Demystifying Determinism

[Jarhyn]

Think. What had that thought? You or the brain? The answer is obvious. The only thing that has and is connected to components, the brain. You? You are imagined, by ..... the brain.

Think, what remitted a false dichotomy? FDI's hands or FDI's brain or FDI's internet connection or FDI? The answer can be all of the above, FDI, as a section of FDI's brain sent a signal to FDI's hands sent a signal down FDI's internet connection.

You are not imagined by your brain FDI, you are your brain, a very specific part of it. You are instantiated, not imagined, by it.

Get over it so we can stop having this stupid conversation please?

We're not having this conversation. You are.

I'm just the substance you purport to deny.

When you bring substance.

You have supplied as much as you have of "sense".

You deny the computer is an object, available to be sensed by the senses of any thing, and to have properties upon which the senses converge for as many observers as observe it!

 

[fromderinside]

Think. What had that thought? You or the brain? The answer is obvious. The only thing that has and is connected to components, the brain. You? You are imagined, by ..... the brain.

Think, what remitted a false dichotomy? FDI's hands or FDI's brain or FDI's internet connection or FDI? The answer can be all of the above, FDI, as a section of FDI's brain sent a signal to FDI's hands sent a signal down FDI's internet connection.

You are not imagined by your brain FDI, you are your brain, a very specific part of it. You are instantiated, not imagined, by it.

Get over it so we can stop having this stupid conversation please?

We're not having this conversation. You are.

I'm just the substance you purport to deny.

When you bring substance.

You have supplied as much as you have of "sense".

You deny the computer is an object, available to be sensed by the senses of any thing, and to have properties upon which the senses converge for as many observers as observe it!

Your tasks are simple then. Prove a computer is a material object. Show my use of sense is senseless to the proper meaning of sense and that what properties senses sense do converge for observers.

 

[Jarhyn]

Think. What had that thought? You or the brain? The answer is obvious. The only thing that has and is connected to components, the brain. You? You are imagined, by ..... the brain.

Think, what remitted a false dichotomy? FDI's hands or FDI's brain or FDI's internet connection or FDI? The answer can be all of the above, FDI, as a section of FDI's brain sent a signal to FDI's hands sent a signal down FDI's internet connection.

You are not imagined by your brain FDI, you are your brain, a very specific part of it. You are instantiated, not imagined, by it.

Get over it so we can stop having this stupid conversation please?

We're not having this conversation. You are.

I'm just the substance you purport to deny.

When you bring substance.

You have supplied as much as you have of "sense".

You deny the computer is an object, available to be sensed by the senses of any thing, and to have properties upon which the senses converge for as many observers as observe it!

Your tasks are simple then. Prove a computer is a material object. Show my use of sense is senseless to the proper meaning of sense and that what properties senses sense do converge for observers.

Here he is folks, claiming that if I open up a debugger I might possibly see a different series of numbers than anyone else (of the same computer).

 

[fromderinside]

Think. What had that thought? You or the brain? The answer is obvious. The only thing that has and is connected to components, the brain. You? You are imagined, by ..... the brain.

Think, what remitted a false dichotomy? FDI's hands or FDI's brain or FDI's internet connection or FDI? The answer can be all of the above, FDI, as a section of FDI's brain sent a signal to FDI's hands sent a signal down FDI's internet connection.

You are not imagined by your brain FDI, you are your brain, a very specific part of it. You are instantiated, not imagined, by it.

Get over it so we can stop having this stupid conversation please?

We're not having this conversation. You are.

I'm just the substance you purport to deny.

When you bring substance.

You have supplied as much as you have of "sense".

You deny the computer is an object, available to be sensed by the senses of any thing, and to have properties upon which the senses converge for as many observers as observe it!

Your tasks are simple then. Prove a computer is a material object. Show my use of sense is senseless to the proper meaning of sense and that what properties senses sense do converge for observers.

Here he is folks, claiming that if I open up a debugger I might possibly see a different series of numbers than anyone else (of the same computer).

Funny. Jaryhn stubbing his toe in his open debugger.

 

[Jarhyn]

Think. What had that thought? You or the brain? The answer is obvious. The only thing that has and is connected to components, the brain. You? You are imagined, by ..... the brain.

Think, what remitted a false dichotomy? FDI's hands or FDI's brain or FDI's internet connection or FDI? The answer can be all of the above, FDI, as a section of FDI's brain sent a signal to FDI's hands sent a signal down FDI's internet connection.

You are not imagined by your brain FDI, you are your brain, a very specific part of it. You are instantiated, not imagined, by it.

Get over it so we can stop having this stupid conversation please?

We're not having this conversation. You are.

I'm just the substance you purport to deny.

When you bring substance.

You have supplied as much as you have of "sense".

You deny the computer is an object, available to be sensed by the senses of any thing, and to have properties upon which the senses converge for as many observers as observe it!

Your tasks are simple then. Prove a computer is a material object. Show my use of sense is senseless to the proper meaning of sense and that what properties senses sense do converge for observers.

Here he is folks, claiming that if I open up a debugger I might possibly see a different series of numbers than anyone else (of the same computer).

Funny. Jaryhn stubbing his toe in his open debugger.

Again with the nonsense.

Makes sense from someone who is admittedly unable to make sense of sense itself.

This is all rather senseless If you ask me.

I sense that you might make more sense if you come to your senses about your ability to sense, and sense again the same thing since that...

Is objectivity.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

... Prove a computer is a material object. ...

The simplest way to prove that is to hit you over the head with my laptop.

 

[fromderinside]

Here he is folks, claiming that if I open up a debugger I might possibly see a different series of numbers than anyone else (of the same computer).

Funny. Jaryhn stubbing his toe in his open debugger.

Again with the nonsense.

Makes sense from someone who is admittedly unable to make sense of sense itself.

This is all rather senseless If you ask me.

I sense that you might make more sense if you come to your senses about your ability to sense, and sense again the same thing since that...

Is objectivity.

The idea of sensing objectivity is exactly the reason one doesn't sense objectivity.

Sensing is through what one has available within reality without being material, measured. But such cannot be reality since it only reflects to one what one senses.

One understands materiality is required for measurement. Existence is requirement for materiality. But objectivity requires existence, by extension, materiality to be measured.

Sensing is only approximate, never objective, never expressing existence of materiality, therefore never measures reality.

Rat Tat Bumfp.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

The idea of sensing objectivity is exactly the reason one doesn't sense objectivity.

Then objectivity is an Ideal, that we try to approach by systematically checking one sense with another, and one person's sensed reality with another person's sensed reality, and also by applying formal methods of science.

Whichever method is use to verify our sense of objective reality, that IS for all practical purposes objective reality. What ya see is what ya get. And that objective reality can be distinguished from subjective or biased distortions of reality. We end up calling one "objective reality" and the other "subjective opinion".

Sensing is through what one has available within reality without being material, measured. But such cannot be reality since it only reflects to one what one senses.

And yet, whether it is reality or not, it must be treated as if it were reality. We find, for example, that walking into walls can be painful. So, we call the wall "real" and "objective".

One understands materiality is required for measurement. Existence is requirement for materiality. But objectivity requires existence, by extension, materiality to be measured.

Huh??

Sensing is only approximate, never objective, never expressing existence of materiality, therefore never measures reality.

The fact that sensing is only approximate is insufficient to justify treating objective reality as if it does not exist.

Rat Tat Bumfp.

Tidilly bump.

 

[fromderinside]

The idea of sensing objectivity is exactly the reason one doesn't sense objectivity.

Then objectivity is an Ideal, that we try to approach by systematically checking one sense with another, and one person's sensed reality with another person's sensed reality, and also by applying formal methods of science.

Whichever method is use to verify our sense of objective reality, that IS for all practical purposes objective reality. What ya see is what ya get. And that objective reality can be distinguished from subjective or biased distortions of reality. We end up calling one "objective reality" and the other "subjective opinion".

Hand wave when structure is required? Are you sure?

In science we don't compare one sense with another.

We find material standards like wave length of this or that molecule. with which to compare measurement of length, time, etc. that remain stable. We aren't comparing hearing with seeing although we do as interesting experiments concerning evolution perhaps.

Sensing is through what one has available within reality without being material, measured. But such cannot be reality since it only reflects to one what one senses.

And yet, whether it is reality or not, it must be treated as if it were reality. We find, for example, that walking into walls can be painful. So, we call the wall "real" and "objective".

No we don't. We relate what we've determined to be a standard, say of sensitivity of hearing relative to molecular motion , against the properties of that which we sense seeing relative to light frequency or energy to gain insight into primacy of one verses another sense.

One understands materiality is required for measurement. Existence is requirement for materiality. But objectivity requires existence, by extension, materiality to be measured.

Huh??

Check your science.

Sensing is only approximate, never objective, never expressing existence of materiality, therefore never measures reality.

The fact that sensing is only approximate is insufficient to justify treating objective reality as if it does not exist.

We don't check reality that way at all. We are not calibrated instruments, but a population with various capabilities with a range of utility

Rat Tat Bumfp.

Tidilly bump.

Nope. Tat-tat-bumpf

 

[Jarhyn]

So, I find it ridiculously stupid that someone might reject the idea that when they sense the same thing twice in the same way they really did sense something within some reasonable upper bound for error.

This is literally the process for determining in most cases whether you are dreaming or hallucinating, to read some thing and then simply... Read it again for the same content.

Our minds are remarkably bad at lying to us via subconscious perceptual replacement and hallucination. The lizard brain bits that tend to lie just can't keep the story straight without a reality to straighten it with.

When you sense the same thing over and over again, you can be fairly well certain you sensed it, that it really is happening, and this is in fact the basis for the repeated-trial test.

But moreover, clearly, someone doesn't have a clue who does not recognize that the thing whacking them across the face, as the glass sheet and silica bits are destroyed under the force of heavy impact, is (was?) an object of very curious configuration.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

We find material standards like wave length of this or that molecule. with which to compare measurement of length, time, etc. that remain stable. We aren't comparing hearing with seeing although we do as interesting experiments concerning evolution perhaps.

The point is that objectivity is established by multiple observations, especially by unbiased observers, and by controlled experiments.
Scientific instruments extend our senses through telescopes and microscopes, and x-rays, and magnetic imaging, etc., making the invisible measurable. But it is still ultimately us, interpreting what we see.

We relate what we've determined to be a standard, say of sensitivity of hearing relative to molecular motion , against the properties of that which we sense seeing relative to light frequency or energy to gain insight into primacy of one verses another sense.

Each sense tells us something different. Is this "really" an apple? It looks like an apple, but when I pick it up it is much lighter, and if I thump it with my knuckle it feels hard, but it sounds hollow. Hmm. It is an artificial apple, put in this bowl of artificial fruit for decoration.

One understands materiality is required for measurement. Existence is requirement for materiality. But objectivity requires existence, by extension, materiality to be measured.

Right. We presume the "existence" of a wall when we bump into it. Bumping into the wall is a "measure" of its solidity, its hardness, and its realness.

 

[fromderinside]

The point is that objectivity is established by multiple observations, especially by unbiased observers, and by controlled experiments.
Scientific instruments extend our senses through telescopes and microscopes, and x-rays, and magnetic imaging, etc., making the invisible measurable. But it is still ultimately us, interpreting what we see.

Multiple observations by unbiased observers aren't nearly enough to establish control of elements in experiment. The aspects of the object being specified for test must be be materially established. By material establishment the object must be described in more fundamental reductionist terms already established as part of the body of science such as mass, extent, dimension, temperature, velocity, elemental configuration etc. Its what I've been calling materiality.

That you are providing a well defined acoustics signals to the ear isn't enough to raise the results of observations to psychometrics. The specifications must at a minimum also include randomization of conditions, temporal and procedural order of experimental process bringing the signals to the ears and responses from the fingers of the observers. As well as accounting for time and extent of test sessions along with controls for specific verified repeatable operations. then there is the review and commentary prior to publication then there is editorial acceptance and publication to specific communities.

Each sense tells us something different. Is this "really" an apple? It looks like an apple, but when I pick it up it is much lighter, and if I thump it with my knuckle it feels hard, but it sounds hollow. Hmm. It is an artificial apple, put in this bowl of artificial fruit for decoration.

Since each sense uses differing aspects associated with reality their relationships to one another need be refined to specific material dimensional and material concomitants. Even then experiments need be conducted verifying the onto nature of such relationships.

Right. We presume the "existence" of a wall when we bump into it. Bumping into the wall is a "measure" of its solidity, its hardness, and its realness.

Our abilities to verify it's attributes are still indirect and do not qualify as evidence realness by kind.

You have miles and miles go before you begin to understand materiality and experiment. And you certainly don't understand what is meant by scientific experiment. What you talk to is causal study or investigation. Nothing material nor scientific can be properly reported from such.

I think you'll find https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/operationalism/ and Wiki's article addressing Percy Bridgman's  Operationalism enlightening. I'm a an Acoustical psychophysicist by early doctoral training and practice who was confused by SS Stevens and BF Skinner's interpretations.

So I went to the source which is much more adequate and useful. And as he concludes "The scientific method, as far as it is a method, is nothing more than doing one’s damnedest with one’s mind, no holds barred.” My added thought is "The mind always suspect need be as far removed from evidence as methodologically possible." ... and by all accounts he plotted a pretty good path because establishment of materiality is proof positive that mind is a contaminant.

 

[Jarhyn]

Ah yes, the "no true scotsman object".

As if it was at all convincing the last time you posted it.

Multiple observations, either of the same person or preferably multiple, is the standard of objectivity.

Tools improve that, but it is the clear and unarguable, unambiguous shared experience that creates this.

You could otherwise pull a god-of-the-gaps or a missing-link. No observational tool is good enough! No record is accepted! Look at it with the LHC, or deny it exists at all.


Or recognize that's just fucking stupid, and that the standard is repeated observation.

That's why observe and object share a common root.

Because objects are things that are observable, whose properties may be repeatedly and reliably observed.

The computer is something with a ridiculously low number of microstates that describe it, with molecularly fine structures that have not only been observed but made thus to order!

Of course it is an object, and an amazing kind of object as well, one which reports aspects of it's own state, and whose behavior depends on reliable deterministic function and utterly non-chaotic output.

 

[ramoss]

Golly, what a comundrum.

Am I predetermined to have Cheerios for breakfast whEn I have Cheerios? If I want to test determinism andI choose nto eat anything, but maybe that is predermined.

Wow, what a headache. It could drive a man to drink, but maybe hat is predetermined.

When it comes to hard determinism, I do not see how that can be tested. If we rewound the sunrise to just after the event known as 'the big bang' , would thing happen exactly the same?

 

[Jarhyn]

Golly, what a comundrum.

Am I predetermined to have Cheerios for breakfast whEn I have Cheerios? If I want to test determinism andI choose nto eat anything, but maybe that is predermined.

Wow, what a headache. It could drive a man to drink, but maybe hat is predetermined.

When it comes to hard determinism, I do not see how that can be tested. If we rewound the sunrise to just after the event known as 'the big bang' , would thing happen exactly the same?

Well, of the laws of physics are fixed and QM resolution is "seeded", then yes, but even so the hard determinist makes an additional step beyond this. To understand their misstep, one must also discuss "initial configuration" or perhaps "locality".

For context, if you were to look at a simulation like that stupid game I play, Dwarf Fortress, you have an engine which loads and creates universes. The engine takes in a collection of files and numbers which act as it's "seed data" or "initial configuration".

From these things the engine operates to produce a universe, with the clock set to "last Thursday."

Now, you could modify that initial configuration quite a lot, and the engine would still operate on it deterministically.

The hard determinist, or at least the ones on the board who argue their position here, argue that the idea that our universe will follow a single path invalidates and makes nonsensical the conceptualization of different configurations against the determination caused by the laws of physics.

Compatibilists on the other hand recognize that it's an entirely sensible act to ask "what would the laws of physics determine to happen in a universe with some other configuration of matter"

This is useful because one can pose such a scenario where the configurations assumedly different are configurations of one's own mind: If you were to make the decision to do something.

And so this births the ability to plan and execute those plans, or to abandon them even before they start. It gives the power to choose between such plans.

But again these are things the hard determinist believes do not exist and do not make sense.

To see how that turns out, though, Voltaire wrote a novel about it titled Candide...

 

[Marvin Edwards]

The point is that objectivity is established by multiple observations, especially by unbiased observers, and by controlled experiments.
Scientific instruments extend our senses through telescopes and microscopes, and x-rays, and magnetic imaging, etc., making the invisible measurable. But it is still ultimately us, interpreting what we see.

Multiple observations by unbiased observers aren't nearly enough to establish control of elements in experiment. The aspects of the object being specified for test must be be materially established. By material establishment the object must be described in more fundamental reductionist terms already established as part of the body of science such as mass, extent, dimension, temperature, velocity, elemental configuration etc. Its what I've been calling materiality.

That you are providing a well defined acoustics signals to the ear isn't enough to raise the results of observations to psychometrics. The specifications must at a minimum also include randomization of conditions, temporal and procedural order of experimental process bringing the signals to the ears and responses from the fingers of the observers. As well as accounting for time and extent of test sessions along with controls for specific verified repeatable operations. then there is the review and commentary prior to publication then there is editorial acceptance and publication to specific communities.

Each sense tells us something different. Is this "really" an apple? It looks like an apple, but when I pick it up it is much lighter, and if I thump it with my knuckle it feels hard, but it sounds hollow. Hmm. It is an artificial apple, put in this bowl of artificial fruit for decoration.

Since each sense uses differing aspects associated with reality their relationships to one another need be refined to specific material dimensional and material concomitants. Even then experiments need be conducted verifying the onto nature of such relationships.

Right. We presume the "existence" of a wall when we bump into it. Bumping into the wall is a "measure" of its solidity, its hardness, and its realness.

Our abilities to verify it's attributes are still indirect and do not qualify as evidence realness by kind.

You have miles and miles go before you begin to understand materiality and experiment. And you certainly don't understand what is meant by scientific experiment. What you talk to is causal study or investigation. Nothing material nor scientific can be properly reported from such.

I think you'll find https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/operationalism/ and Wiki's article addressing Percy Bridgman's  Operationalism enlightening. I'm a an Acoustical psychophysicist by early doctoral training and practice who was confused by SS Stevens and BF Skinner's interpretations.

So I went to the source which is much more adequate and useful. And as he concludes "The scientific method, as far as it is a method, is nothing more than doing one’s damnedest with one’s mind, no holds barred.” My added thought is "The mind always suspect need be as far removed from evidence as methodologically possible." ... and by all accounts he plotted a pretty good path because establishment of materiality is proof positive that mind is a contaminant.

I like to believe that I can operationally define any word I use. But I didn't get into this via Bridgman, but rather through Pragmatism, and William James's "cash value" of words. I also have a modest systems analysis background from a time when manual systems were being documented to assure that introducing computer data processing into the manual system would continue to perform all of the necessary business functions. (My interest in systems analysis was spurred by the original movie, "Cheaper By the Dozen", the story of Frank Gilbreth and his family).

You may have noticed that I refer to the ordinary notion of free will as the "operational free will", the one we use in the operation of assessing responsibility. And I describe "choosing" as an operation that inputs two or more options, applies some criteria of comparative evaluation, and, based on that evaluation outputs a single choice, usually in the form of an "I will X" where X is the thing we have set our intent upon doing.

Approaching practical matters in terms of operations and functions helps provide a practical and meaningful description of how things actually work. And I see meaning lost when philosophers get themselves lost in abstractions that divorce them from reality, such as the claim that "determinism implies that choosing doesn't happen", when there it is happening right in front of us in the restaurant. To me, that abstraction would be a demonstration of "mind as a contaminant", and it results in "hard determinism".

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Golly, what a comundrum.

Am I predetermined to have Cheerios for breakfast whEn I have Cheerios? If I want to test determinism andI choose nto eat anything, but maybe that is predermined.

Wow, what a headache. It could drive a man to drink, but maybe hat is predetermined.

When it comes to hard determinism, I do not see how that can be tested. If we rewound the sunrise to just after the event known as 'the big bang' , would thing happen exactly the same?

Yes. If we started over with exactly the SAME Big Bang, then everything that happens thereafter would happen again, exactly as it did before. The question is, why should this bother us? For example, if we bowled a strike, and the next time we bowled we released and rolled the ball in exactly the same way, then we would bowl another strike. So, is reliable cause and effect a good thing or a bad thing?

 

[ramoss]

Golly, what a comundrum.

Am I predetermined to have Cheerios for breakfast whEn I have Cheerios? If I want to test determinism andI choose nto eat anything, but maybe that is predermined.

Wow, what a headache. It could drive a man to drink, but maybe hat is predetermined.

When it comes to hard determinism, I do not see how that can be tested. If we rewound the sunrise to just after the event known as 'the big bang' , would thing happen exactly the same?

Yes. If we started over with exactly the SAME Big Bang, then everything that happens thereafter would happen again, exactly as it did before. The question is, why should this bother us? For example, if we bowled a strike, and the next time we bowled we released and rolled the ball in exactly the same way, then we would bowl another strike. So, is reliable cause and effect a good thing or a bad thing?

What it means is that if it is 'you' that makes a choice, you do not have any choice in what choice you choose. No matter what, that choice was predetermined... and therefore no choice at all. The choice is an illusion

 

[Jarhyn]

Golly, what a comundrum.

Am I predetermined to have Cheerios for breakfast whEn I have Cheerios? If I want to test determinism andI choose nto eat anything, but maybe that is predermined.

Wow, what a headache. It could drive a man to drink, but maybe hat is predetermined.

When it comes to hard determinism, I do not see how that can be tested. If we rewound the sunrise to just after the event known as 'the big bang' , would thing happen exactly the same?

Yes. If we started over with exactly the SAME Big Bang, then everything that happens thereafter would happen again, exactly as it did before. The question is, why should this bother us? For example, if we bowled a strike, and the next time we bowled we released and rolled the ball in exactly the same way, then we would bowl another strike. So, is reliable cause and effect a good thing or a bad thing?

What it means is that if it is 'you' that makes a choice, you do not have any choice in what choice you choose. No matter what, that choice was predetermined... and therefore no choice at all. The choice is an illusion

Except it isn't, because that isn't the meaning of "choice" in any reasonable math.

There are a few good discussions in the thread on "choice function" and what that means. Search up ListA.

 

[ramoss]

Golly, what a comundrum.

Am I predetermined to have Cheerios for breakfast whEn I have Cheerios? If I want to test determinism andI choose nto eat anything, but maybe that is predermined.

Wow, what a headache. It could drive a man to drink, but maybe hat is predetermined.

When it comes to hard determinism, I do not see how that can be tested. If we rewound the sunrise to just after the event known as 'the big bang' , would thing happen exactly the same?

Yes. If we started over with exactly the SAME Big Bang, then everything that happens thereafter would happen again, exactly as it did before. The question is, why should this bother us? For example, if we bowled a strike, and the next time we bowled we released and rolled the ball in exactly the same way, then we would bowl another strike. So, is reliable cause and effect a good thing or a bad thing?

What it means is that if it is 'you' that makes a choice, you do not have any choice in what choice you choose. No matter what, that choice was predetermined... and therefore no choice at all. The choice is an illusion

Except it isn't, because that isn't the meaning of "choice" in any reasonable math.

There are a few good discussions in the thread on "choice function" and what that means. Search up ListA.

Math is math. The concept of 'Free Will and 'Deterioration' . Python 'list a' still generates non-random numbers if you start with the same seed. Just because the programmer doesn't know what the seed will be doesn't mean that the list of numbers is random once you have the initial input. Once there is the seed, there is no choice. What can't be shown is that even if the programmer does not know the seed , that the seed was not predetermined by the past events. It doesn't mean it is, either.