Freedomain Radio

Please watch the free will videos - to ask the question is to answer it.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=E2296B98EE224335 

Stefan Molyneux:

Buddha:

Stefan Molyneux:

Can the traffic light change its mind?

 

Maybe you can respond to my response to 'The traffic light does not select from a number of possibilities' first. It was what you based your evaluation of my sanity on, so it's kinda pivotal.

Absolutely not. I am not going to argue whether or not a traffic light of its own volition chooses its own signals, or "makes choices for us".

You can't rationally talk about a traffic light making its own decisions, and then talking about the man who programs it.

Seriously, please stop posting here. This is a forum for serious and rational philosophy, not nonsense about the conscious capacities of road signs.

I didn't know "a traffic light system selects between the outputs {red, orange, green, blinking orange, off}" was a thought-crime over here.

Goodday sir; I won't be posting anymore on this board. 

TRAFFIC LIGHTS CAN MAKE CHOICES!!!!!... at least these ones can...

So, I watched the videos and I'm going to post some thoughts I took notes but I'm not going to put them all down but let me know if I'm on to what you're saying.

-Humans can create abstract concepts about the real world

-Humans can come up with conceptual understanding of reality

-Only capacity for humans relevant to free will, humans have the
capacity to compare theories and create theories.

-Capacity to compare actions to general theories of actions

- Humans can way competing views of reality.

- Humans can choose among preference with their knowledge of short and long term goals.

- Implicit in arguing:

1. Truth exists
2. independent of consciousness
3. truth is better than error
4. we should prefer the truth
5. you can change your mind

- Determinists immediately create a destructive paradox when they argue because they are essentially arguing:

I can't argue with you.

I want you to change your mind and accept you cannot change your mind.

Help me out.
 

MattK:

Traffic lights aren't conscious, Human beings are.  Humans have free will because they are conscious, traffic lights can be determined, they do not choose weather to be green or red. If an error occurs in a traffic light, it is because a human being made an error programming it, the error is the consequence of human mistake, not because the traffic light chose to change.

And to go further, consciousness is a direct consequence of the increased order and complexity of matter. Evolution has caused matter to achieve consciousness in the form of it's most evolved creature, man. I do not see why a machine could not become conscious but certainly a traffic light lacks the order and complexity of the human brain. I really think that determinists should read up on the concept of Emergence.

normaltim:

So, I watched the videos and I'm going to post some thoughts I took notes but I'm not going to put them all down but let me know if I'm on to what you're saying.

-Humans can create abstract concepts about the real world

-Humans can come up with conceptual understanding of reality

-Only capacity for humans relevant to free will, humans have the
capacity to compare theories and create theories.

-Capacity to compare actions to general theories of actions

- Humans can way competing views of reality.

- Humans can choose among preference with their knowledge of short and long term goals.

- Implicit in arguing:

1. Truth exists
2. independent of consciousness
3. truth is better than error
4. we should prefer the truth
5. you can change your mind

- Determinists immediately create a destructive paradox when they argue because they are essentially arguing:

I can't argue with you.

I want you to change your mind and accept you cannot change your mind.

 

Help me out.
 

The most important part of my thesis -- the part that is the most difficult to grasp, at least it was for me -- is this:

1. The unique capacity that human beings have with regards to choice is the ability to compare reality and possibilities to conceptual theories.
2. Determinists argue that free will "seems" true, but that we should reject our immediate evidence for the sake of their conceptual theory about determinism.
   
3. In other words, determinists implicitly accept that human beings have the capacity to compare choices to conceptual theory, and that it is preferable to reject immediate evidence for the sake of a conceptual theory.
4. If free will is defined -- and I think that it must be -- as the ability to reject immediate evidence for the sake of a conceptual theory, then determinists are using free will to attempt to demolish free will.  They are, in effect, saying: "You must reject your ability to choose conceptual truth over immediate evidence by accepting our conceptual theory instead of your immediate evidence."
   
5. This is why the determinist argument self-destructs.
   

Stefan Molyneux:

The most important part of my thesis -- the part that is the most difficult to grasp, at least it was for me -- is this:

    4.  If free will is defined -- and I think that it must be -- as the ability to reject immediate evidence for the sake of a conceptual theory, then        determinists are using free will to attempt to demolish free will.  They are, in effect, saying: "You must reject your ability to choose conceptual truth over immediate evidence by accepting our conceptual theory instead of your immediate evidence."

But how do we know that when humans compare evidence to a conceptual theory they are actually choosing, what if it's like the traffic light that will always do what it's supposed to? In any situation of choice a human being won't be able to choose anything but his preference for either immediate or delayed gratification. How can we know that humans really have the ability to do otherwise?

I'm not 100% sure that this is a paradox.

I might be determined to ask questions about truth and based on the input my output might change. A determinist debating with someone or someone in the determinist paradigm isn't asking something paradoxical. The determinst is acknowledging that output can change based on the input and how the human mind is perceiving and operating. It's not "You can change your mind" but rather "You're output can be changed by input" like how a computer works.

How do we know that Human choice is made freely? How do we know that Humans can do otherwise?