tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post5747439472216086922..comments2024-02-29T04:15:06.480-06:00Comments on Life, the Universe, and One Brow: Review of TLS -- Natural law enforces natural prejudicesOne Browhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-80286952075981992402016-05-29T23:22:49.971-05:002016-05-29T23:22:49.971-05:00R. C.,
I don't think that Feser's presup...R. C., <br /><br /><i>I don't think that Feser's presuppositions, or Christianity in general, requires Feser to hold that by doing evil to a person, you are "doing them a favor," full stop.<br /><br />I don't know what Feser himself would say, but off the top of my head, it occurs to me that if I do evil to my neighbor -- say, if I break his arm -- I take away from him the freedom to do what he otherwise would have done if he'd been uninjured. If God compensates him in Heaven in some fashion, such that the injustice is always perfectly compensated-for, then in the end he himself is subjectively neither better-off, nor worse-off.</i><br /><br />I referred to an argument he was better off, not perfectly compensated.<br /><br /><i>If, in that situation, he responds in a really saintly way, then -- through his own choice -- he benefits from the whole series of events and is way better off than before. But, he might respond by hating me implacably until the day he dies, in which case, he goes to hell (Matthew 6:15). I haven't exactly "done him a favor" by tempting him in that way!</i><br /><br />Everyone has evils (or actions they see as evil) done to them. If your neighbor does not react to one of yours because you choose to not do it, they will react to a different one.<br /><br />I'm not inclined to argue at length over an aside about an argument I think has no value, thought, so if you ever happen to check in and respond (and since it took me so long to reply, it would be unfair for me to have any expectations on you), you may certainly have the last word here.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-4603861518887165152016-01-02T15:49:30.000-06:002016-01-02T15:49:30.000-06:00One Brow,
You say, "the argument from evil d...One Brow,<br /><br />You say, "the argument from evil depends on the presumption that God can't turn an awful act in this world into an even greater blessing in the next. Aside from the consequence that this means you are doing people a favor when you do evil to them, since God will make that into an even greater good, this objection satisfies me on a rational level."<br /><br />I don't think that Feser's presuppositions, or Christianity in general, requires Feser to hold that by doing evil to a person, you are "doing them a favor," full stop.<br /><br />I don't know what Feser himself would say, but off the top of my head, it occurs to me that if I do evil to my neighbor -- say, if I break his arm -- I take away from him the freedom to do what he otherwise would have done if he'd been uninjured. If God compensates him in Heaven in some fashion, such that the injustice is always perfectly compensated-for, then in the end he himself is subjectively neither better-off, nor worse-off.<br /><br />And that's only half the story. My neighbor then has a choice of how he responds to the evil I've done. He can repay evil for evil; he can forgive; he can never trust other people again; he can allow himself to slip into the habit of letting people abuse him with impunity; or whatever.<br /><br />If, in that situation, he responds in a really saintly way, then -- through his own choice -- he benefits from the whole series of events and is way better off than before. But, he <i>might</i> respond by hating me implacably until the day he dies, in which case, he goes to <i>hell</i> (Matthew 6:15). I haven't exactly "done him a favor" by tempting him in that way!<br /><br />And of course that fails to consider the consequences to <i>me</i>, if I did evil knowingly and with full consent of my will, and never repent of it until the day I die. (In Feser's Catholicism, that's "mortal sin" and the consequence is Go Straight To Hell, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect 30 Pieces Of Silver, or some such formula.)<br /><br />Taking a very non-professional stab at reconciling all of this, I would guess the following: God ultimately sees to it that <i>more and greater</i> good is ultimately done than the sum of evils, in such a way as to guarantee a net-positive over the whole history of creation. Ultimately, good wins; ultimately it turns out to have been a "good gamble" to have created free-willed beings, despite the evil they chose to do.<br /><br />BUT, just because all that good occurs, doesn't mean that everyone subjectively experiences its benefits. If my neighbor whom I've harmed responds wrongly, the good that makes up for it is good that he never experiences.<br /><br />As a consequence, it never makes sense to "do evil, that good may come of it." It's always the better individual choice to <i>not</i> do evil. And by putting my neighbor's soul in jeopardy, the "favor" I'm doing him is very conditional on his response. So even if he reacts rightly, it's <i>he</i> who has done <i>himself</i> a favor. All I've done is risk his soul and mine. Not very neighborly!R.C.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-64541478178057578652010-01-02T15:34:43.333-06:002010-01-02T15:34:43.333-06:00Yes, they have memory, and storage capacities, in ...Yes, they have memory, and storage capacities, in addition to being great calculators, chess bots, word processors, or MIDI-bots. But fundamentally just powerful adding machines and calculators linked up via servers. Do like high-powered calculators think OB? I don't think so. They do simulate one aspect of human thinking (ie calculations of various types). And set to expert, a modern chess bot like Fritz will defeat about any mere mortal. But that's just rapid fire calculations--not thinking. <br /><br />It's like with MIDI. I'm a keyboardist, and amateur composer, when I have time. The best MIDI simulations--even high-grade patches, sampling, etc.--- rarely capture the sound of real pianos, strings and horns, etc. And when notating a piece for MIDI it's nearly impossible to get the accenting and phrasing that pro. classical or jazz players, or even rockers get--(and I had a fair amount of formal musick training back in the day). You can get a fast quasi-paganinni sound, with some work--just rapid 16th notes, arpeggios, scales, etc. And MIDI's not bad for some percussion sounds. But a smooth, legato tone on a sax, brass or strings is about impossible (and the sax patches sound phony as well).Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-52174639109679069572010-01-02T14:48:34.396-06:002010-01-02T14:48:34.396-06:00Computers are more than just CPUs. The real quest...Computers are more than just CPUs. The real questions are much more interesting that that.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-20545782569808566702010-01-02T11:15:25.769-06:002010-01-02T11:15:25.769-06:00One genuine difference would appear to be neurolog...One genuine difference would appear to be neurology, not to say a human's entire bio-physical make up. A computer's merely some circuits and silicon chips, powered by electricity. And Searle was correct that while a CPU might process information very rapidly, follow routines, etc, it doesn't know what anything means. The google translating app. doesn't know spanish or chinese, even though it can spit out a translation in a few seconds. Humans coded it, set the parameters. Merely a tool. <br /><br />Are adding machines brains too OB? I don't think so. And a CPU's merely a high-powered adding machine with a monitor.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-54780990276453809762010-01-02T10:50:33.997-06:002010-01-02T10:50:33.997-06:00Even in computers, you get behaviors no programmer...Even in computers, you get behaviors no programmer intends. Sometimes code gets transmitted incorrectly, or programs interact in unspecified ways. Computers don't make every determination exactly as the programmers want them to make them.<br /><br />At any rate, treating the actions of such processes as if they are no different from a ticking clock, while human decisions are completely different level higher, strikes me as more of an attempt to rig the game than to see what the genuine differences are.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-40111927474235491932010-01-01T13:14:28.168-06:002010-01-01T13:14:28.168-06:00Not really. I'm not a substance dualist (ie I ...Not really. I'm not a substance dualist (ie I doubt a mind-substance exists apart from the brain, but it IS--somehow--embedded in the neurology). I agree most human actions/decisions are determined==perhaps, ultimately all. But the brain-experts are still very far from specifying the neural pathways, or describing the specifics of intention (or, memory, perception, language, math etc). And, really strict determinists and naturalists tend to resort to a sort of reductionism which bothers me (politically and metaphysically). Beethoven's 6th symphony is not a meme, I don't think. <br /><br />Humans do have the ability to make choices, decisions, and have a certain degree of freedom, at least from their own perspective, even if it's brought about by biological factors, conditioned responses, . And it does seem prima facie evident that in many cases they could have done otherwise, which doesn't square (at least yet) with strict determinism. We must breath. But we don't have to watch Dick Clark's New Year's Eve show (or any.). <br /><br /> I am still fond of the monkeys on typewriters analogy (from Berlinski I believe). It shows some large qualitative difference--even gap--between higher primates and humans. Language itself is anomalous (as Chomsky pointed out in his spats with Skinner and the behaviorists).Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-57685191507000443612010-01-01T13:05:04.246-06:002010-01-01T13:05:04.246-06:00Any attempt to impute the appearance of "int...Any attempt to impute the appearance of "intelligence," "choice," "decision-making," etc., to a mechanistic computer simply mistakenly attributes the ultimate source of those appearances to the effect, rather than the cause. The cause is the computer programmer. Kinda like God, with Acquinas, ya know?AintNoThanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06313565485988861373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-52655580867123350352010-01-01T11:19:07.734-06:002010-01-01T11:19:07.734-06:00I'm trying to find a short phrase that we can ...I'm trying to find a short phrase that we can agree does not attribute intentionality, but does allow for difering outputs based upon differing inputs without human intervention. When an inventory tracking system bypasses the datgabase entry routine for a radio tag broadcast because the receiving tower is identical to the tower in the last transmission, no human is actively present in that whole process.<br /><br />Honestly, if anything, its like you are determined to say there is a conyon, not let anyone even think about there being a bridge. If you try to just define the whole issue away, will that reasoning stand up long-term?One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-75241323626927810172009-12-31T15:20:16.407-06:002009-12-31T15:20:16.407-06:00Again, I think you're attributing something li...Again, I think you're attributing something like intention to the machine, when it's not intending anything, or making decisions, or thinking at all, but just following preset routines. (That was Searle's point with the old chinese room analogy as well, more or less).<br /><br /> The person who wrote the code set the parameters. So with some basic spreadsheet BS, you enter numbers in a column, and then maybe there's a little app. which figures out the mean, some other stat. function. Is Mr Quicken thinking?? Hardly. Some geeks coded Quicken years ago, did all the work. I would say it's no different than an adding machine, just much faster, digitalized, with memory, etc. Fancy adding machines, word processors, chess bots, etc. ...sometimes with pretty graphix: that's computing. <br /><br />When they implant a RJ-45 (or wireless , etc) in the back of someone's head and he can download his memory of ...like Daisy Mae, then maybe AI will be on the way. But even then it's still simulation (ie circuits as neurology, more or less).Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-34805234545411782012009-12-31T15:03:36.170-06:002009-12-31T15:03:36.170-06:00J,
As I said, I'm willing to go with "de...J,<br /><br />As I said, I'm willing to go with "determination" instead. If you don't like that, what your word for individually placing a character in 300,000 lines of data, depending on certain conditions that it examines?One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-24186093414397373782009-12-31T14:27:22.040-06:002009-12-31T14:27:22.040-06:00Nope.
Computers don't "make" decis...Nope.<br /><br /><br />Computers don't "make" decisions. They just follow routines which humans set, OB. We built computers, set the parameters, etc. Not the other way around.<br /><br />And what is the input for a human decision (as opposed to a computer)?? That could not easily be defined,given conditioning, culture, bio-genetic factors. That doesn't disprove determinism, but a person certainly doesn't know all, or even most causal factors which precede a choice. When X decides say to rob some lady at the mall, that's not merely a reflex action, or something like breathing. He deliberates, makes plans, envisions his chances for success (either rightly...or wrongly).Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-1233847630335969132009-12-31T14:07:20.643-06:002009-12-31T14:07:20.643-06:00Actually, that way you don't need to make a ch...Actually, that way you don't need to make a choice in order to make a determination, because computers make determinations.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-4424188510081055282009-12-31T13:40:47.815-06:002009-12-31T13:40:47.815-06:00Well, if that works for you, stay with it, eh? Th...Well, if that works for you, stay with it, eh? That way no determination has been, or can be, made until the choice is made. So much for determinism.AintNoThanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06313565485988861373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-70737391229841538132009-12-31T08:48:43.772-06:002009-12-31T08:48:43.772-06:00How about we call that a determination? The quest...How about we call that a determination? The question of determinism then becames do we makes choices or just determinations?<br /><br />That would work for me.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-41015150155598020732009-12-30T22:17:40.312-06:002009-12-30T22:17:40.312-06:00One Brow said: "I wonder if there is a reason...One Brow said: "I wonder if there is a reasonabel one- or two-word phrase we can substitute for "merely a function of mechanistic stimulus and programmed response" that you would not object to?"<br /><br />I'm sure there probably is. Like I said I haven't really given any thought to the question of what to call it. One reason I don't quickly identify it as a "decision" or a "choice" is because I tend to look at those actions as a product of consciousness. Another is that I am not a determinist. If I were, and thought all human decisions were mechanistically predetermined, then I would no doubt be more inclined to equate conscious actions with those of machines.AintNoThanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06313565485988861373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-53083385726705959232009-12-30T09:15:10.684-06:002009-12-30T09:15:10.684-06:00The difference there is that the odometer can only...The difference there is that the odometer can only give one reading following any other reading. If the current reading is 62,771.8, it will be followed by 62.771.9. <br /><br />I don't mnind at all saying that the logic behind the decision was programmed in. However, when the computer reads in and assigns a value 300,000 times over the course of a few minutes, I have trouble reconciling that to 300,000 human decisions. <br /><br />I wonder if there is a reasonabel one- or two-word phrase we can substitute for "merely a function of mechanistic stimulus and programmed response" that you would not object to?One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-3731210319015004772009-12-29T23:00:39.410-06:002009-12-29T23:00:39.410-06:00One Brow asked: "Does the computer make a ch...One Brow asked: "Does the computer make a choice? Make a decision? Do you have a term for that?"<br /><br />I personally would not call it either a decision or a choice, at least not by the computer. It was a decision or choice on the part of the programmer, I spoze, but....<br /><br />As far as the computer's behavior, it is about as much a "choice" or a "decision" as is made by an odomter when it changes it's readings from 0 to 60 as you accelerate. In other words, not at all.<br /><br />Other people might have other definitions, but like I said, anything that occurs strictly by mechanical necessity (like the computer's "actions") are not what I would call choices or decisions.<br /><br />I haven't given it much thought, but I suppose you could look at what the computer does in about the way the skinnerian brand of determinist does, i.e., merely a function of mechanistic stimulus and programmed response (without the "conditioning").AintNoThanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06313565485988861373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-55492895498055767702009-12-29T12:44:49.952-06:002009-12-29T12:44:49.952-06:00One Brow said: "Is this really an argument ov...<i>One Brow said: "Is this really an argument over more than definition about what it means to have a choice?"<br /><br />I don't know, is it?</i><br /><br />Probably.<br /><br />A computer program is set up so that:<br />1) if the input is an even number, store "E" in a place.<br />2) if the input anything else, store "X" in that place.<br /><br />Does the computer make a choice? Make a decision? Do you have a term for that?One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-25471474928058767362009-12-29T11:37:34.255-06:002009-12-29T11:37:34.255-06:00One Brow said: "Is this really an argument o...One Brow said: "Is this really an argument over more than definition about what it means to have a choice?"<br /><br />I don't know, is it? Does an actor have a "choice" about what to say each time the script calls for him to deliver a line? In my definition, any event that was predetermined at the beginning of time involves zero choice and 100% mechanistic necessity. You might as well try to argue that a tire "chooses" to go around when you mash down on the accelerator.AintNoThanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06313565485988861373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-64220776594526888012009-12-29T09:09:52.539-06:002009-12-29T09:09:52.539-06:00Assuming that all decisions are predetermined, doe...Assuming that all decisions are predetermined, does the fact that a decision is predertermined prevent it from being a decision? When I go to Wendy's to get a Frosty, and I select Vanilla instead of Chocolate as I do upon occasion, I think it's true that I was destined, as it were, to choose Vanilla at that time. Still, I also weighed the flavors against my mood and made a selection. The mood was determined, and the range selections was determined.<br /><br />Is this really an argument over more than definition about what it means to have a choice? What do you call it when a computer looks at an input and follows one of several possible tasks based ont he value of the input? In at least a couple of varieties, the very name of the function is CHOICE.<br /><br />Is free will the ability to make different choices in identical circumstances? Does always making the same choice in the same circumstances mean you are not making a choice at all?One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-16435560590755087052009-12-28T22:54:52.001-06:002009-12-28T22:54:52.001-06:00One Brow said: "The answer is simple: I woul...One Brow said: "The answer is simple: I would argue for determinism because it will then be added to the input processes of more people, leading to a more realisitic situaiton from which their decisions are made, leading to decisions that better obtain the desired outcomes."<br /><br />When you say "because," are you saying you had a choice about it? If so, where's the lack of free will? If not, then how can that be the cause of what you say and do, which things were all predestined by accidental circumstances over which you had no control whatsoever long before you were even born? The real "cause" preceded your existence.AintNoThanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06313565485988861373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-63768593056771088132009-12-28T22:20:28.037-06:002009-12-28T22:20:28.037-06:00So-called "compatibilsts" don't seem...So-called "compatibilsts" don't seem to deny any of the foregoing, according to wiki, anyway:<br /><br />"you could choose to continue reading or to stop reading this article; while a compatibilist determinist would not deny that whatever choice you make will have been predetermined since the beginning of time, they will argue that this choice that you make is an example of free will..."<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism<br /><br />Heh, a "choice" which was predetermined since the beginning of time is an example of "free will," eh? Go figure.AintNoThanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06313565485988861373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-57002149434725297382009-12-28T22:09:14.227-06:002009-12-28T22:09:14.227-06:00One Brow said: "Feel free to try to prove de...One Brow said: "Feel free to try to prove determinism entails this position."<br /><br />What does "determinism" entail, exactly? Accordin to our homeys at wiki, it's this here: <br /><br />"Determinism is the view that every event, including human cognition, behavior, decision, and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences.[1] Determinists believe the universe is fully governed by causal laws resulting in only one possible state at any point in time." <br /><br />"Causally determined by an UNBROKEN chain of PRIOR occurences," eh? "Resulting in only one possible state," eh? Maybe you have a different idea about what determinsim entails, eh, Eric?AintNoThanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06313565485988861373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-35839769414182773702009-12-28T21:59:48.448-06:002009-12-28T21:59:48.448-06:00Or are you sayin that I can "choose" to ...Or are you sayin that I can "choose" to deliberate of my own free will? If so, can I choose when to stop deliberating? If so, can I then freely choose among available alternatives what I do next? If yes to those questions, where's the "determinism" and the "lack of free will," I ax ya?AintNoThanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06313565485988861373noreply@blogger.com