Freedomain Radio

pcrs:

I don't think I agree with that. If my cat gets chased by a dog and the next day it meets a completely different dog, it will run away. I can only explain this by concluding it has an idea of the concept of dog based on meeting 1 instance of their species. Do you have an alternative explanation?

 

Yes, I do.  Animals seem to have some primitive conceptual abilities, in that some concepts seem to exist in their brain, as evidenced from your antecdote. This would make sense considering that our advanced conceptual abilities must have evolved from somewhere.  The difference, however, is that animals' concepts are demonstrative and/or perceptual concepts for things in their perceptual field.  They don't think about these concepts, as much as use them.  Furthermore, they don't think in symbols, which is one of the properties of human conceptual thought.

These types of concepts would coincide with what I mentioned in my most recent post, the concepts humans have that are related to their empirical observations at any given moment and at any given place.  There is no abstract analysis of the observations that would lead to a general principle or fact about reality.

Also, I think that animals' concepts could be programmed in their instincts, which would mean that these basic concepts might still remain in humans.  But these basic concepts are not going to be the concepts that lead us to understanding special relativity, evolution, or morality.

nexalacer:

They don't think about these concepts, as much as use them.  Furthermore, they don't think in symbols, which is one of the properties of human conceptual thought.

I think they can adapt their concepts (perceive their concept of reality is in error and change it), since I know cats and dogs who get along perfectly also. Given this exception it is not preprogrammed in instinct. I have also seen movies on youtube of apes that knew as much as 50 symbols.

nexalacer:

Also, I think that animals' concepts could be programmed in their instincts, which would mean that these basic concepts might still remain in humans.  But these basic concepts are not going to be the concepts that lead us to understanding special relativity, evolution, or morality.

No argument that humans are more advanced in this stuff. Maybe because we can communicate about our concepts and correct each other, which creates a parallel supercomputer with many eyes and ears. Unfortunately we have so much confidence in the correctness of our beliefs, that we sometimes decide the members with other beliefs have to be irradecated like a virus in our supercomputer.

@pcrs in relation to the video debate

I think you basically said what I am going to say in my post, but I think you are still making the problem you all had in the video debate more complicated than it is. The complexity of the human really doesn't matter here. The rock falling down the hill cannot not fall in the "wrong" place. So, humans can not be wrong either right?(That's the question and where the bulk of the debate was caused) I think that likely you kept switching to an almost subjective view of wrong and probably thought(I can't be sure of what you thought of course) that by saying humans can't be wrong, then Stefan can't be wrong which is not the case though it appears to be a paradox. Humans can't be "wrong" in the sense that they should have been a different way. So humans can't be wrong. But humans can hold(whatever that means) opinions that are in opposition to reality which are "wrong" or "untrue" because we are here defining "wrong" and "untrue" as in opposition to reality, where as before with the rock and my first mentioned version of "wrong" for humans, wrong was defined as should have been different with which humans and rocks can not be wrong. Do you see the difference(Stef?)?

Peter, thank you for this post.  I like your use of analogy, I like your thinking, and you are making this a very enjoyable discussion for me.

pcrs:

My apologies for another long winded post on this subject, but since I think I still increase my knowledge of philosophy and get something out of the debates, I see no reason to stop yet. I tried to make it as short as I can.

I did learn something valuable from this debate, that in my opinion explains much of the misunderstanding at least with free willist Stef. I seemed to get into a contradiction confronted with the question: "can humans be in error? If the deterministic rock can not be in error, then a deterministic human can not be in error and I can not be in error defending free will."
First it is important to realise there is a difference between a theory and the theory holder. The first is abstract and the second lives in reality.

A methaphor most quickly explains what is going wrong in the loop in that argument. If we have a datalink between 2 computers and it gives errors because the cable in between them is broken, you could go in the same circle. Stef:"Is the data link in error?" me:"yes" Stef:"But it could not have done anything else, because of the laws of nature and the broken cable" me:"it is not in error with the laws of physics" Stef:"but you just claimed it was in error"
Neither determinists nor free willist would resort to putting free will in the data link to get rid of this apparrent contradiction. The way to go here is to realise that there is ambiguity in the question "is the datalink in error?" error only exists in combination with a truth statement about reality. If the truth statement is:"The datalink obeys the laws of physics" the 'datalink' is not in error, if the statement is "the data link transfers data" the data link is in error.
In the same way the question:"Is the free willist in error?" is an ambiguis question. I believe his theory about reality is wrong (for this particular theory not with disastrous consequences in daily life, if causes for behavior continue to be sought). Is the holder of the theory himself wrong? Not in the fact that his past interactions would have inevitably caused him to hold this wrong theory. Like the datalink he is not wrong in obeying the laws of physics. He is wrong in believing in a theory that does not match reality. Only life forms theories, a rock can not have a theory, the statement that a rock and a brain are essentially the same is to imprecise. It's like saying a steak and a stone are essentially the same (talking about Newtonian physics) and suddenly ask the question: "Why don't you eat the stone then?"

In a completely dead universe there is no error, because there is no theory held by anyone or anything. We are all determinists and everything behaves causaly.
Let's introduce life. Let me now define 'an error' as a difference that shows up when a theory about reality is compared to reality. As an example: when a lion chases a zebra and jumps to the left, in anticipation of the zebra's move, but the zebra goes to the right, the lion is in error, because it had a theory about the future of reality which was wrong. Causality required the lion to have the wrong theory, but it is my claim you can still call his theory wrong based on the difference with reality, not based on his ability to have another theory than it had.
Complexity can introduce agents that hold theories about reality, theories that rocks can not state. These agents behave completely causal, but their theories can be erroneous, which is why some species debate about them. Computers can operate based on a theory about the future too (e.g. a program that trades the stock market), this theory can also be wrong and the difference I would call an error. The computer is however completely causal, yet every mobile phone and computer has many error detection and correction units.

Does it make sense to blame the erroneous or take them to court? That is a question for later. Why do people try to confront the holder of a wrong theory with his error? Because we know the brain changes its beliefs based on the observation of errors and contradictions (in a causal way, balanced with lots of other factors).

The lion has preferences as well, those are the things he needs to survive and reproduce. So the important thing that confused me in the debate is that any statement about preference requires you name the preferrer, otherwise you get contradictions. The prey prefers something different from the lion. No preferred state without a preferrer.
The indpendent question is there truth/falsehood does not make sense without a theory that is tested on its truth or falsehood. It is not necessary to know who stated the theory under test, to test it. It's truth content can be tested against reality, without attaching the theory to any person in physical reality.
The next step is: the theory about reality was tested and e.g. it was found to be not in compliance with reality=false. Now we can ask who stated or believes the false theory? And is he blame worthy for stating the theory, guilty and in error? Here is were the confusion comes in, I think. Blame, guilt, threat are all mechanism that humans use to communicate to other humans that their beliefs are wrong (which has a function and creates an enormous parallel computing power). I would opt for calling people who hold erroneous beliefs also erroneous. We also say that a data connection has 'errors' although it could not have done anything else, since the cable was broken.

To use your analogy, it is my observation that there are people who desire to fix broken cables, and people who desire to break properly functioning cables.  Is the person who desires to break properly functioning cables merely a broken cable himself?  And if so, can he be fixed?  Maybe with the right kind of self-awareness, he could fix himself?  Maybe there are some broken cables that are beyond repair?  I'm pretty sure I've run into a few...

In criminal law there is the concept of mens rea, meaning that to be considered guilty of a crime, a person must have known that what they did was wrong and must have had the ability to stop it.  Does determinism make mens rea impossible?

Here is a blog post about a study that seems to indicate that people who hold a belief in determinism are more likely to engage in "cheating" than people who hold a belief in free will.  This would seem to demonstrate the power of the argument from morality.

Everett:

Peter, thank you for this post.  I like your use of analogy, I like your thinking, and you are making this a very enjoyable discussion for me.

I'm glad you enjoy it as well.

Everett:

To use your analogy, it is my observation that there are people who desire to fix broken cables, and people who desire to break properly functioning cables.  Is the person who desires to break properly functioning cables merely a broken cable himself?  And if so, can he be fixed?  Maybe with the right kind of self-awareness, he could fix himself?  Maybe there are some broken cables that are beyond repair?  I'm pretty sure I've run into a few...

A person deliberately breaking stuff is kind of broken himself (unless he is a demolishenist by profession). Can he be fixed? I don't know, we see from experience not all mental problems can (at least easily) be fixed with current levels of knowledge. Fixing one's self is only possible if you were to run in to the answer anyway. Asking a therapist to give you some different input, directed to confront you with the error in your brain operation, is more likely to get you fixed. For your brain to change it needs to realize it is in error, someone pointing out the error can be helpfull.

Everett:

In criminal law there is the concept of mens rea, meaning that to be considered guilty of a crime, a person must have known that what they did was wrong and must have had the ability to stop it.  Does determinism make mens rea impossible?

'Should have had the ability to stop it', is impossible if determinism is true. However I can see where the reason for this comes from. You are not going to punish someone who has no clue what he has done wrong, since it would not have any corrective power. For the punishment to work, the criminal must know what principle he violated, to know what type of actions he should avoid in the future.

Most justice system also punish a 'crime passionel' more lightly than a life long deliberated premeditated murder. This because it is assumed the premeditated murderer has the bad character traits more deeply ingrained in his behavior and is more likely to do similar things in the future then the impuls murderer. It is questionable if the impulse murderer will be deterred a next time by earlier punishment.

Everett:

Here is a blog post about a study that seems to indicate that people who hold a belief in determinism are more likely to engage in "cheating" than people who hold a belief in free will.  This would seem to demonstrate the power of the argument from morality.

I heard of that study. It is the reason why there is a philosopher (forgot his name) who concluded that free will could not be true, but was of the opinion you should not tell people, because of this effect. He thought morality could still stand, but it was to complicated to explain to common folk. I always suspected Stef to secretly have the same opinion.

But what to say about that research. It is an argument from effect (prevent cheating) not to seek or tell truth and would be an exception to the rule 'truth is better than error'. I am hesitant with arguments from effect and I am in love with universal principles. It is not known if the moral deteriation goes beyond cheating and how long the effect lasts. If we look at main factors of moral decay then the government and the praise of violence is on the top of the list and people cheating on tests cooked up by psychologists is very low. I would say:stick to universal principles to demolish the state and religion and if we end up with a society in which cheating on psychology tests by people who have been primed with a determinist text is the biggest problem, hey, I don't think tears will flow in great quantities. I have not heard of many cases in which the defendent claimed determinism as excuse for a crime (although a lawyer of the rich Loeb family tried to use the brutal upbringing of his client as an deterministic excuse. We will perhaps never know if the determinst argument or the money got the sentence from death to life imprisonment)

Instead of looking to the threat that determinism poses to repsonsibility, you can see it as an oppertunity also. If people start to look for causes of criminal behavior, and find the connection to parental violence and trace the causal chain of violence all the way back....... we already know to what conclusion they will come. If you start pulling that little rope with curiosity, you wil find out there is a fricking big gun at the other end. If people instead say:'it was just his free will', then it's a dead end. They will never get to his parents and daddies role in the military.

nexalacer:

I want to be clear, this is not supposed to prove free will yet, this is just to prove that the process of formulating concepts that accurately reflect reality is not an automatic process.  Would you agree with this?

 

Well, I think you're going to start running into some problems with the way you've described it, based on the fact that "reality" is a concept as well, but I understand what you mean... and I don't think we want to go about deliberating on an accurate way to articulate your point... so, yes, I agree... continue...

Ok so I just finished watching the debate and I have a question for the determinists. When Stef points out the contradiction of attempting to correct error which is predetermined, and you guys respond with these arguments about different perspectives and all this stuff, I get really annoyed.

Why don't any of you just say "Stef, I can't help it!"

It seems like it would be more consistent with your position and also save me a lot of wasted time. 

Just saying...

Moyer:

It seems like it would be more consistent with your position and also save me a lot of wasted time. 

I sense little curiosity.

The reason you might have felt annoyance could also be because the question already implies free will because of the word 'attempt'

It's like the question:

'have you stopped beating your wife yet?' It already implies you are beating her

Stef would have had the same problem if we had asked him: 'What causes free will?'

If you believe in free will, there is no cause for it (otherwise it would not be free). Free will is the dead end of reasoning just like 'god did it' and don't ask for gods reasons. It's ignorance given a name and called virtuous. It's thinking you have an answer so you stop asking questions.

Does that answer your question?

Dang PCRS, you on fire lately.  I hope you do not feel bad about the debate and your performance therein.  You shouldn't.  You guys were engaging Stef on his home court, essentially, where he is a very, very skilled player.  Stef just drove the whole conversation right into the ground on you guys.  He specializes in getting his opponents to agree to seemingly harmless foundational statements and analogies, and then using them to later pin them down to the mat.  Even being aware of that isn't necessarily going to help you prevent it.  He's good, what can ya say.

Now if you're just mad about some of the post-debate pot shots on your psychological health, then nevermind, keep up the good work..<smile>..

Captain Trips:

Dang PCRS, you on fire lately.  I hope you do not feel bad about the debate and your performance therein.  You shouldn't.  You guys were engaging Stef on his home court, essentially, where he is a very, very skilled player.  Stef just drove the whole conversation right into the ground on you guys.  He specializes in getting his opponents to agree to seemingly harmless foundational statements and analogies, and then using them to later pin them down to the mat.  Even being aware of that isn't necessarily going to help you prevent it.  He's good, what can ya say.

Now if you're just mad about some of the post-debate pot shots on your psychological health, then nevermind, keep up the good work..<smile>..

[deleted]

I find your posts to be pretty obnoxious, 'Captain Trips'. This last one gives me sufficient certainty to not be curious about your viewpoint any longer.

I'm not really enjoying how this is proceeding.  I'm pretty frustrated by pcrs's change in attitude in regards to this debate, and I find your statement that reality is a concept to be even more frustrating oneironaut, so I'm going to just wait until I have something cohesive, edited, and presentable as a whole worked out before I post anymore on this topic.  Thanks.

Dave Bockman:

[deleted]

I find your posts to be pretty obnoxious, 'Captain Trips'. This last one gives me sufficient certainty to not be curious about your viewpoint any longer.

I was looking forward to seeing what it was you wrote and then deleted.  Some of the previous examples have been enlightening.  But it seems that somehow the email subscription service skipped your reply this time.  That's curious..

nexalacer:

I'm not really enjoying how this is proceeding.  I'm pretty frustrated by pcrs's change in attitude in regards to this debate, and I find your statement that reality is a concept to be even more frustrating oneironaut, so I'm going to just wait until I have something cohesive, edited, and presentable as a whole worked out before I post anymore on this topic.  Thanks.

Captain Trips:

Dang PCRS, you on fire lately.  I hope you do not feel bad about the debate and your performance therein.  You shouldn't.  You guys were engaging Stef on his home court, essentially, where he is a very, very skilled player.  Stef just drove the whole conversation right into the ground on you guys.  He specializes in getting his opponents to agree to seemingly harmless foundational statements and analogies, and then using them to later pin them down to the mat.  Even being aware of that isn't necessarily going to help you prevent it.  He's good, what can ya say.

Now if you're just mad about some of the post-debate pot shots on your psychological health, then nevermind, keep up the good work..<smile>..

I think you need to prove the assertion of dishonesty and manipulation.

Stefan Molyneux:

Captain Trips:

Dang PCRS, you on fire lately.  I hope you do not feel bad about the debate and your performance therein.  You shouldn't.  You guys were engaging Stef on his home court, essentially, where he is a very, very skilled player.  Stef just drove the whole conversation right into the ground on you guys.  He specializes in getting his opponents to agree to seemingly harmless foundational statements and analogies, and then using them to later pin them down to the mat.  Even being aware of that isn't necessarily going to help you prevent it.  He's good, what can ya say.

Now if you're just mad about some of the post-debate pot shots on your psychological health, then nevermind, keep up the good work..<smile>..

I think you need to prove the assertion of dishonesty and manipulation.

I think you need to prove he asserted dishonesty and manipulation.