence through experience and observation.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

No. But a psychopath may use skepticism as an excuse for antisocial behavior. But there is a difference between a skeptic and a psychopath.

I don’t think doubting the very fabric of reality qualifies you as a skeptic. It qualifies you as insane.

I don’t know what you mean by “the Church essentially says the same thing about faith”…

Lemme put it in a way that uses more of your words: “Certainly it would be difficult for a very smart and wise person to convince themselves of Catholic theology, even if it would make their life “better”. But there are plenty of religious and spiritual people in the world who live like this.”

Alternatively, there are plenty of people who subconsciously still refuse to believe in something (be it God or their own freedom) and while they consciously speak in denial, their actions reveal more of the opposite.

The word “bias” implies more of a preexisting attitude towards something without a good understanding of it. My belief that emotions do not provide a good indication of the truth compared to reason comes from a lifetime of evidence through experience and observation.

I could say the same for my belief that rooting out their significance is begging for results and conclusions that are just as disastrous. The film Equilibrium just barely scratched the surface of where that mentality leads.

 

[blase6]

I don’t think doubting the very fabric of reality qualifies you as a skeptic. It qualifies you as insane.

I am simply using pure logic to determine what I can and cannot know certainly, in opposition to the “impure” logic used by many theologians to insist that we can know God by reason alone “certainly”.

Since this is not how human beings normally function, of course you will think I am insane. But I understand why my position is logically correct.

Lemme put it in a way that uses more of your words: “Certainly it would be difficult for a very smart and wise person to convince themselves of Catholic theology, even if it would make their life “better”. But there are plenty of religious and spiritual people in the world who live like this.”

Alternatively, there are plenty of people who subconsciously still refuse to believe in something (be it God or their own freedom) and while they consciously speak in denial, their actions reveal more of the opposite.

In my “normal life” I do actually live according to the teachings of the Church. I am not so weakly grounded in my faith to abandon it when a logical problem arises. So I came hear to voice my problems. That’s why I appear to be dissenting to some people here.

I could say the same for my belief that rooting out their significance is begging for results and conclusions that are just as disastrous. The film Equilibrium just barely scratched the surface of where that mentality leads.

The truth is the truth regardless of what you feel. Your feeling is truth within itself, but you don’t know if it corresponds to an external truth certainly or not.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Since this is not how human beings normally function, of course you will think I am insane. But I understand why my position is logically correct.

This reminds me of that line from I, Robot

V.I.K.I: You are making a mistake, my logic is undeniable.
Detective Del Spooner: You have so got to die.

Again, my point: If you’re going to concede that your logic leads you to anything that goes against the grain of how humans ‘normally function’ then you should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that calling anything else just as deviant to be psychopathic as rather inconsistent with your position.

You cannot throw the norms out the window but then side with those norms just for the sake addressing a critique of your position.

Short version: If you think your idea is crazy, then who are you to call me nuts?

In my “normal life” I do actually live according to the teachings of the Church. I am not so weakly grounded in my faith to abandon it when a logical problem arises. So I came hear to voice my problems. That’s why I appear to be dissenting to some people here.

This is why I have rarely responded to your threads until now. There are other Catholics who are more dedicated to the Church posting here that have responded to you. I actually find it troubling that none of them seem to satisfy.

So, bringing back a previous point of concern, it seems like you have a subconscious attachment that’s barring you from the answer you’re looking for.

The truth is the truth regardless of what you feel. Your feeling is truth within itself, but you don’t know if it corresponds to an external truth certainly or not.

It sounds like the Pope disagrees with your sentiment:

For this the Gospel offers us a serene way forward: using the three languages of the mind, heart and hands – and to use them in harmony. What you think, you must feel and put into effect. Your information comes down to your heart and you put it into practice. Harmoniously. What you think, you feel and you do. Feel what you think and feel what you do. Do what you think and what you feel. The three languages…

 

[blase6]

Again, my point: If you’re going to concede that your logic leads you to anything that goes against the grain of how humans ‘normally function’ then you should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that calling anything else just as deviant to be psychopathic as rather inconsistent with your position.

You cannot throw the norms out the window but then side with those norms just for the sake addressing a critique of your position.

Short version: If you think your idea is crazy, then who are you to call me nuts?

There is a difference between insanity and uncommon thought.

This is why I have rarely responded to your threads until now. There are other Catholics who are more dedicated to the Church posting here that have responded to you. I actually find it troubling that none of them seem to satisfy.

So, bringing back a previous point of concern, it seems like you have a subconscious attachment that’s barring you from the answer you’re looking for.

I am more likely to believe what is apparent to me than what is apparent to someone else.

It sounds like the Pope disagrees with your sentiment:

Our current pope is not a hard-devoted philosopher. He speaks to the common people.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

There is a difference between insanity and uncommon thought.

No there isn’t.

I am more likely to believe what is apparent to me than what is apparent to someone else.

Yet according to you, not even the sight of a girder falling upon you is not apparent enough.

Our current pope is not a hard-devoted philosopher. He speaks to the common people.

Doesn’t make him any less of our Pope and his words any less worth noting, philosopher or not.

 

[blase6]

No there isn’t.

I guess I can’t argue with you then. Of course, people like Thomas Aquinas would be considered to have “uncommon thought” as well, so.

Yet according to you, not even the sight of a girder falling upon you is not apparent enough.

If my logical position were to falter because of strong emotion like fear, it wouldn’t really have been a logical position to begin with. But of course I would still try to get out of the way of a falling girder.

Doesn’t make him any less of our Pope and his words any less worth noting, philosopher or not.

Anyway, I am still under no obligation to accept his non-dogmatic opinions.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I guess I can’t argue with you then. Of course, people like Thomas Aquinas would be considered to have “uncommon thought” as well, so.

Actually, you’re getting warmer. What I’m trying to say is you shouldn’t pull the sanity card at all when you’re talking philosophy. Because if your posts are any indication, there’s nothing contributory about labeling certain thoughts as uncommon, crazy, or psychopathic.

If my logical position were to falter because of strong emotion like fear, it wouldn’t really have been a logical position to begin with. But of course I would still try to get out of the way of a falling girder.

Then you’ve just proven to be contradicting yourself. The fact that you consider a position in accordance to fear (such as avoiding the girder) to be the logical one, then that only means you acknowledge the girder’s existence as being real and logical.

See, what you’re not getting is that you think you can claim belief in your own experience while at the same time doubting your own senses.

Anyway, I am still under no obligation to accept his non-dogmatic opinions.

Other CAFers have cited dogma in response to you. Not enough either. So really, it’s starting to show what you’re really about (or at least what your subconscious/heart seems to be).

 

[blase6]

Actually, you’re getting warmer. What I’m trying to say is you shouldn’t pull the sanity card at all when you’re talking philosophy. Because if your posts are any indication, there’s nothing contributory about labeling certain thoughts as uncommon, crazy, or psychopathic.

Ok fine.

Then you’ve just proven to be contradicting yourself. The fact that you consider a position in accordance to fear (such as avoiding the girder) to be the logical one, then that only means you acknowledge the girder’s existence as being real and logical.

I have not contradicted myself. My position is that external objects to the self cannot be known certainly. However that does not remove the fact that assuming they are real in a given instance is the most reasonable position to take. So I could get out of the way of a falling girder and continue to hold my logical position.

Other CAFers have cited dogma in response to you. Not enough either. So really, it’s starting to show what you’re really about (or at least what your subconscious/heart seems to be).

They usually cite dogma in combination with their own interpretation of it. Which I am free to reject if I have a different understanding of what the dogmatic text in question means.