Freewill

[Fake Boris]

Resuming Kuci's theory:

"Free will has been thoroughly debated throughout the history of philosophy, but the problematic behind it is actually due to it being badly defined. Having discovered the true signification of the word, I can hence prove that what people for centuries have been meaning to say is that free will is sentience".

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
What problem is associated with free will?

1° immanence vs transcendance (and mind vs body, dualism)
2° moral responsibility (and theories of punishment)
3° ideological positivism
4° intent, belief, etc

[Kuciwalker]

Having discovered the true signification of the word

Try "presented a reasonable definition".

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
1° immanence vs transcendance (and mind vs body, dualism)

Reductionism owns dualism.

2° moral responsibility (and theories of punishment)

BS. Free will has nothing to do with my moral code.

3° ideological positivism

WTF is that?

4° intent, belief, etc

NWIH am I going to pay attention to a filosofer who tells me people don't have intent or beliefs. At that level of I.M. it becomes completely pointless.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Sava

no such thing as consciousness??

The fools that beleive this are the same people that worship reductionism and mock the concept of emergence.

[Kuciwalker]

How is consciousness incompatible with reductionism?

For that matter, I don't think emergence is incompatible with it either...

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
For that matter, I don't think emergence is incompatible with it either...

Wrong, reductionism says processes are just the sum of it's parts, which is totally against the concept of emergence, which says that some things are more than the some of thier parts. Emergence is something that is obvious in Biology. Go read What Makes Biology Unique, Erst Mayr's last book, it has a good chapter on reductionism and emergence, and why reductionism cannot be applied to a lot of things in Biology.

[Kuciwalker]

Wrong, reductionism says processes are just the sum of it's parts, which is totally against the concept of emergence, which says that some things are more than the some of thier parts.

Define sum formally and then get back to me.

[Odin]

Semantics:

[Kuciwalker]

Without formal definitions of something the entire argument is just bull****.

[Az]

Kuciwalker in this thread, generally.

No definition - no point to debate it. period.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Without formal definitions of something the entire argument is just bull****.

Ok, if reductionism was correct, you could understand something by just knowing how the individual parts work and how the individual parts were put together, the problem is that some things only appear when the parts are together, you can't understand such a thing by just looking at it's parts.

[Kuciwalker]

Ok, if reductionism was correct, you could understand something by just knowing how the individual parts work and how the individual parts were put together, the problem is that some things only appear when the parts are together, you can't understand such a thing by just looking at it's parts.

No, you understand the thing by looking at the parts and how they're put together, as you said before. By definition, the thing is its parts, put together. Assuming you actually knew all the laws of physics and had a sufficiently large computer, you could use JUST the constituent parts of something and how they are put together to predict its behavior (or its probable behavior, because of ****ing quantum mechanics making me put these stupid disclaimers in).

[Kuciwalker]

Emergent behavior is simply behavior that is not obvious when you just look at the pieces lying on the ground.

(This being how people use the word, rather than a formal definition.)

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Assuming you actually knew all the laws of physics and had a sufficiently large computer, you could use JUST the constituent parts of something and how they are put together to predict its behavior (or its probable behavior, because of ****ing quantum mechanics making me put these stupid disclaimers in).

Sorry, but Chaos Theory pwns this assertion. Your data will not be without a small amount of error, and even tiny differences in the starting conditions in a system can produce drasically diferent results. Call me when a physicist can tell me what the weather is going to be here on November 12, 2015.