Author Topic: Freedom and Free Will  (Read 7674 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

January 03, 2016, 05:39:24 PM
Reply #30

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
Akenu, your point has already been discussed in this thread and the point you are speaking of has already been addressed by me via Steve and I's debate. You are welcome to read past replies, but unless you bring a new point, I don't believe that it should be rehashed between you and I considering this was already debated in detail earlier in the thread. I am also not going to go on a tangent about history with you, for it is a trivial point and thus does not warrant a tangential conversation on my end. The slave example is analogous to the jail example, and that is what was discussed. Any point I would raise in objection to your point was already raised in speaking with Steve.     
« Last Edit: January 03, 2016, 05:47:48 PM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

January 03, 2016, 05:49:20 PM
Reply #31

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3312
  • Karma:
    -42
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
Akenu, your point has already been discussed in this thread and the point you are speaking of has already been addressed by me via Steve and I's debate. You are welcome to read past replies, but unless you bring a new point, I don't believe that it should be rehashed between you and I considering this was already debated in detail earlier in the thread. I am also not going to go on a tangent about history with you, for it is a trivial point and thus does not warrant a tangential conversation on my end. The slave example is analogous to the jail example, and that is what was discussed. Any point I would raise in objection to your point was already raised in speaking with Steve.     

In detail... Yeah, I have noticed :-D. Rayn, tell me, and be honest, do you really believe that YOU in particular do possess a free will?

January 03, 2016, 05:55:20 PM
Reply #32

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
Rayn, tell me, and be honest, do you really believe that YOU in particular do possess a free will?

Yes, because I have a consciousness that is not emergent from something intrinsically deterministic where my choices can be modeled in terms of a chaotic and stochastic system. My brain and consciousness are stochastic and dynamical, so this means that what I will decide is not determined. But, the details of this have also been discussed, so for a detailed explanation, you need to go back and read.
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

January 04, 2016, 09:29:34 AM
Reply #33

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
Akenu:
You go ahead and start an argument with Rayn right after I said nobody else bothers. Thanks for making a liar out of me ;P (just joking around)

Rayn:
A clean break from the spiral into the shit pile, and I'm feeling a bit more like arguing again.
Quote
No, based on my definition, slaves, who are not free people, can decide they want freedom. The problem is that you are saying that in order to freely decide things, you have to be free, so this implies that if you are a slave, and are not free, then you can't decide you want freedom. Logically, empirically, and historically that is not the case.
Let's just change that a little so that it's proper, rather than a linguistic and logical disaster:
"slaves, who are not free people, can decide they want freedom. The problem is that you are saying that in order to freely decide things, you have to be free (lol duh?), so this implies that if you are a slave, and are not free, then you can't FREELY decide you want freedom."

There. The addition of one word makes it proper. A slave can still make a decision to want to be free, but it's not a decision made in freedom. It's a decision made in slavery. You're once again conflating all forms of freedom to a singular value and ignoring the all sorts of facets of the concept of freedom.

Quote
Akenu, your point has already been discussed in this thread and the point you are speaking of has already been addressed by me via Steve and I's debate.
Don't pull shit like this. He's not arguing with me, and he's not rehashing anything you and I said. Treat his argument for what it's worth and discuss it with him rather than trying to dismiss it with a wave of the hand by saying it's already been said before.

Quote
Yes, because I have a consciousness that is not emergent from something intrinsically deterministic where my choices can be modeled in terms of a chaotic and stochastic system. My brain and consciousness are stochastic and dynamical, so this means that what I will decide is not determined. But, the details of this have also been discussed, so for a detailed explanation, you need to go back and read.
That's not freedom. You're using a wrong definition, whereby you're confusing concepts. You think that arguing against Absolute Determinism by stating that there is randomness in the world equates to freedom: it does not. There has always been randomness in the universe, since long before humanity ever existed, and yet humanity has since found a way to enslave one another, and other creatures besides.

Chaos/Stochastic/Randomness <> Freedom.

In fact, why don't we go ahead and define freedom since we haven't done that yet:
In it's simplest definition, freedom is a lack of bondage, where numerous different things can bind someone. A more complete definition is more complete.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom
>>>>>
 noun
1.
the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint:
He won his freedom after a retrial.
2.
exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.

3.
the power to determine action without restraint.
4.
political or national independence.
5.
personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery:
a slave who bought his freedom.
6.
exemption from the presence of anything specified (usually followed by from):
freedom from fear.
7.
the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.

8.
ease or facility of movement or action:

to enjoy the freedom of living in the country.
9.
frankness of manner or speech.
10.
general exemption or immunity:

freedom from taxation.
11.
the absence of ceremony or reserve.
12.
a liberty taken.
13.
a particular immunity or privilege enjoyed, as by a city or corporation:
freedom to levy taxes.
14.
civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.
15.
the right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like.
16.
the right to frequent, enjoy, or use at will:
to have the freedom of a friend's library.
17.
Philosophy. the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination.

Compare necessity (def 7).
>>>>>

So, several of those definitions are political/social/economic based definitions, and others are very much restriction based definitions. It's a multifaceted concept that does not go away just because of randomness. Of particular importance to demolishing your arguments is number 3. It's not merely the power to decide, but specifically the power to decide without restraints.

Someone pointing a gun at your head and telling you to both "choose freely" and also "but I want you to choose A." isn't a freedom of choice that's generally accepted as freedom by the majority of people, even if it is freedom to get your head filled with holes.

Lock a guy in the stockades and the randomness of his brain functions doesn't make him free.

Freedom to decide is not freedom to act.

Freedom to walk around in a jail cell is not the same as freedom to walk around in a meadow is not the same as freedom to walk to the moon.

Freedom to walk again after someone's had their legs cut or blown off.

Freedom to decide who you want to be, rather than being forced to be whoever your parents want you to be.

Freedom from a molester who's been abusing the victim all their life.

Lots of different freedoms. It's more complicated than a single simple attempt to answer. So that whole "look in the horse's mouth" story: show me the mouth of freedom so we can count how many teeth it has (and as I just said, the randomness of brain function is not it. In fact, I could trump that and go one further by pointing out the superposition of particles, but that doesn't equate to freedom either).

~Steve
« Last Edit: January 04, 2016, 09:43:02 AM by Steve »
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

January 04, 2016, 10:27:53 AM
Reply #34

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
Rayn:
A clean break from the spiral into the shit pile, and I'm feeling a bit more like arguing again.
Quote
No, based on my definition, slaves, who are not free people, can decide they want freedom. The problem is that you are saying that in order to freely decide things, you have to be free, so this implies that if you are a slave, and are not free, then you can't decide you want freedom. Logically, empirically, and historically that is not the case.
Let's just change that a little so that it's proper, rather than a linguistic and logical disaster:
"slaves, who are not free people, can decide they want freedom. The problem is that you are saying that in order to freely decide things, you have to be free (lol duh?), so this implies that if you are a slave, and are not free, then you can't FREELY decide you want freedom."

There. The addition of one word makes it proper. A slave can still make a decision to want to be free, but it's not a decision made in freedom. It's a decision made in slavery. You're once again conflating all forms of freedom to a singular value and ignoring the all sorts of facets of the concept of freedom.

Since this and one one are only slightly new points, these are the only points I will answer. What I would say for your other points has been said in earlier responses.

No, because the logic is the same. The issue is that what is being presupposed is a restriction an internal decision being made. The addition of a word is based on an assumption that is not proven. You are adding a postulation that is taken for granted but not actually proven. Pretty much, you are stating decisions are exhaustively restricted to the system a person is bound to; however, psychotic people everyday make the decision they can unaided where they are bound by gravity. In order for that to work, you have to prove that slaves can't freely decide in the first place(which you have not done). All that is required for a decision to be made is for something to be apprehended, and the amount of possible concepts to apprehend is infinite; therefore, you can't model this finitely.The system could be said to be finite; however, the amount of possible concepts, and thus possible decisions that can be made, are infinite.

In fact, why don't we go ahead and define freedom since we haven't done that yet:

Since you think what I am saying is vague, let me clarify. We can model things as a bunch of interconnected concepts. We can model a decision as a type of pointer. The amount of concepts that can be apprehended can be labeled, mathematically, as infinite where the ability to freely decide is the ability for that pointer to arbitrarily point to a particular concept. Decisions are derived from experiences as a vector where these experiences can be modeled in the sense of concepts in an infinite-dimensional vector space. Whether or not someone is or is not in slavery is a finite parameter. Since something that is infinite cannot be put in something finite, otherwise, it is not infinite, you can't really justify that logically or mathematically, because the amount of possible concepts one has is infinite. The problem, of course, would be the physical limitations of the brain; however, in regards to when it is mathematically appropriate to use infinity, you could use it in this case per induction. To use your logic, as far as we know of, the brain cannot function without noise; however, there is a possibility that is wrong; therefore, that possibility exists inductively over an infinite span where our current knowledge is an asymptote(just the possibility becomes so low that it is negligible and thus insignificant). This means, per induction, there are an infinite amount of concepts along that line that could be truer. Since I cannot tell you, mathematically, when I know all there is to know about the universe, inductively, I can model that quantity as an infinity since I am not sure where those limits are. This means there are an infinite amount of possible concepts that can be truer than others, and, as such, there are an infinite amount of possible decisions about those concepts. You also see usage of asymptotes in the mathematics concerning evolution and natural selection, too. Infinities can be used where there is an issue with trying to figure out limits.

The problem with your logic is that you are presupposing that since freedom is a finite parameter, the possible decisions that can be made, too, are finite. which means that the ability to freely decide is finite and thus restricted; however, decisions really just require concepts and experience to be apprehended, and you can model this as an infinite-dimensional vector space which means it would not be a subset of that finite space of slavery.

To say it in a more digestible way, if we graph out the possible concepts a person can apprehend, where we map these to real numbers, we can get an infinite vector space where their decision can be thought of as a function of that vector space.

Also, it is highly inappropriate and futile to argue against logical and mathematical arguements with a dictionary... I am not arguing semantics, so why are you?
« Last Edit: January 04, 2016, 11:17:37 AM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

January 04, 2016, 11:43:20 AM
Reply #35

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
Quote
Pretty much, you are stating decisions are exhaustively restricted to the system a person is bound to
Is there a problem with that? I can't make the decision to grow wings and fly. I can't make the decision to grow gills and breathe water. So, since I am bound to the system of physical reality, I kind of do have to restrict my decisions to that.

Quote
In order for that to work, you have to prove that slaves can't freely decide in the first place(which you have not done)
I don't have to prove it. They are slaves. They are, by definition, not free. It's is a basic assumption of slavery.

Quote
All that is required for a decision to be made is for something to be apprehended, and the amount of possible concepts to apprehend is infinite
Another incorrect conflation (thanks for that word, by the way ;P). Apprehension of possibilities does not relate to freedom of choice to make a meaningful decision, where a meaningful decision is a decision that has the capacity to be carried out. Being able to visualize myself turning into a dragon doesn't make it actually happen. Imagination <> proper decision making.

Quote
The problem with your logic is that you are presupposing that since freedom is a finite parameter, the possible decisions that can be made, too, are finite.
And I would say that's not a problem. That's the reality of the situation. Logic and mathematics and whatever other scientific or rational fields that you want to try and discuss, should be descriptions of reality rather than attempts at ignoring reality through mere wordplay. If the logic/math/linguistics/whatever else doesn't accurately portray reality, then it is a false notion. Scientists don't just randomly make up equations and then try to fit reality to them; they study reality and model their equations after reality, in an attempt to be as accurate in describing reality as possible.

Is your "logic" describing reality, or ignoring reality?

Quote
you can model this as an infinite-dimensional vector space which means it would not be a subset of that finite space of slavery.
The problem is that slavery is not something wholly different. It's not it's own thing. Slavery happens when an external factor goes into the infinity vector space and turns it into a non-infinite vector space by introducing restrictions. The introduction of restrictions is the diminishing of freedoms. That's the basic inherent relationship between the two.

Quote
Also, it is highly inappropriate and futile to argue against logical and mathematical arguements with a dictionary... I am not arguing semantics, so why are you?
Because no matter how much you attempt otherwise, discussion of freedom is an argument of semantics, not mathematics. So why are you?

~Steve
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

January 04, 2016, 11:54:31 AM
Reply #36

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
Is there a problem with that? I can't make the decision to grow wings and fly. I can't make the decision to grow gills and breathe water. So, since I am bound to the system of physical reality, I kind of do have to restrict my decisions to that.

You can make these decisions; you just can't actualize them, because something being actualized does not imply the decision.

Quote
My point is that freedom from jail is not necessary to decide something.
Yes yes. I agreed with that already. The ability to make a decision is not dependant upon whether someone can carry the decision out. We've been over this multiple times. Stop talking about it as though we disagree.

This is the point I've said, before. This is the point you agreed with me on. So, in arguing against this, you are arguing against what you agreed to and are thus contradicting yourself. With that being said, I believe you just want to argue with me regardless of the topic and are just being contrary due to your personal feelings...I've addressed your other point in the post you are replying to, so what I would say can be read in my post above yours.

I am not getting into epistemology with you, because going into epistemology would be tangent with a tenuous connection to the topic. The point is that we don't have to assume that a decision derived from a function of a vector space filled with experiences and concepts has to be finite if the finite parameter is not necessary to it(decisions are not implied by whether or not they can be actualized; this is a point you agreed to). Whether or not it is a meaningful decision is irrelevant to this point. The issue is not an epistemological one. It is a logical one. If A implies B, and B is finite, then this does not mean that A has to be finite. You've said that decisions are not implied by whether things can be actualized, so we can treat a decision as A and freedom to actualize this as B where B being finite does not mean that A has to be finite. You are assuming that A has to be finite.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2016, 12:38:28 PM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

January 04, 2016, 03:14:32 PM
Reply #37

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
EDIT: I changed a few things below, mostly like removing some smack talk and rewriting a few things to (hopefully) add clarity.

Quote
This is the point I've said, before. This is the point you agreed with me on. So, in arguing against this, you are arguing against what you agreed to and are thus contradicting yourself.
No, I'm not.
Quote
You've said that decisions are not implied by whether things can be actualized
See this, this I have said.

Let me spell it out for you better. Or rather, let wikipedia spell it out for you:
"But unlike the English construction, the material conditional statement "p→q" does not specify a causal relationship between p and q and is to be understood to mean "if p is true, then q is also true" such that the statement "p→q" is false only when p is true and q is false."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional

I'm speaking in normal english. You misunderstood the Decisions->Effort->Actualization that I said before. You thought it was a logical condition. I clarified it was not. It was a statement of process. I clarified that very very distinctly AND ALSO added in the multiple steps that showed what happened to effort and actualization when decisions and efforts were not made.

So let's change what I said before "I can't make the decision to grow wings and fly. I can't make the decision to grow gills and breathe water. So, since I am bound to the system of physical reality, I kind of do have to restrict my decisions to that." to something more understandable, since you have problems discussing things in normal english:
I can't make the decision to grow wings and fly and then actually grow wings and fly. I can't make the decision to grow gills and breathe water and then actually grow gills and breathe water. So, since I am bound to the system of physical reality, I kind of do have to restrict my "realistic meaningful decisions that I actually want to try and manifest" to that very restrictive system. Does that read better for you?

I also said before that a decision made all on it's own, without action to back it up, is a meaningless decision and therefore a meaningless discussion. It's meaningless to make a decision to go get a coffee, and then just sit around not going and getting the coffee; it's a decision, but an unfulfilled decision, and therefore a garbage decision.

But yes, the decision to do something is distinct from actually doing it; but that doesn't make the decision a meaningful one on its own. You're actually remembering everything I've said about the topic, but you're remembering them in pieces and only arguing one piece at a time while ignoring how the two pieces fit together.

Because there's levels to meaningful decisions. And there's levels to decisions. And there's levels to freedom. You're the only person having problems understanding that because you're so obsessed with a specific "answer" to the generalized concept, rather than an understanding of the myriad of topics that Freedom and Free Will touch upon.

Quote
decisions are not implied by whether or not they can be actualized; this is a point you agreed to
To state it again. I agree that the ability to make a decision is not the same as the ability to actualize it, and that the actual making of the decision does not mean that an effort has to be carried out to actualize the decision. BUT, and this is a very important but. I have also said multiple times, that such a decision without an attempt to actualize it, is a worthless decision, not worth talking about.

Quote
Whether or not it is a meaningful decision is irrelevant to this point.
But it is entirely relevant to the question of free will and freedom. The freedom to make a decision and then refrain from carrying it out, is little different than not making the decision in the first place. Thus, the situation can be easily ignored for any topic regarding attempting to actually carry out the decisions, as is implied by the Will part of Free Will (which we've been largely ignoring up until now because you're still so stuck on the concept of freedom).

Quote
If A implies B, and B is finite, then this does not mean that A has to be finite.
Have you considered that your logic is wrong because it does not properly describe the situation?

[EDIT ADDED]
The reason I say this is because the universe itself, within which we exist, is decidedly finite. Thus, we can easily deduce that we, as human beings, are finite. And thus, we can easily deduce that our thoughts are likewise finite. And thus, we can easily deduce that our capacity to make decisions is actually finite as well.
[/EDIT ADDED]

Quote
so we can treat a decision as A and freedom to actualize this as B where B being finite does not mean that A has to be finite. You are assuming that A has to be finite.
Logic must describe reality properly. So the question is not whether A implies B and whether either is dictated to be finite or not by the logical relationships of that statement. The question is whether a decision is, in reality, finite or infinite. If a decision is finite, then the logic must reflect this.

To be sure, and this is getting it's own line so as not to be confused with the above, a decision all on its own can be more or less infinite (EDIT: I was going to just give this point to you, but I have to change it to reflect what I added above) is finite though the possibilities of what can be decided upon are vast, because the decision, entirely on its own, is simply an exercise in imagination. But, when we then discard all of the meaningless decisions that cannot possibly be carried out no matter how hard a person might try, such as turning into a dragon, then we come to the conclusion that meaningful decisions are then definitively finite. Not that it matters either way.

~Steve
« Last Edit: January 06, 2016, 08:27:24 PM by Steve »
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

January 06, 2016, 08:52:45 PM
Reply #38

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
[EDIT ADDED]
The reason I say this is because the universe itself, within which we exist, is decidedly finite. Thus, we can easily deduce that we, as human beings, are finite. And thus, we can easily deduce that our thoughts are likewise finite. And thus, we can easily deduce that our capacity to make decisions is actually finite as well.
[/EDIT ADDED]

No, because physical equations deal with infinities all of the time mathematically... It is empirically and mathematically appropriate to use infinities when boundaries and limits are not certain. Infinities are utilized in equations that deal with limits and boundaries, because the infinity part is not the interesting part; rather, the interesting part happens as things approach infinity in terms of integration(where infinity has no actual value)... For example, path integral formulation uses a function integral that takes the sum of all paths over an infinite amount of them. In terms of the physics, it yields empirically accurate results; therefore, it describes the universe and is fine to utilize. I don't think you understand the mathematical properties of infinity or when you would use it. In other words, the math behind the physics works just fine if you put in infinity even if the universe is finite just like the math behind what I said works just fine. I am not responding to the other stuff because I've already responded to it;  you are just restating, in different words, what you stated in replies in this same thread. I'll respond to new points(like this one) and not paraphrased versions of the same point that I've already addressed. Your logic is pretty much intuitive, well, Science tends to be counter-intuitive. A finite universe being accurately described with finite mathematics is intuitive; however, the reality is counter-intuitive in that the math in the physics we use to describe a finite universe can utilize infinities and be empirically accurate. Your deduction presupposes that the universe coincide with what is intuitive when the math we can see is correct, empirically, is actually highly counter-intuitive.

An improper/definite integral can have an infinite limit. Physics equations that utilize these integrals, that can have an infinite limit, are the Fourier Transform(this is used in equations that deal with signals, for example) or calculations that pertain to finding the gravitational or electrical potential for a field. Improper integrals can also be utilized to calculate speeds and positions at all given points. You see the really complicated ones in equations dealing with electromagnetism. The point is that you can describe a finite universe Scientifically via utilizing mathematics that has infinity as a limit, though it is a bit counter-intuitive. These types of integrals are utilized all the time when talking about physical fields and such. Another place where you would use this would be in things dealing with probability and statistics in regards to the degrees of freedom something has, for the record. Basically, the math works, fine, and Physics uses it all of the time. I did not respond to the whole it must line up with reality thing, because you always tend to do this and call Science not Science because you don't understand it while claiming you do. Like I said, you speak in generalities because you do not understand the more esoteric aspects of it. A lot of your field equations, in Physics, deal with infinite limits; check out the math dealing with electromagnetism and fields. It is pretty counter-intuitive, but you can't really presuppose that because the universe is finite it has finite limits, in terms of the calculus, so you can't dismiss utilizing the concept of infinity in an argument based on that, because it can be used in Science when discussing such things as fields.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2016, 10:47:32 PM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

January 07, 2016, 09:29:37 AM
Reply #39

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    138
    • View Profile
Removed previous post.

Alright, all of this crap about logical implications, infinities, calculus, etc. All of it is unimportant to the main topic. The main topic is Freedom and Free Will, specifically in relation to the Ethics of Psychically Affecting Others. In other words, the concepts of freedom and free will being discussed are in terms of and in relation to using your own free will to usurp another person's free will.

Back to the actual definition of freedom: the term denotes a few things, an in general a freedom from bondage.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom
>>>>>
 noun
1.
the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint:
He won his freedom after a retrial.
2.
exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3.
the power to determine action without restraint.
4.
political or national independence.
5.
personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery:
a slave who bought his freedom.
6.
exemption from the presence of anything specified (usually followed by from):
freedom from fear.
7.
the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.
8.
ease or facility of movement or action:
to enjoy the freedom of living in the country.
9.
frankness of manner or speech.
10.
general exemption or immunity:
freedom from taxation.
11.
the absence of ceremony or reserve.
12.
a liberty taken.
13.
a particular immunity or privilege enjoyed, as by a city or corporation:
freedom to levy taxes.
14.
civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.
15.
the right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like.
16.
the right to frequent, enjoy, or use at will:
to have the freedom of a friend's library.
17.
Philosophy. the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination.
Compare necessity (def 7).
>>>>>

Free Will would then be the Will being enacted as a driving force (rather than a passive agent) with out reasonable restriction (where reasonable is understood as a commonly accepted concept among laypeople, much like "a reasonable person" in terms of law).

~Steve
« Last Edit: January 07, 2016, 10:54:46 AM by Steve »
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

January 12, 2016, 06:04:53 AM
Reply #40

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
Alright, all of this crap about logical implications, infinities, calculus, etc. All of it is unimportant to the main topic. The main topic is Freedom and Free Will, specifically in relation to the Ethics of Psychically Affecting Others. In other words, the concepts of freedom and free will being discussed are in terms of and in relation to using your own free will to usurp another person's free will.

Steve, except it is relevant. Scientific hypothesis can be thought to be, generally, inductive where experimentation pretty much is a deductive way to create something which lines up with the hypothesis based on other things that have to be true if the hypothesis is true. Any conversation about will would include conversations about consciousness since will is derived from consciousness. The question then becomes can I create something that is approximately like consciousness from what I have said? The answer, in this case, is yes. When it comes to designing artificial intelligence, you would model something analogous to experience as a vector in terms of a high-dimensional vector space which can be infinite, for you have this used explicitly when it comes to machine learning where a hyperplane of sorts is created. Within this, one could model a decision as some type of function. This means we need not frame this discussion normatively, for we have a strong enough basis to frame it Scientifically within a paradigm of artificial intelligence which specifically addresses this. This is important to the topic because it is an accurate way we can model consciousness and what will is. There is no reason Science should not be used when the propositions put forth about this topic can create something like what the topic is discussing. By the way, you made this thread as a thread that is separate from your ethics one, which is why I am not sticking to the ethics angle, otherwise, it would simply be a duplicate of a thread you already started thereby rendering the purpose behind this one moot.   

Free Will would then be the Will being enacted as a driving force (rather than a passive agent) with out reasonable restriction (where reasonable is understood as a commonly accepted concept among laypeople, much like "a reasonable person" in terms of law).

Because of what I said above, I would then say your definition is not accurate due to the fact it is not empirically meaningful and it has not been proven via experimentation. High-dimensional vector spaces that can be infinite are utilized in the creation of artificially intelligent machines(where the goal is to replicate something analogous and/or approximate to consciousness) whereas I don't see any proof when it comes to this definition you put forth beyond it being how you would like this topic to be discussed. While you are the creator of the thread, you are not the moderator of the thread, so you are not the arbiter of how things will be used or defined beyond your intended meaning. If I acknowledge how you have used it, say you have used it incorrectly, and put forth my idea of how it should be used, that is fine. I also don't see how the definitions you have given can be mapped to any form of math to make it empirically meaningful. There is no Scientific reason for me to accept this definition or frame my responses within that particular paradigm, so I am not. 
« Last Edit: January 12, 2016, 06:20:13 AM by Rayn »
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

January 12, 2016, 06:16:07 AM
Reply #41

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3312
  • Karma:
    -42
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
Alright, all of this crap about logical implications, infinities, calculus, etc. All of it is unimportant to the main topic. The main topic is Freedom and Free Will, specifically in relation to the Ethics of Psychically Affecting Others. In other words, the concepts of freedom and free will being discussed are in terms of and in relation to using your own free will to usurp another person's free will.

Steve, except it is relevant. Scientific hypothesis can be thought to be, generally, inductive where experimentation pretty much is a deductive way to create something which lines up with the hypothesis based on other things that have to be true if the hypothesis is true. Any conversation about will would include conversations about consciousness since will is derived from consciousness. The question then becomes can I create something that is approximately like consciousness from what I have said? The answer, in this case, is yes. When it comes to designing artificial intelligence, you would model something analogous to experience as a vector in terms of a high-dimensional vector space which can be infinite, for you have this used explicitly when it comes to machine learning where a hyperplane of sorts is created. Within this, one could model a decision as some type of function. This means we need not frame this discussion normatively, for we have a strong enough basis to frame it Scientifically within a paradigm of artificial intelligence which specifically addresses this. This is important to the topic because it is an accurate way we can model consciousness and what will is. There is no reason Science should not be used when the propositions put forth about this topic can create something like what the topic is discussing. By the way, you made this thread as a thread that is separate from your ethics one, which is why I am not sticking to the ethics angle, otherwise, it would simply be a duplicate of a thread you already started thereby rendering the purpose behind this one moot.   

Rayn, I had been working on neural AI for a full year, yet I did not get what you were saying...

January 12, 2016, 06:22:19 AM
Reply #42

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
Alright, all of this crap about logical implications, infinities, calculus, etc. All of it is unimportant to the main topic. The main topic is Freedom and Free Will, specifically in relation to the Ethics of Psychically Affecting Others. In other words, the concepts of freedom and free will being discussed are in terms of and in relation to using your own free will to usurp another person's free will.

Steve, except it is relevant. Scientific hypothesis can be thought to be, generally, inductive where experimentation pretty much is a deductive way to create something which lines up with the hypothesis based on other things that have to be true if the hypothesis is true. Any conversation about will would include conversations about consciousness since will is derived from consciousness. The question then becomes can I create something that is approximately like consciousness from what I have said? The answer, in this case, is yes. When it comes to designing artificial intelligence, you would model something analogous to experience as a vector in terms of a high-dimensional vector space which can be infinite, for you have this used explicitly when it comes to machine learning where a hyperplane of sorts is created. Within this, one could model a decision as some type of function. This means we need not frame this discussion normatively, for we have a strong enough basis to frame it Scientifically within a paradigm of artificial intelligence which specifically addresses this. This is important to the topic because it is an accurate way we can model consciousness and what will is. There is no reason Science should not be used when the propositions put forth about this topic can create something like what the topic is discussing. By the way, you made this thread as a thread that is separate from your ethics one, which is why I am not sticking to the ethics angle, otherwise, it would simply be a duplicate of a thread you already started thereby rendering the purpose behind this one moot.   

Rayn, I had been working on neural AI for a full year, yet I did not get what you were saying...
Quote
More formally, a support vector machine constructs a hyperplane or set of hyperplanes in a high- or infinite-dimensional space, which can be used for classification, regression, or other tasks. Intuitively, a good separation is achieved by the hyperplane that has the largest distance to the nearest training-data point of any class (so-called functional margin), since in general the larger the margin the lower the generalization error of the classifier.

Support Vector Machine

Support Vector Machines are used in machine learning where it utilizes something like what I said.
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.

January 12, 2016, 06:28:38 AM
Reply #43

Akenu

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3312
  • Karma:
    -42
  • Personal Text
    यम या रा आना
    • View Profile
    • Akenu's Initiation
Alright, all of this crap about logical implications, infinities, calculus, etc. All of it is unimportant to the main topic. The main topic is Freedom and Free Will, specifically in relation to the Ethics of Psychically Affecting Others. In other words, the concepts of freedom and free will being discussed are in terms of and in relation to using your own free will to usurp another person's free will.

Steve, except it is relevant. Scientific hypothesis can be thought to be, generally, inductive where experimentation pretty much is a deductive way to create something which lines up with the hypothesis based on other things that have to be true if the hypothesis is true. Any conversation about will would include conversations about consciousness since will is derived from consciousness. The question then becomes can I create something that is approximately like consciousness from what I have said? The answer, in this case, is yes. When it comes to designing artificial intelligence, you would model something analogous to experience as a vector in terms of a high-dimensional vector space which can be infinite, for you have this used explicitly when it comes to machine learning where a hyperplane of sorts is created. Within this, one could model a decision as some type of function. This means we need not frame this discussion normatively, for we have a strong enough basis to frame it Scientifically within a paradigm of artificial intelligence which specifically addresses this. This is important to the topic because it is an accurate way we can model consciousness and what will is. There is no reason Science should not be used when the propositions put forth about this topic can create something like what the topic is discussing. By the way, you made this thread as a thread that is separate from your ethics one, which is why I am not sticking to the ethics angle, otherwise, it would simply be a duplicate of a thread you already started thereby rendering the purpose behind this one moot.   

Rayn, I had been working on neural AI for a full year, yet I did not get what you were saying...
Quote
More formally, a support vector machine constructs a hyperplane or set of hyperplanes in a high- or infinite-dimensional space, which can be used for classification, regression, or other tasks. Intuitively, a good separation is achieved by the hyperplane that has the largest distance to the nearest training-data point of any class (so-called functional margin), since in general the larger the margin the lower the generalization error of the classifier.

Support Vector Machine

Support Vector Machines are used in machine learning where it utilizes something like what I said.

Thank God that article has a Czech version as in English this sounds like mandarin to me :D. Anyway, you might rather be interested in the Reinforcement learning, it might not have been used for DNA analysis, but it certainly is way more "human".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement_learning

January 12, 2016, 06:35:46 AM
Reply #44

Rayn

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1248
  • Karma:
    -18
  • Personal Text
    <insert something cynical and sarcastic>
    • View Profile
    • Noein
Anyway, you might rather be interested in the Reinforcement learning, it might not have been used for DNA analysis, but it certainly is way more "human".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement_learning

Yes, I agree, but I don't want to get bogged down in a specific discussion about different types of machine learning. The fact what I said is used in machine learning is enough to make my point.
Noein - A Resource on Psi, Science, and Philosophy
but sorcery refuses to be a metaphor for mere literature--it insists that symbols must cause events as well as private epiphanies. It is not a critique but a re-making. It rejects all eschatology & metaphysics of removal, all bleary nostalgia & strident futurismo, in favor of a paroxysm or seizure of presence.