09 Jun 07
Originally posted by NemesioThat is, the awareness that it
I agree. There is no dualistic self. I've said this repeatedly. Why do you continue to suggest otherwise?
The self = summation of the programming. One of the facets of the programming is the self-awareness -- that is, the awareness that the program is a program.
This awareness, itself, will influence the decisions that itself makes. That is, the ...[text shortened]...
This should be intuitive.
Now, the witness needs to answer my question above.
Nemesio
is running a program (and that other entities run analogous programs) influences the execution of the
program.
DOOOOH! Penny not dropped has it? But the awareness itself IS (I repeat IS) part of the executing program. So how does it influence itself whilst it is doing the influencing? The awareness of programming execution is in and of itself part of the programming. Are you suggesting that you can be aware of the awareness and then aware of the awareness of the awareness? can you think about what you are thinking about and also think about the part of you that is thinking about the thinking ?
You have yet to work out that really what we are talking about here is one program being aware of another program , that's all , it's YOU that creates the duality by thinking you can influence the programming from outside.
10 Jun 07
1 edit
I note that the witness has not yet answered the question.
Originally posted by knightmeister
But the awareness itself IS (I repeat IS) part of the executing program. So how does it influence itself whilst it is doing the influencing?
I agree. What's the problem? Think of deliberation as subroutines. When you are walking
you are doing the 'Left Foot Subroutine' and the 'Right Foot Subroutine.' Most of the time you
aren't concentrating on these routines (LFS/RFS/LFS/RFS &c); they are just executed. But if you
happen to see a small hole in the ground just before the 'RFS' is executed, you might give extra
thrust to the 'LFS' so you hop over the hole, or the 'Twisting Left Foot Towards the Right Subroutine,'
or some other routine. A machine without the awareness of holes would simply execute RFS and
fall into the hole.
You'll notice that, although you aren't employing the 'Enjoying Beethoven Routine,' it's still part
of your 'self,' or your program. It just isn't relevant when you are running your walking routine.
Or your 'Driving Routine' or your 'Swing at the Softball Routine,' or whatever. Your entire program
isn't in play all the time, even the 'Awareness Routine' isn't always being used.
This is what I mean when I say that the capacity for awareness influences the course of action that
an entity elects to employ: While driving, if I am unaware my tires are about to go over a nail, I
won't take any course of action to avoid it. If I am aware of the danger, I will swerve.
Worms aren't aware that other entities suffer. It's unaware that it itself suffers. Clouds are unaware
that other entities suffer. Thus the causing of suffering has no impact on worms' behavior or on
whether clouds will rain or not. Clouds have no subroutines at all, and worms lack the 'Awareness
of the Suffering of Other Entities Chip.'
You, I, and Mr Computer are aware. We also know that suffering hurts, compromises another
entities ability to pursue its interests and desires, and that we ourselves like to avoid suffering.
We have the ASOEC, and so this will influence the execution of other behaviors. If, while running my
'Swing at the Softball Routine,' I see that my swing will hit my son, I will interrupt it. Awareness
influenced whether I execute my SSR.
So, if the 'Suffering Awareness Analysis Board' is faulty in the computer -- that is, it is unable to assess
that his actions will cause suffering, then this is one matter, one which is akin to either insanity or
immaturity (in the case of moral patients, like children). If the SAAB is working fine and the
computer elects to take action knowing full well the implications of the action: this means that the
entity -- its programming/its self -- is a danger to other entities and that the subroutines in its
ASOEC is flawed and must be addressed. In a computer, we may as well simply remove the ASOEC
and replace it, thus changing the fundamental nature of the way in which the computer deals with
other entities -- that is, it becomes a radically different 'self' since it has a markedly different ASOEC
and, thus, a different overall program. In humans, however, the ASOEC cannot simply be replaced;
one must alter the subroutines through conditioning, reward/punishment, encouragement, &c. This will
help shape the 'self' and discourage the entity from causing unnecessary suffering.
Do you understand now?
Nemesio
11 Jun 07
Originally posted by NemesioThe human brain is capable of an amazing amount of 'unconscious' processing. People can sleep walk, sleep drive etc.
I agree. What's the problem? Think of deliberation as subroutines. When you are walking you are doing the 'Left Foot Subroutine' and the 'Right Foot Subroutine.' Most of the time you aren't concentrating on these routines (LFS/RFS/LFS/RFS &c); they are just executed. But if you
happen to see a small hole in the ground just before the 'RFS' is executed, you ...[text shortened]... ine without the awareness of holes would simply execute RFS and fall into the hole.
I also find that I can read to someone while thinking about something else altogether and the reading process is pushed to the edge of my consciousness. The whole reading process is shuffled of into subroutines. I also touch-type in which I think a word and subroutines for spelling and finger control do the rest.
12 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioQUOTE---
I note that the witness has not yet answered the question.
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]But the awareness itself IS (I repeat IS) part of the executing program. So how does it influence itself whilst it is doing the influencing?
I agree. What's the problem? Think of deliberation as subroutines. When you are walking
you are doin sary suffering.
Do you understand now?
Nemesio[/b]
This is what I mean when I say that the capacity for awareness influences the course of action that
an entity elects to employ: While driving, if I am unaware my tires are about to go over a nail, I
won't take any course of action to avoid it. If I am aware of the danger, I will swerve..................
.......Do you understand now?
Nemesio
RESPONSE----
This is going to hard work isn't it. It's a shame that you have wasted a lot of effort on this post. Do you understand that I understand and always have understood? The major problem here is that you THINK I am trying to say something that I am not. I agree with everything you say about awareness. But this is not the point.
I repeat...this is not the point. I DO understand
The awareness routine/chip does gives us the opportunity to avoid stepping into a hole while walking but is this free will? It looks like it but is it? If the awareness routine/chip is just a program (which logically it has to be) then I will ALWAYS avoid stepping into the hole because it is dictated by my awareness chip. Similarly , if my awareness chip is faulty then I was ALWAYS step into the hole. Only one outcome is ever possible even though the subjective experience is that we really could step into the hole unless we do something to avoid it. However , we are always going to either do something or not do something because we are programmed to do so.
In this sense we have the experience of 'choosing' but in reality the act is inevitable. Small insects for example will crawl away from an open space into a dark corner because of the danger of being eaten by a bird. They probably don't think about what they are doing but there is a basic awareness of danger and taking a course of action that avoids danger. The insect will ALWAYS crawl into the corner. Why? Because just like us it is a programmed entity.
You see unless falling into the hole is a real and actual possibility that I really could choose to do AND avoiding it is also a real and actual possibility that I could choose then my awareness routine does not change what really could have happened but simply puts into action what is inevitably going to happen.
The awareness routine is really just another glorified sub routine that is programmed and determined just as much as any simple sub routine , it's just it expresses itself in a more complex fashion. Both complex determinism and simple determinism are still both determined. You have no choice but to avoid the hole.
Imagine a room with 20 doors in it you go in and deliberate this way and that which door to walk through after an hour you walk through door 17 and walk up some stairs on the roof of the room . The room has a glass ceiling so you can look down on the room below . You see that behind every door (apart from 17) was just a brick wall and that door 17 was the only one with the staircase. Door 17 was the only choice you were ever going to make or could make , even though you deliberated over it and made an aware choice.I felt like you were choosing at the time but objectively you were programmed for door 17. Door 8 seemed like a real possibility at the time but scientifically it could never have been.
The worm however does not stay in the room at all and does not deliberate or reason or show self awareness . It simply wriggles up the stairs behind door 17 without even realising that all the other doors are blocked to it. Interestingly to an alien observer there would be little difference between the worm and you apart from the amount of time you spent in the room compared to the worm. Take away the subjective experience of awareness and decison making and you are left with similar determined actions. Both you and the worm will always choose door 17 , it just takes you a bit longer.
The fact that you feel that door 8 is a real possibility does not make it so. The fact that you feel you are choosing door 17 and not door 8 does not make it so as long as door 8 remains eternally blocked to you. Subjectively you feel more free than the worm and you are also more able to make better choices. You are a more efficient entity at avoiding danger just as a cat is more efficient than a worm at avoiding danger. But for you the cat and the worm the door 17 model always applies , it has to unless you move into a two door model (real free will).
Now , do you accept the door 17 model?
12 Jun 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterIt is the only one possible for anyone. You are yet to show that your 'model' is in any way different.
Do you not see that this model of human choices is the only one possible for a compatabilist?
Do you understand that I understand and always have understood?
And yet after all this time we clearly have totally different understandings of the word 'choosing' and you appear to fail to see that it is different.
In this sense we have the experience of 'choosing' but in reality the act is inevitable.
Nemesio has made it clear that even though it is inevitable it is still 'choosing'. In fact he defines 'choosing' as the inevitable choice that is the outcome of a deliberation of a conscious being and considers the less inevitable 'choices' (ie random, instinctual or without deliberation) made by the unconscious brain to be of less importance and not examples of free will. I think he is putting the emphasis on the 'will'.
I think that the problem is that you are taking it further and concluding that because the deliberation machinery uses the laws of physics and because physics (nature) is in your mind an external entity you see it as an external controlling force. What you miss is that the physics is just the electrons and chips of the computer and not the program itself. The program (you) is being run on physics but is not controlled by it but rather by its code. If the same program was run in some supernatural or virtual world the same outcomes would occur, thus it is not nature making the decisions but the program (you).
You have also made the whole discussion far more complicated by mixing in a separate issue which is punishment and the reasons for it.
13 Jun 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterNo, because it fails to take into account the way in which we evaluate the other 19 doors.
Now , do you accept the door 17 model?
What fails to make it a choice is if you take five different programs to the same room, they will
all pick #17 under all circumstances (tired, drunk, alert, sad, happy, &c). There are no mitigating
factors which allow anyone the possibility of any other choices under any circumstances.
Now, will the witness finally answer the question posed to it? This trial thing was your idea
and you are departing from it.
Nemesio
13 Jun 07
Originally posted by NemesioIn fact it is actually an intentionally deceptive example. It makes the claim the the entity could not choose one of the other doors which is a false claim as the entity could do so but would find a brick wall upon opening the door. It tries to equate the deliberation surrounding a choice with the actual possible results after acting on a choice. Its like asking: "pick 2x3 or 3+3 ha ha the answer is 6 you had no choice!
No, because it fails to take into account the way in which we evaluate the other 19 doors.
13 Jun 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadQUOTE--
It is the only one possible for anyone. You are yet to show that your 'model' is in any way different.
[b]Do you understand that I understand and always have understood?
And yet after all this time we clearly have totally different understandings of the word 'choosing' and you appear to fail to see that it is different.
In this sense we have ...[text shortened]... plicated by mixing in a separate issue which is punishment and the reasons for it.
What you miss is that the physics is just the electrons and chips of the computer and not the program itself. The program (you) is being run on physics but is not controlled by it but rather by its code. If the same program was run in some supernatural or virtual world the same outcomes would occur, thus it is not nature making the decisions but the program (you).
RESPONSE---
Woah!! This sounds awafully like you are drifting into a clear duality between mind and brain. Do you think we are 'minds' and that our minds are distinction from the physical realities of the brain? To be honest I had you down as someone who would believe in a brain and nothing else. Are you REALLY telling me that there is MORE to my computer than just plain old circuits and chips and stuff? I was under the impression that a computer was just a machine like any other machine (like a car or a sewing machine) . Do you think my computer is made of anything else than just plain ol' metal and plastic. ? You think it is controlled by something beyond the physical realities of it's structure? Does a car engine have a 'program' that exists separate from the metal it is made of? Hmmmm... interesting and surprising development whitey.
13 Jun 07
Originally posted by NemesioQUOTE---
No, because it fails to take into account the way in which we evaluate the other 19 doors.
What fails to make it a choice is if you take five different programs to the same room, they will
all pick #17 under all circumstances (tired, drunk, alert, sad, happy, &c). There are no mitigating
factors which allow anyone the possibility of any other choices ...[text shortened]... tion posed to it? This trial thing was your idea
and you are departing from it.
Nemesio[/b]
No, because it fails to take into account the way in which we evaluate the other 19 doors.
What fails to make it a choice is if you take five different programs to the same room, they will
all pick #17 under all circumstances (tired, drunk, alert, sad, happy, &c). There are no mitigating
factors which allow anyone the possibility of any other choices under any circumstances.
RESPONSE---
I would quite happily agree that if you took 5 different blokes into the room then one might pick door 6 another door 13 etc etc etc , but for each person the other doors would all be bricked up in the same way as in the door 17 model . It would just become a door 13 model instead.
Again , you miss the point. 5 different blokes could open 5 different doors , but is that choice? Remember , 5 different worms would also open 5 different doors too.....so where does the man have 'extra' choice over the worm ? A man is obviously more efficient in his choices and aware , but the awareness does nothing to change the fact that for both man and worm only one door is possible and all the others are bricked.How can they be said to be more of a free choice than the choice the worm makes?
It this point (the essential similarity between the worm and a man) that you don't want to consider. You cannot logically say under compatabilism that you have any more doors open to you than a worm. It's that simple.
13 Jun 07
Originally posted by NemesioQUOTE----
No, because it fails to take into account the way in which we evaluate the other 19 doors.
What fails to make it a choice is if you take five different programs to the same room, they will
all pick #17 under all circumstances (tired, drunk, alert, sad, happy, &c). There are no mitigating
factors which allow anyone the possibility of any other choices ...[text shortened]... tion posed to it? This trial thing was your idea
and you are departing from it.
Nemesio[/b]
Now, will the witness finally answer the question posed to it? This trial thing was your idea
and you are departing from it.
Nemesio
RESPONSE--
Computer- "I'm sorry I was processing Knightmeister's door 17 model and I have forgotten the question , honest. The door 17 model does apply to me. At the time I made the decision it really did feel as if I was choosing but looking back at the programming logs was a bit like looking through the glass ceiling in the door 17 model , I could see that there was only one way it could have been. Could you re-state the question?"
13 Jun 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadQUOTE--
In fact it is actually an intentionally deceptive example. It makes the claim the the entity could not choose one of the other doors which is a false claim as the entity could do so but would find a brick wall upon opening the door. It tries to equate the deliberation surrounding a choice with the actual possible results after acting on a choice. Its like asking: "pick 2x3 or 3+3 ha ha the answer is 6 you had no choice!
In fact it is actually an intentionally deceptive example. It makes the claim the the entity could not choose one of the other doors which is a false claim as the entity could do so but would find a brick wall upon opening the door. It tries to equate the deliberation surrounding a choice with the actual possible results after acting on a choice. Its like asking: "pick 2x3 or 3+3 ha ha the answer is 6 you had no choice!
RESPONSE---
KNIGHT- I wish I was that steeped in sophistry to be that intentionally deceptive whitey , me thinks you might be projecting your own sneakiness on to me? I had not thought of it that way. This is an interesting angle you bring up here. I don't see how the deliberation process can be separated from the final result. I don't see how there can be more than one door open as a possibility at all under compatabilism because as soon as you have two doors open and two staircases then you are into something much more radical and much , much more interesting. That would be proper grown up free will.
The pick 2x3 or 3+3 idea is also interesting because determinism/compatabilism would suggest that only one of these sums can be chosen , how could it be any other way? If you pick 2x3 then the 3+3 door must always have had a brick wall behind it , even though you might not be aware of it.
The door 17 model is a direct extrapolation of the logical implications of what you and neme say you are about . Why are you so resistant to it?
Instead of projecting sophistry onto me you ought to be thinking about how you can have two staircases without logically contradicting yourself !
13 Jun 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think that the problem is that you are taking it further ---- whitey
It is the only one possible for anyone. You are yet to show that your 'model' is in any way different.
[b]Do you understand that I understand and always have understood?
And yet after all this time we clearly have totally different understandings of the word 'choosing' and you appear to fail to see that it is different.
In this sense we have ...[text shortened]... plicated by mixing in a separate issue which is punishment and the reasons for it.
This says it all. Would you prefer we did not take it further? Should we not go the extra step to think about what we might conclude from the compatabilist model? I thought this was what debate and philosophy was all about. !!!! You will only find out what I am rattling on about IF you DO take it further.
Maybe we shouldn't think it through and go deeper into it ...might find something out..🙄
13 Jun 07
Originally posted by NemesioRepeated, for the computer's benefit.
My question is specifically: When confronted with the situation to shock
an individual unbidden -- to cause that person unnecessary suffering --
your programming went through calculations -- assessing and deliberating
then acting. What in your programming caused you to assess the situation
such that you took the course of action that you did?