Argument #2: From the Nature of Rationality

[Sophus]

@ Davin
 :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:

[Ihateusernames]

While I will let Jac respond to your post's specific points if he so wishes,  I do want to point out the rather large hypocrisy laced in your post:  arrogantly calling someone arrogant.

First, I just found this one interesting.

"Instead of just making statements, I make statements that make sense while showing my evidence."

-->  

"That's it? Well then here's my equally robust rebuttal: No, you're wrong."

Next, on to the main point:

"Nice, taking part of my sentence out of context, beautiful work, it almost brings a tear to my eye to see how many dishonest tactics you use to "prove" your argument."

While sarcasm in and of itself isn't exactly rude, or arrogant.. I'd say this sentence could quite easily be classified as both.

"Good job, baby steps, take your time as needed, we just need to get to removing your desire to inject subjective crap into something intended to to be objective."

Hmm, rude... arrogant...? Yep yet again I'd say this sentence could quite easily be classified as both.

"You do like to go on and on without saying very much."

What again?... rude... arrogant...? Yep yet again, again, I'd say this sentence could quite easily be classified as both.

"Truly, you must be a great hero championing the crest of arrogance on top the steed of assumption, wielding the sword fallacy, and protected by the armor of ignorance."

And, yes, I am sure you were patting yourself on the back when you were penning (err... typing) this final metaphor, however I  do hope that you are able to see how ridiculously hypocritical it inherently is to arrogantly call someone arrogant.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it pleases you, I want to end with a final question:

"Now if you'd just have an honest conversation, that would be great, however I don't think that you have the ability to have an honest discussion as evidenced by several pages of text showing your use of disingenuous (at best) tactics."

Why, if you are so convinced that Jac is dishonest, do you continue to discuss with him?  And furthermore

"Now you're arrogant enough to say that it's everybody's obligation and duty to be rational as if it's some kind of universal obligation that every one must fulfill? Sorry, but little babies that die after only a few months have no obligation to be rational, people with mental development disorders have no obligation to be rational, a man falling down a cliff to his death has no obligation to be rational, a person in the middle of the desert all alone has no obligation to be rational... etc. Obviously being rational isn't a universal obligation if there are several times and several people who do not fulfill that obligation without any bad effects on them or any one/thing else. In short, there is no universal requirement for anyone to be rational."

Why, according to this, do you even expect Jac's points to be rational(IE: not containing logical flaws)?  He has no obligation to be rational.  So aren't your points rebutting his irrationality somewhat... pointless?

-Ihateusernames

[pinkocommie]

Jeeze, is everyone trying to be a mod now or what?

[Tank]

Jeeze, is everyone trying to be a mod now or what?

That comment was out of line  

[pinkocommie]

Jeeze, is everyone trying to be a mod now or what?

That comment was out of line  

[Ihateusernames]

Jeeze, is everyone trying to be a mod now or what?

Meh,  I wasn't trying to be a mod at all.  In fact, had his post not been ended with the hypocritically arrogant sentiment that being arrogant is 'bad'.. I wouldn't have said anything.  I really couldn't care less if he is rude, or arrogant, or anything of the sort--It's his choice, however when he attempts to condemn what he is spewing himself, it then becomes enjoyable to point out the hypocrisy.  That was the point of my previous post.

-Ihateusernames

[Davin]

While I will let Jac respond to your post's specific points if he so wishes,  I do want to point out the rather large hypocrisy laced in your post:  arrogantly calling someone arrogant.

First, I just found this one interesting.

"Instead of just making statements, I make statements that make sense while showing my evidence."

-->  

"That's it? Well then here's my equally robust rebuttal: No, you're wrong."

Maybe you didn't notice my two paragraphs to which he responded with a simple statement without refutation or explanation. Taking the time to try and explain my point of view only to get a short response that is equivalent to "I'm right and you're wrong" is a bit in bad form on Jac3510's part, so I made a joke that had two intentions: to point out that Jac3510 hadn't actually responded to what I said and that Jac3510 was obscenely brief in the response. If you had read the other threads and all of this one, then you you'd have seen several attempts to address this problem of Jac3510 not responding to what I say and responding to something else while looking as if Jac3510's responding to me or just merely asserting that I'm wrong and he/she's right. Now I don't know about you, but I usually start off with a friendly suggestion (as I did long ago), then if that doesn't work I try out lots of different methods instead of sticking with something that doesn't work. This is one of those different attempts, if you have another suggestion that I had not tried over the entire time I've been responding to Jac3510, I'm all ears (or eyes if you're going to be pedantic).

Next, on to the main point:

"Nice, taking part of my sentence out of context, beautiful work, it almost brings a tear to my eye to see how many dishonest tactics you use to "prove" your argument."

While sarcasm in and of itself isn't exactly rude, or arrogant.. I'd say this sentence could quite easily be classified as both.

Maybe it appears rude, I thought it was funny, I really have no idea how it could be rude. No matter how rude it seems to be to you, I think you can't get any more rude than taking someone out of context. Also I provided my evidence to this claim of constant disingenuous argument tactics at the end of the post.

"Good job, baby steps, take your time as needed, we just need to get to removing your desire to inject subjective crap into something intended to to be objective."

Hmm, rude... arrogant...? Yep yet again I'd say this sentence could quite easily be classified as both.

Yes, intentionally so. I responded with equal arrogance to amount of arrogance I found in his response.

"You do like to go on and on without saying very much."

What again?... rude... arrogant...? Yep yet again, again, I'd say this sentence could quite easily be classified as both.

Not as rude as someone who tells you that you're wrong without actually saying why or only providing baseless assertions. Not saying this absolves me of any wrong doing, I just thought it would be time to act as Jac3510 was acting, because I had tried several other methods.

"Truly, you must be a great hero championing the crest of arrogance on top the steed of assumption, wielding the sword fallacy, and protected by the armor of ignorance."

And, yes, I am sure you were patting yourself on the back when you were penning (err... typing) this final metaphor, however I  do hope that you are able to see how ridiculously hypocritical it inherently is to arrogantly call someone arrogant.

Patting myself on the back? Never, I don't even have any emotions toward any of this, however I thought it was an elegant summary to Jac3510's method of argument: Act like you're smarter than your opponent, charge in full speed with assumptions, swing around fallacies like you know what you're doing and protect yourself by being ignorant of anything that disproves your ideals.

As for arrogance, it seems to me that you have quite the paradox. How does one call another arrogant without becoming arrogant themselves? Maybe you have a problem with the vernacular, I don't. The meaning is the same and I could fit a lot more meaning into a short sentence with this kind of poetic symbolism than going over and explaining my position once again.

Another point is that I never said that arrogance was bad, if I had then I could see your point of hypocrisy. I did mention that when I have no right to tell other people what their obligations are, I will not be so arrogant to think that I do. Arrogance can be very useful, if you're correct about what you're being arrogant about, just never be so arrogant about anything to think that you're absolutely right and not let any one correct you. There is very little that I will be arrogant about, but pointing out fallacies is one of them and I see no problem with that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it pleases you, I want to end with a final question:

"Now if you'd just have an honest conversation, that would be great, however I don't think that you have the ability to have an honest discussion as evidenced by several pages of text showing your use of disingenuous (at best) tactics."

Why, if you are so convinced that Jac is dishonest, do you continue to discuss with him?

Because if someone is saying something that doesn't make sense, I usually point it out, and if it's not very obvious then I will more likely point it out. Do I think he's intentionally dishonest? Not really, I don't have enough for me to assume either way; these tactics are used by those who are dishonest as well as those with good intentions but bad reasoning. The point of it isn't for the direct benefit of the my opponent or me, it's for the people looking on. They can see both people expressing themselves and they get to decide what if anything they will accept or at least listen enough to go and research it. Because you asked a question that has a similar answer, I'll respond more for the next question.

And furthermore

"Now you're arrogant enough to say that it's everybody's obligation and duty to be rational as if it's some kind of universal obligation that every one must fulfill? Sorry, but little babies that die after only a few months have no obligation to be rational, people with mental development disorders have no obligation to be rational, a man falling down a cliff to his death has no obligation to be rational, a person in the middle of the desert all alone has no obligation to be rational... etc. Obviously being rational isn't a universal obligation if there are several times and several people who do not fulfill that obligation without any bad effects on them or any one/thing else. In short, there is no universal requirement for anyone to be rational."

Why, according to this, do you even expect Jac's points to be rational(IE: not containing logical flaws)?  He has no obligation to be rational.  So aren't your points rebutting his irrationality somewhat... pointless?

-Ihateusernames

I have no obligation to be rational either, yet I strive to make sure my arguments are rational. I don't expect him to be rational, however it is very often that Jac3510 makes perfectly rational responses so I know that he is capable of it. Pointing to the flaws in someones argument is rarely pointless, the person with the flaws should enjoy as I do correcting those flaws, and those that are looking on can see the problems that need to be fixed with the argument. I do not intend to just sit by while people say things that don't make sense either intentionally or not. If you're familiar with the Asch Conformity experiments, then you will know why I don't just let things that don't make any sense go around unquestioned. Also you can look at my signature.

Jeeze, is everyone trying to be a mod now or what?

Meh,  I wasn't trying to be a mod at all.  In fact, had his post not been ended with the hypocritically arrogant sentiment that being arrogant is 'bad'.. I wouldn't have said anything.  I really couldn't care less if he is rude, or arrogant, or anything of the sort--It's his choice, however when he attempts to condemn what he is spewing himself, it then becomes enjoyable to point out the hypocrisy.  That was the point of my previous post.

-Ihateusernames

There was no hypocrisy, I never said that arrogance was bad.

My last sentence meant that the combination of all four of those things was bad. To point to arrogance and only arrogance as a point of hypocrisy very much like taking me out of context, I see nothing more rude than taking another person out of context.

[Jac3510]

My understanding is that atomic decay of an atom is Random. That's random with a capital R. We can tell atomic decay is outside the realm of cause and effect -- and thus truly random -- by observing that there is no "extra" energy present in the debris of an atom that has decayed. Extra energy that would have to be present if anything "nudged" -- or caused -- the atom to decay.

With such Random events happening all the time, I have to think determinism is dead.

I think the universe is stochastic. It is mechanical in its operation, but can accomodate random input such as atomic decay.

That means the universe operates according to strict physical law, but at the same time is not deterministic, and thus the future is not written in stone.

That just means that there are no local variables (as far as we can tell right now) that can effect the decay. Non-local effect could be perfectly possible.

At best, you can say that we have no knowledge of what may be causing these events. To say that such events are genuinely both uncaused and temporal is, however, a contradiction in terms.

Beyond that, two more points are worth noting. First, as much as we know about QM, there’s still infinitely more we don’t know, and so as it has often been said, if you think you understand it, you don’t. As such, it is rather silly to say that QM has anything to say to any sort of philosophical argument, because we simply don’t know enough to draw any conclusions. In particular, you just don’t know enough to say that QM renders determinacy questionable, much less dead, since there are deterministic interpretations of QM (and, I’m sure, there will be others as the science develops). Second, none of this has any bearing on my basic argument anyway, because even if QM is genuinely random in a non-deterministic way, all behaviors still occur within highly predictable fields of probability. Perhaps this is a weaker determinism, but it doesn’t hurt my main argument one iota, since your thoughts are still being determined by mere physicsâ€"even if they are merely probabilistic to a small degree. There is still nothing inside of you that steps “outside” of those laws and decides what happens. By your own admission, if there is nothing causing those particular decay rates (or any other such non-determined quantum effect), then not even you are causing them, which means that your thoughts are still just as determined as they are under classical deterministic thinking.

[Jac3510]

Nice, taking part of my sentence out of context, beautiful work, it almost brings a tear to my eye to see how many dishonest tactics you use to "prove" your argument. That cut portion of my sentence may be a prescription "any way you cut it," however for this to have been an honest point, you would have not cut it and kept it in context. Secondly, it's not a prescription, it's a description. Prescriptions prescribe things, my sentence prescribes nothing, just describes that one cannot be rational while using fallacies. I noticed that you italicized the "if" at the start of the sentence, because that is very important to the entire context of the sentence.

You're ignoring my point, Davin. You can assert that your statement wasn't a prescription, as you did in the original paragraph. Such an assertion does not make it so. If a doctor says to me, "If you want to feel better, take this pill," that is a prescription, even though it has precisely the same form as your description. This is a necessary conclusion of the word "wants" in your own sentence. Remember the definition of a prescription -- we start with a desired reality and give steps on how to get there. Your assertion that your statement is a description is simply wrong. You've offered a prescription, which is necessary, because, as we have seen time and again, the laws of logic, unlike the laws of nature, are prescriptive.

Math was not invented by humans. It was discovered by humans. Same with logic.

That's it? Well then here's my equally robust rebuttal: No, you're wrong.

Then you obviously don't understand math. If your entire argument against my position rests on the kind of thinking that has math being invented by humans rather than being discovered by it, then I can't really help you, and I suspect the readers here are more than capable of either seeing the error in your thinking or simply siding with you on it.

Still, just stating things over and over again doesn't make your logic follow: logic is not prescriptive, prescription is subjective, logic is not. You can use logic for prescription, however that doesn't mean that that is what logic is.

You are simply mistaken here.

When we tell someone they are being irrational, we are telling them that they are thinking in such a way that violates logic (material or formal). Consider the following dialogues:

Jac: I know God is real because the Bible says so and the Bible is never wrong because it is God's Word!
Davin: That is irrational. You are begging the question.

Response 1-
Jac: I couldn't care less about being rational!
Davin: Then there's no point in saying you know God is real because of anything -- because entails a rational argument. You mas well just say "I know God is real."

Response 2-
Jac: Well I wouldn't want to be rational. How am I begging the question?
Davin: Because the existence of God is implied in your premise that the Bible is God's Word. You are assuming what you set out to prove. That's invalid. You need to restructure your argument to make a rational case.

Now, in both of these cases, you are issuing a prescription. In the first, if I don't care about being rational, then you prescribe giving up on argument, because (ironically, perhaps) logically speaking, if you don't care about rationality, you don't care about argumentation. In the second, since I want to be rational, there is a certain way I ought to think (or in this case, ought not to think).

It is simply impossible to avoid the conclusion that logic is prescriptive. If it described the way we necessarily think, it would be purely descriptive. It does not. It describes the way we ought to think if we are going to get call ourselves "rational."

You consistently confuse conclusions with assumptions.

You constantly confuse assumptions with conclusions.

And more than just making a bold statement and pretending like I proved my point, I'll explain: you stated that there can be no naturalistic explanation for rational thought, yet you don't know how people think (no one on this planet knows enough about how humans make decisions), you're asserting some thing without evidence... that is a baseless assertion. See how it works? Instead of just making statements, I make statements that make sense while showing my evidence.

Wrong. Just because we don't know the mechanics of something doesn't mean we don't know the nature of what the mechanics will be. I don't know how a transmission works, but I can guarantee you that little green elves have nothing to do with it. I know that it has something to do with the transference of energy using various sized gears and classical mechanics.

In the case of human thought, part of the problem is that we don't even know what it is. But never fear, if materialism is true, we know what it is not, namely, something supernatural. Therefore, whatever thought is, it is subject to physical laws. Now, we know that every physical effect has a physical cause, especially on the macro scale (and we can argue about QM). It, then, is a rather simple deduction:

1. Every effect has a physical cause
2. My thoughts are effects
3. Therefore, my thoughts have physical causes.

I know (1) is true given materialism, because materialism, by its very definition, allows for nothing non-physical. Thus, all effects must be caused by something that is physical, which includes my thoughts: (2) and (3).

Now, this is precisely what I have been arguing the entire time. You keep saying I am making assumptions. I keep showing why you are confusing assumptions for confusions.

So wait, what is this logic prescribing? After all it "is a perfectly valid logical argument" and you said that "logic is prescriptive," then how could this be "a perfectly valid logical argument" if it's not prescribing anything?

Because there is a difference in formal and material logic, as I go on to distinguish between (in non-technical terms) in my next section. You really should keep statements with their supporting arguments rather than separating them. I realize the separation makes it easier for you to advance your general theme that I am making bare assertions without evidence, but it is, to steal one from your playbook, a "dishonest" tactic, at best.

You do like to go on and on without saying very much. You can argue that people "ought" to be rational because of duty and obligation, however there is no reason why everyone must be rational, it's just your assertion.

Then I would suggest, again, that you keep statements in their contexts. Feel free to go back and look at the section of mine you broke apart in little pieces. The entire last section is explaining how it is that you mistake assumptions with conclusions. Far from my assertion, that people ought to be rational is my conclusion. You can ignore the arguments in favor if you like, but that doesn't make them go away. You can obfuscate them by separating supporting statements from assertions and either ignoring or treating supporting statements in a separate context, but that doesn't mean I haven't thoroughly argued my position. It's just a matter of whether or not you are actually going to try to engage in my position itself, or whether you are more interested in rhetorical tactics.

You came to the table with very odd definitions of things like rationality, materialism, naturalism, logic... etc. that all depend on your view of the world, however make the words almost completely useless to use out of the context of this argument. Your definition of rational thinking is very different than the normal, common and even pedantic definitions of rational thinking, then act like your peculiar definition some how solidifies your position. It doesn't. Now you're arrogant enough to say that it's everybody's obligation and duty to be rational as if it's some kind of universal obligation that every one must fulfill? Sorry, but little babies that die after only a few months have no obligation to be rational, people with mental development disorders have no obligation to be rational, a man falling down a cliff to his death has no obligation to be rational, a person in the middle of the desert all alone has no obligation to be rational... etc. Obviously being rational isn't a universal obligation if there are several times and several people who do not fulfill that obligation without any bad effects on them or any one/thing else. In short, there is no universal requirement for anyone to be rational.

Wrong. I come to the table with textbook definitions of these things and argue from there. If you look at the title of this thread, I'm not making an argument from the definition of rationality. I am arguing from the nature of rationality. My definition is absolutely universal. I've argued that it's nature necessarily requires it to be prescriptive, as it is essentially related to logic, which is prescriptive by nature.

Now, if you had days ago answered my simple question about why gravity isn't prescriptive, we could have avoided all of these stupid rhetorical games. We can do this as long as you like. As I said in my introductory post, I have no particular reason for being here other than for the sake of discussion and, where possible, clarity. One discussion is as good as the next. It would seem to me, however, that it would be in everyone's benefit if we could stop the games and get to the heart of what I am actually arguing and where we actually do disagree. Clarifying terms helps. You can call such requests for clarification boring games if you like, but I unfortunately fail to see how six pages (which was the length of your last post pasted into MS Word) of misunderstanding my basic point is in any way less boring. If you are as good at this as you seem to think, don't you think the board would benefit by responding to what I am actually arguing?

On to section two of your post -- the world being deterministic . . .

Now let's tackle your silly point about if the world were deterministic (I'm not saying that it is, this is just a thought experiment), that people aren't really making choices: When water boils, do we just say, "that's just the laws of physics?" When water freezes do we just say, "that's just the laws of physics?" When we describe how the sun works do we just say, "that's just the laws of physics, it doesn't mean anything?" No, some of us explain the processes of how those things happen. In the same way, even in a deterministic world, we'd describe thoughts and choices. In fact, if it turns out that the universe is pre-determined, then we'd all act exactly the same as we're determined to act. Maybe we'd refine the definitions, but to say that "it doesn't mean anything therefore stop defining things" just doesn't make any sense. We'd still define thoughts and decisions just as humans define everything. Why do you want to drop the definitions of things if the universe turns out not to be the way you want it to be? Also, why are all your odd definitions of things wrapped around your world view?

It is absurd to say that we have a choice if we are predetermined to act in a certain way. If the universe is deterministic, you've never chosen anything in your life, including what to think. It would be absurd to say a rock chose to fall. It would be just as absurd to say you chose to become a member of this board. We may use the word "chose" in some boringly conventional way, but there would be no real notion of choice in it whatsoever. Under determinism, absolutely everything--including everything about yourself--is beyond your control. And in that case, the entire notion of your "self" becomes questionable. A self is an agent. An agent is something that chooses. If there is no choice there is no agent, and if there is no agent, there is no self. In a very real sense, in a deterministic universe, you don't exist. Your thoughts and consciousness are merely illusory. There is no "you" doing anything. "You" are just a collection of atoms responding to one another in this or that mechanistic way.

Now if you'd just have an honest conversation, that would be great, however I don't think that you have the ability to have an honest discussion as evidenced by several pages of text showing your use of disingenuous (at best) tactics. I know that you allow yourself to just make bold accusations without providing the evidence and reasoning for it, while you question everyone else as if they can be held to a different standard than you hold yourself to, so here's a short list:

Do you think that personal attacks make your case any stronger? I hardly think questioning someone's "ability t have an honest discussion" qualifies itself as an honest discussion.

Straw Man: in your first post, "The worldview on which most versions of atheism are built is called philosophical naturalism, materialism, or physicalism." Already covered that this statement is not just unfounded, but an attempt to put "most" atheists into one box. Then you went on to express a very bad understanding of materialism and determinism.

Which has already been thoroughly addressed. It's not very honest of you refer to this as if it hadn't been responded to.

False Dichotomy and Argument from Ignorance: "If rational thought is possible, materialism is false" You have yet to construct a link to how this statement is true or even at least valid. Of course that may depend on your ever changing definition of rational thought covered next. However just because you can't think of other options, doesn't mean that other options don't exist.

I've constructed that link, both formally and informally, several times. Your bare assertion to the contrary is merely that: a bare assertion.

Moving the Goal Post:
First Post: "so let’s define rational thought if it isn’t obvious to everyone. Rational thought is thought which is characterized by reason, and reason, of course, is the intellectual faculty by which knowledge is gained."

Later Definition: "However, that which makes a thought "rational" is a thought that stands in accordance with what we ought  to think given the constraints of logic, which is to say, it is what we ought to think following the normal intellectual process we call reason."

--Then later:

Davin: "So, by your definition; in order to be rational, one must be able to act irrationally?"

Jac3510: "Yes, of course."

So rationality went from one definition to another, then yet another addendum as the discussion went on.

The second isn't a definition. That should be clear from "that which makes a thought . . ." Rational thought is, by definition, thought which is characterized by reason; and since reason is the faculty by which knowledge is gained, and since knowledge is concerned with the justification of statements, then reason is concerned with what we ought to think given the constraints of logic. Since ought implies choice, then where there is the ability to act rationality there is by definition the ability to act irrationally. So I have never once changed my argument. I have been perfectly consistent throughout.

This is the problem with your cut-and-paste approach to debate. You've never stopped and integrated my position into a whole. I'm arguing exactly the same thing now as I have argued the entire time. Later discussion is an expansion on previous discussion. It is hardly appropriate to use those later expansions as evidence that I have fundamentally changed the argument.

Moving the Goal Post 2:

Jac3510: If there is no randomizing component [...], then you can predict exactly what the computer will do in response to your move--not because it is the rational thing to do, but because it is forced to make a particular move with reference to your particular position and its predefined value system.

So a computer isn't being rational because: you can predict what it will do and it has a predefined value system, got it.
A computer isn't being rational because it's moves are externally determined--that is, determined by its programming. It makes no will to make choices.

Davin: This is only true for some programs, Deep Blue for instance made choices that no one could predict. The program was programmed to adjust the values it was giving based on learning gained from playing against humans.

See? Not all programs operate that way so this must be wrong and computers are making rational choices right? The program was learning and making decisions based on what was learned.  This matches your first definition of rational thought right?
No, because DB's moves were not unpredictable. Just because no one could predict them doesn't mean the moves could not be predicted without enough information. Why? Because the moves were all determined by the programming and data, which is exactly what I argued before.

Jac3510: Wrong. Deep Blue learned from its matches, and thus, given each game, it had a new dataset from which to work. The moves are always determined based on the dataset.

Oh wrong?, even though I refuted exactly what you said are the problems with a computer making rational decisions? Oh you're adding onto that, that because all decisions are based on a dataset then the computer can't be rational.

Davin: Wrong. Not just a dataset. Any way, how is this different than people basing their decisions on what they've learned?

If computers aren't being rational for making decisions based on what they know, then people making decisions on what they know are equally irrational.
Computers don't make decisions. They act out instructions. They have no will, which is what I have always argued.

Jac3510: Yes, just a dataset. It doesn't matter the source of that data. It could have been built in or learned.That dataset, of course, is acted upon by a library of functions, but the dataset is the determinative factor always. And it is different from what people learn exactly as I described above. We have the ability to choose. Computers don't.

Just a dataset really? Oh wait, not just a dataset because then you said "That dataset, of course, is acted upon by a library of functions" which means it's not just a dataset despite in your same paragraph you said it was. Nice job refuting yourself. But anyway, where has this goal post moved to now? Oh some vague and silly statement that humans can choose and computers can't. This is ridiculous because if computers couldn't make decisions, they wouldn't work. Any way the goal post keeps on moving for a few more posts after this. Later you said that humans can learn through being corrected, so I mentioned that programs do that as well to which you moved the goal post to that a person can be "wrong" while the program can't, to which I asked what the difference was... to which you dropped it. Notice that every time I showed that your statement was incorrect, that you added something on? I did.
And all of that has been thoroughly discussed. Computers don't choose. They execute instructions. You can run the program a million times, and if all the data is precisely the same, it will always make exactly the same moves that million times. That has been my argument from the first post, and it is my argument now. No movement. You can disagree with it, but you can't say that it has changed.

Wrong again. I left this in tact so that it would be easy to see where you misunderstood the basic argument. They are in red above.

Bare Assertions: "I have not read Conway or Kochen. There is nothing in QM, however, that relieves the materialist from the necessity of determinism." This a bare assertion as well as contrary to evidence. Not only does QM relieve "the materialist from the necessity of determinism" but it describes how it frees one from the necessity of determinism. It's a bad idea to ignore evidence, just because it conflicts with your beliefs.

And this is patently ridiculous. There are interpretations of QM that are both deterministic and non-deterministic. Just because Conway or Kochen says QM is non-deterministic doesn't make it so (assuming they even make such an argument).

I have read, for instance, Steven Hawking, who does think the universe is deterministic. Has he not read Conway or Kochen? I don't know. Could he be wrong and Conway be right? Of course. Simply saying, "There are scientists who think QM makes the world non-deterministic" is merely an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. If you want to present any evidence from them, then feel free. Until then, there is nothing for me to ignore, and saying I'm ignoring your position is simply an attempt your part to color the debate.

Taking things out of context: Already one covered in this post.

And shown how it wasn't out of context.

And many more that I haven't covered in this post, including the hilarious hi-jinks of avoiding the points I'm making to instead respond to things I've never even said.

And a mere assertion and a veiled personal attack at that. If there are "many more" of such high fallacies, then the implications are obvious concerning my capacities in argument. Of course, you don't bother presenting those "many more," which says much more about your own argument. You are only one step from sarcasm, which is the last refuge of those with no real argument.

I happen to think in all of this that if you would put your efforts into discussing the actual argument I have been making, we could have quite the productive discussion. You are a very bright individual, and I daresay that if there is a flaw in my argument, someone like yourself could readily point it out. As it stands, you have focused yourself far more on tactics and obfuscation, specifically in separating primary statements from their supporting details, and in the process labeling conclusions as assumptions. Were you to actually address, for instance, my argument for the link between rationality and choice (rationality->reason->knowledge->justification->prescription) we could get somewhere. As it is, you simply deny the connection, ignore the argument, and label the whole thing an assumption. That's all rather shabby on your part.

Truly, you must be a great hero championing the crest of arrogance on top the steed of assumption, wielding the sword fallacy, and protected by the armor of ignorance.

Well, there is the sarcasm I warned about . . .

Davin, you spend too much time talking about me and not enough time talking about my argument. Can we please keep this civil and avoid making claims about the other person's intellectual capacities, motives, personality, etc.? Beyond the fact that personal attacks are completely disrespectful, they don't do anything to contribute toward a productive discussion. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[dloubet]

That just means that there are no local variables (as far as we can tell right now) that can effect the decay. Non-local effect could be perfectly possible.

No. You are suggesting that a non-local effect nudges the atom causing it to decay, and then carefully removes any trace of the nudge from the resulting debris.

Atomic particles do not engage in such conspiracy.

At best, you can say that we have no knowledge of what may be causing these events. To say that such events are genuinely both uncaused and temporal is, however, a contradiction in terms.

Again, no. From the statistical evidence, indeed the very nature of a half-life, we can justifiably conclude that the decay is random. Any non-random process would show up as statistically skewed.

And temporal and uncaused are not contradictory.

By your own admission, if there is nothing causing those particular decay rates (or any other such non-determined quantum effect), then not even you are causing them, which means that your thoughts are still just as determined as they are under classical deterministic thinking.

Again, no. My thoughts are certainly mechanically produced by the clockwork operation of my electrochemical brain, but my future thoughts are not determined. This is because of a constant influx of random input from the surrounding universe. For example, one event of atomic decay in just the wrong place at just the wrong time could have given Abraham Lincoln cancer and killed him as a boy. I think my thoughts in that hypothetical universe would be very different from my thoughts in this one, if I even existed at all. Small random events can have large consequences and steer circumstance in unexpected directions.

I am a meat robot, as are you, processing the information I get from a universe under heavy bombardment from random events.

Enjoy it for the short time you have.

[Jac3510]

And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with you (Bohm and Hawking are two that immediately come to mind).

Maybe you have a PhD in QM. Maybe you don't. I don't. What I know is that there are those who specialize in this field who disagree with you. Does that make you wrong? Of course not. But it certainly isn't as cut and dry as you make it out to be. Is your conclusion possible? I don't think so, by the definition of possible. I think it is only a matter of time before we understand QM well enough that we can point to the cause of such decays.

In any case, this is far afield from my argument as a whole, because the determinism need not be absolute to make my basic point in the OP sound. If your thoughts are determined by the laws of physics, then rational thought is impossible. Rational thought is only possible if there is a part of you that can make a fundamental choice.If you are simply doing as nature demands, then there is no such thing as rationality. Your thoughts are on precisely the same level as a falling rock. The physics may be more complicated, but in the end, it is just physics. So just like a rock's fall isn't rational, neither are your thoughts. They are, at best, completely arational.

In short, rationality is strictly and totally the property of those who are willing to admit the supernatural.

[humblesmurph]

And there are plenty of scientists who disagree with you (Bohm and Hawking are two that immediately come to mind).

Maybe you have a PhD in QM. Maybe you don't. I don't. What I know is that there are those who specialize in this field who disagree with you. Does that make you wrong? Of course not. But it certainly isn't as cut and dry as you make it out to be. Is your conclusion possible? I don't think so, by the definition of possible. I think it is only a matter of time before we understand QM well enough that we can point to the cause of such decays.

In any case, this is far afield from my argument as a whole, because the determinism need not be absolute to make my basic point in the OP sound. If your thoughts are determined by the laws of physics, then rational thought is impossible. Rational thought is only possible if there is a part of you that can make a fundamental choice.If you are simply doing as nature demands, then there is no such thing as rationality. Your thoughts are on precisely the same level as a falling rock. The physics may be more complicated, but in the end, it is just physics. So just like a rock's fall isn't rational, neither are your thoughts. They are, at best, completely arational.

In short, rationality is strictly and totally the property of those who are willing to admit the supernatural.

What's up Chris.  I've been over on that Christian forum.    I thought I'd run into a few more folks like you.  Guess not.  I gotta say, I'm jealous that you get to be so free with your thought over here.  Back on point.

You gotta admit this is kind of weak.  Davin's points about computers and hack's points about stochasticity and emergence cast doubt on your line of thinking.  However, for the sake of argument, let's say you are correct.  Now what?  How do you determine the nature of this theoretical supernatural element?  Why do we have brains?  Why does it appear that the brain is causing this supernatural element when it clearly can't be?

[Sophus]

I distrust anyone who only harps on the "tone" (you're reading words made up of pixels on a screen; there is no real tone). Unless it's an obvious troll, the issues should be addressed over the person.

[superfes]

Rational thought is only possible if there is a part of you that can make a fundamental choice.If you are simply doing as nature demands, then there is no such thing as rationality. Your thoughts are on precisely the same level as a falling rock. The physics may be more complicated, but in the end, it is just physics.

Finally we agree at least on one aspect, natural events are occurring and causing thoughts.

They are, at best, completely arational.

Except for this part, this is your opinion because your argument is based on God, which in my opinion is irrational. (It's this part of your argument that is flawed that people keep arguing with you about, you keep saying "This and this, therefore this" and then pointing to the supernatural as if that's some sort of answer people can all agree on. Deep down inside you have to believe that if God exists, and if it exists even in a supernatural sense, it can eventually be proven with Science, and if this is the case, you waste your time arguing with people who will eventually believe (That's what evidence is for), however since we believe that there is no such evidence and there will never be such evidence we cannot agree with your premise.)

Just because things are physically happening that define you, me and everybody, does not mean that they are irrational.

After-all, our thoughts are aligned with reason, thus becoming rational.

[Jac3510]

What's up Chris.  I've been over on that Christian forum.    I thought I'd run into a few more folks like you.  Guess not.  I gotta say, I'm jealous that you get to be so free with your thought over here.  Back on point.

There's a reason I'm not there anymore. A few are willing to talk and are openminded, but some of the mods are . . . well, let me stop there. Maybe I'll stumble across a better forum in the future.

You gotta admit this is kind of weak.  Davin's points about computers and hack's points about stochasticity and emergence cast doubt on your line of thinking.  However, for the sake of argument, let's say you are correct.  Now what?  How do you determine the nature of this theoretical supernatural element?  Why do we have brains?  Why does it appear that the brain is causing this supernatural element when it clearly can't be?

I've addressed Davin's point extensively. It comes down to the fact that I think that one must have a will for the word "choice" to have any real meaning. I say computers don't make choices because they are just executing commands as they are determined to do. Humans (apparently) do make choices and in some sense have a (relatively) free will.

If you want to expound on Hack's point about stochasticity and emergence, feel free. I've not read his comments. If someone finds something he says so very compelling, they can make the argument themselves.

As far as your questions:

How do you determine the nature of this theoretical supernatural element?

If it can be known at all, through metaphysical studies. We won't know unless we try. It won't be easy, but then again, understanding the brain itself is hardly easy. That doesn't mean it can't be done.

Why do we have brains?

At the risk of being silly, because if we didn't have them, we couldn't function. The brain is the organ that operates the body.

Why does it appear that the brain is causing this supernatural element when it clearly can't be?

Because it is clear that thought and the brain are definitely connected. It is easy, even if wrong (and I think it is wrong), to conclude then that the supernatural element is attached to the brain. A forgivable error.

Please note that the extent of my argument here is very, very narrow. I'm arguing strictly and totally for the supernatural and against materialism. Once we have concluded that the supernatural exists, we can move on to have other discussions, one of the most obvious being God. Because, strictly speaking, we ought to establish the supernatural exists before we try to establish that God exists! If the supernatural doesn't exist, it is rather difficult to posit God's existence. But if the supernatural does exist, it seems at least as likely that God exists as that He doesn't, and, intuitively I think, most would recognize His existence is more likely (whatever He turns out to be).