Free will re-redux

[Laird]

I would say "proof" just means argument, but apparently philosophical arguments don't count...

Yes, a sound (or, better, cogent) argument is a proof. And I think philosophical arguments would count under "logical" proofs.

[Laird]

This is really good,

Cheers mate.

though I think you might be giving too much credit to the idea of the supposed dichotomy.

Perhaps so. In that case, consider that I'm granting maximal leeway to the argument and showing that even then it still fails.

Admittedly I think I forgot to reply to your request for input some time ago - apologies.

No probs at all. This response more than makes up for that.

Re "pedesis": when I saw you bring that up earlier in the thread, my reaction was something like, "Right on! That's a great example of what I mean by 'contingent' causality in the sense in which I use the term 'contingent' in that wiki article (i.e., not as 'subject to chance' but as 'dependent [on something(s) prior]'). How fascinating that it has been applied to 'physical' causal processes as well as psychological ones!"

I think Mellisoux's idea seems radical, but it seems to follow directly from the determinist's own argument ->

1) Determinism says that for anything that happens, it must happen for a reason.

2) So when something happens, there must be a reason why something else didn't happen.

3) If the solution to 2) is an appeal to Laws of Nature, we can ask why those don't change.

4) There is, under Physicalism, thus no reason why things happen one way rather than another. It's all just Chance/Luck/Randomness.

The proponent is then simply echoing the physicist Henry Stapp in saying that Consciousness can ground why things happen and why things don't happen which removes the incoherent Chance aspect from reality.

I concur with the sense of this argument. It's (somewhat) along the lines of the (roughly and less formally stated) argument I posted independently a few years back on the Skeptiko Forums in the OP of the thread The (in)coherence of hard determinism as an alternative to free will.

What is the "how" for a random choice?

When something "deterministic" happens, what is the "how" of why something else didn't happen[?]

Yeah, just like that, meaningless philosophical drivel that does nothing more than try to defend a point with semantics. Trick question, both are deterministic anyways. The only thing randomness does is set initial conditions of the system,. the rules of the rest of the system determine the rest.

Give a computer science proof that you think applies.

Sure thing: https://jsfiddle.net/38bp7cms/

Argue the result could possibly be any different, I dare you.

edit: As for demonstrating otherwise, IMO that's been done over and over. But apparently everything from Skeptiko, everything in the last 75 page thread, none of it was a real "how" answer.

Probably because it wasn't one. It was probably just philosophical stuff like above.

Why I want to know what the "how" question is at this point. Because it apparently is not "How can something be neither deterministic nor random?".

Then yo're just being facetious and moving the goal posts. Its dead simple, you just refuse to admit it because you have no answer. Its 'how' in the same way you can very simply explain why the console output of the script I wrote is "x equyals true" and not anything else.

[Laird]

I am actually working on one myself utilising my previous node-path uncertainty model which seems to have a point, at infinity, where path prediction certainty becomes zero which would actually make it possible to have a decision path which was  mathematically indeterminate, yet non random and I've noticed some extra things you can do with that which might actually have real world applicability in neuroscience, or other non-infinite node arrays if I'm correct. It more or less offloads that infinite or "liquefied" system to the weighting that nodes use to decide when to pass to other nodes, and if so, and if neurons have quantum systems that affect the synapse process, such as affecting excitation threshold or spiking, then you might be able to have a limited node array that partially relies on an indeterminate yet non random process, making the resulting array itself at least partially the same.

Here's a simpler and better proof:

1. If a concept is conceivable without contradiction, then it is (logically) possible.
   
2. Non-random, non-necessary decisions are conceivable without contradiction.
   
3. Therefore, non-random, non-necessary decisions are (logically) possible.
   

[Laird]

https://jsfiddle.net/38bp7cms/

Thar be a bug in that thar code...

Thar be a bug in that thar code...

It's also not a proof of anything related to causation.

Thar be a bug in that thar code...

Believe it or not, no, there isn't. "1" and "true" are the same value in javascript. Rather they equate to the same value. But yes it would've made more sense if the evaluation was for "true" but apparently it didn't save that  change or something.

Yeah, just like that, meaningless philosophical drivel that does nothing more than try to defend a point with semantics. Trick question, both are deterministic anyways. The only thing randomness does is set initial conditions of the system,. the rules of the rest of the system determine the rest.



Sure thing: https://jsfiddle.net/38bp7cms/

Argue the result could possibly be any different, I dare you.


Probably because it wasn't one. It was probably just philosophical stuff like above.


Then yo're just being facetious and moving the goal posts. Its dead simple, you just refuse to admit it because you have no answer. Its 'how' in the same way you can very simply explain why the console output of the script I wrote is "x equyals true" and not anything else.

Actually Paul said he was forgoing the randomness/determinism dichotomy, which is why I said Paul's "how" question is apparently different from yours.

The rest of your argument, besides that buggy code which isn't a proof just code, seems to be your usual posturing that you are definitely right, that you don't need an actual argument because you are right, and we already know you are right but will not admit it.

Hardly convincing.

[Laird]

"1" and "true" are the same value in javascript. Rather they equate to the same value.

That's not the bug...

Here's a simpler and better proof:

1. If a concept is conceivable without contradiction, then it is (logically) possible.
   
2. Non-random, non-necessary decisions are conceivable without contradiction.
   
3. Therefore, non-random, non-necessary decisions are (logically) possible.
   

That one might actually work . though it is sort of assertiony and that could arguably break it. Plus it lacks real world applicability or demonstration. But it's not bad.