Determinism.....

[Violet]

Edit: How do you quote multiple things without this happening? I think it takes up unnecessary space... but I don't see how to avoid it. I suppose I could put hide tags on this one.

---

The body made the decision? Really? Then why have a brain at all? I has smart body

Your brain is part of your body. Honestly, do you just try to make moronic jokes when debating? Right, next...

---

Moronic joke? I laughed

---

The brain made the decision... something that thought about the choice. That means that the something that thought about the choice was free. Our personality, decisions, and everything in the body is controlled by our mind. There is no programed instinct in choice. None... because an instinct is no different from a computer: a simple program. A reflex. There is no choice in reflex.

Non-sequitur. It does not follow that because the brain thought about it, the choice was free. A computer "thinks" about a problem, but it doesn't have a free choice in the answer. The answer is determined by it's programming, literally the way it thinks about things. What I am arguing is that a "free" choice must depend on the conscious mind, given that the sub-conscious is not where we do our conscious thinking (hence the name). Free will can be summarized as "free conscious thought". In other words, when we think in our conscious mind about a decision, and make a choice, that choice developed through our conscious thoughts. Neuroscience currently says the complete opposite, that the choice we think we make in our conscious mind is actually being practically ordered at us by our subconscious. Our conscious thought process in this aspect is mere illusion.

---

??? The subconscious thought about it, the conscious finalized the decision. A computer cannot finalize anything... it does everything automatically. In example, you tell a computer to print. Can the computer say "No?" without being broken? Not at all. There is your difference. Chipmunk sees acorn... chipmunk can choose wether to get it or not. That is free will. It is not an automatic process: it is a justification. Instinct tells you to take the bait... justification tells you why/why not to do so. Free will as defined by most people is

the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

. Do you need to push the button? No. Is fate guiding you to do so? Almost certainly not. Do you control the arm that you make push the button? Yes. Simple as this, Adrian. Free will is not summarized as any more than having control over yourself. Unless you do not have control over yourself: you have free will as it is supposed by most people.

The power of life is to choose... to be able to live while you are alive. A biological machine is in being alive... it is not in living. We humans are no slaves to instinct... because we have the ability to choose. This ability to choose is what you are calling not-free... because there is a process in thinking? That makes no sense to me... because there is a process behind everything. You argue against our ability to choose... because part of the process is automatic?

---

Not all of life has free will... that is why I say that some life is a biological machine... and some machines are synthetic life. For it is possible to be alive... and still not live. You could not argue that an instinct, a programmed reflex, is any different than the subroutines of a computer. There is no choice in it, therefore there is no free will. Free will is 100% based upon the ability to choose.

Yes, and how do we know we have the ability to choose? We don't. What we observe is our conscious minds taking orders from our subconscious minds. We don't get to choose, we get told what to do.

---

We know we have the ability to choose because I have chosen to type this out to you, choosing my response in the process. A more automatic decision would be to not be here in the first place. That is how we have choice: because we do have free will... and having an automatic process behind choice to make choices simpler. Simply: choice is not completely automatic... it is finalized by our conscious thought with justifies the options.

---

You do insist you are right though. You argued against infinite limits to try to validate .9^=1 because it has a small mathematical following in that thread, and you are arguing against our ability to choose to validate that the subconscious is not us because this theory has a small neuroscientific following. Please stop arguing from 'establishment'... it's driving me nuts.

I love how you try to justify your previous failure to debate me by saying I had a "small mathematical following". Yes, if by "small" you mean the entire scientific community, and everyone apart from 2 people in that thread (fr0d0 got it by the end; as I recall, only you and leo were left).

I don't insist I am right. I believe I am, but then I don't find it valuable arguing my position when I assume the opposite. I can imagine arguing from establishment would be irritating to you. In all the debates I have seen you in, you have never conceded a single point. You have a plainly arrogant nature, you always think you are correct, and even when your arguments are shown to be filled with logical fallacies, you continue with them like there is no tomorrow. You aren't the kind of person I'd choose the debate with, not because I think your position is either correct or interesting, but because it's like arguing with a brick wall.

---

Why should I concede a point without reason to do so? When I understand the reasoning: I always concede a point. When I do not see how something is true: It must be made right by me before I will concede. My sharp stance against accepting things because others think them... is because others are often wrong. If we accept stupidity just because it has a degree... what does it say about us?

I think I am probably right, this is true. And you think that you are probably right, is this not true? The difference between us? I am not so arrogant in my faith to accept things just because a number of scientists are on board with it. Often times (like with my debate with Arcanus), people pull the 'fallacy' card upon me, and then do not back up their card when pressed with parallels and logical statements that become 'fallacy' by the definition of a fallacy. I am not one to hide behind fallacies... nor behind fancy words and latin phrases irrelevant to the point. I will say when fancy words and fallacies are mislabeled, and when something seems illogical... but only for future clarity's sake. And you are not the only one who feels like they are speaking to a wall... I get that feeling often.

---

By 'right' and 'wrong', I mean correct and incorrect. I'm overlooked that you might have thought I was referring moral standing... I apologize for the miscommunication. For clarity, I'll call it 'correct/incorrect' from here. And yes, I do think that things can be correct or incorrect... for example: 1=10 is incorrect. 1=1 is correct.

So again, how do you measure correctness in anything other than logic? Is is correct to choose to step off the sidewalk now, or 2 seconds from now? One decision might lead to you being run over, but is that necessarily an "incorrect" outcome? What if you'd been planning on killing yourself later that day, and getting hit by a car landed you incapable of doing so; further lying in the hospital you realise you don't want to commit suicide anymore. Far-fetched example? Yeah sure, but no less valid.

---

Well, to walk out in front of the car would be illogical if you want to live It would become a logical option if you want to die. Correct and incorrect can be like mathematical (fact), which is objective... or completely personal, which would be subjective. I don't see what you are asking here, to be honest...

---

Ah, I see what you were trying to say in that instance. As a question of interest: Why does that make your choice any less valid? The subconscious is a part of you... That you decided on it before you acted: isn't that simply called 'wisdom'?

I'm not talking about deciding on it before acting. I'm talking about the subconscious making the decision before the conscious. In other words, your conscious mind (where you do all your thinking...well, at least conscious thinking) isn't making the decision at all. It has no choice. It is told what to do by the subconscious mind. It isn't *you* (as in your personality, your consciousness) making the decision, it is your onboard computer. Acting on brain impulses and instinct, and whatever else happens in there. Your personal ability to think seems to have nothing to do with it.

---

So your subconscious justifies the choice? My onboard computer is meant to select fast for my survival... it is not meant to be anything more than a subroutine that makes my decisions easier and faster. My personal ability to finalize the matter (Justify it, aka thinking) has everything to do with it.

---

I think a name should be descriptive... for what other reasons would something have a name? If I call everything 'Chair'... then what does it mean? Not much, to be honest. However, if I use 'chair' to refer to a specific thing: then the properties of all chairs should be similar so far as the definition has placed. It has tremendous bearing on what we are talking about: The subconscious is a mislabeled word IF, and only if it is greater than or equal to consciousness. Simply: if consciousness is the subconscious's slave: then it is the conscious that is lesser, and the term 'subconscious' should be redefined to match what is being described. Call me a moron with an embarrassing argument if you wish... it does not make the argument any less valid.

Complain about the term then. I think you are reading too much into it. To use your previous example of a "submarine", it doesn't mean it is inferior to a "marine" or the sea, or anything else. It just means it operates below it (below in a navigational sense, not a hierarchy sense). The subconscious operates below the conscious mind, in the sense that it is there, but inaccessible to us.

Anyway, my original point was that this was a red herring. Discussing the etymology of a word bears no relation to the concept the word describes.

---

Sub-marine, as I said above: means beneath. Sub-, the prefix, again as I said above: means inferior, or otherwise beneath the root. EG: root is Human. Sub-human is inferior or in some other way 'beneath' a human. I thought I was clear on that. It is kind of loopy... but you could justify calling it a sub-conscious because it is the foundation upon which consciousness is built. So my agreement with that is kind of 50/50... I think it could work, though it feels a bit wonky. It serves as the foundation for the conscious mind... but I wouldn't necessarily assume it inaccessible. I'd need evidence before I fully accept that.

The etymology of a word describes the word. If the concept of the word and the etymology do not match: then clearly the word is wrongly defined. Subconscious might be okay... I hadn't placed the subconscious as a base for consciousness until you provided evidence of it, which was why I made the case in the first place.

You might have noticed that I just conceded a point? Then there you go: now you've seen me concede a total of one point