That is really hard for me to answer, as I believe in free will because of the reality that I perceive. I would expect that if determinism were true that we would see a much different world, one that is more reactionary like in the animal kingdom.

I don't think that deliberation and regret could exist in a deterministic world. I rock cannot deliberate nor regret (of our choices anyway)


[/QUOTE]If you want to support your point, sit down and think about how you would act if you learned for a fact, tonight, that the world is deterministic. How would it differ from how you currently act? Etc. And ideally, give some solid logical reasons why your examples make sense in a world with free will and some logical reasons why they don't make sense in a deterministic world.[/QUOTE]

As I said earlier, I cannot tell you how I would react if the I learned that determinism were true, because if determinism were true then I would be living in a different world then the one that I see now. That's like asking me how I would react if tomorrow I learned that I was actually a woman. If I was actually a woman then I would be a completely different person than I am now.

I will try to come up with a more structured way of making my point.

You are using influenced in a different way than others, more specifically the others that I am referring to.

You previously posted that you believe that Christianity has effect, if not caused, all of the current ideas of free will. I think that you would have to go back to Judaism, but it is possible that you are correct. But if you are correct, it does not speak to my point. Others are implying more of a 1 to 1 correlation. Durka may believe in free will because of the influence that the bible has had on western philosophy, but he does not believe in free will because the bible tells him it exists and he obliges (as if he is taking his cue straight from the bible).

In the same fashion I do not need to believe the bible is true to believe in free will, nor do I need to believe in free will to believe the bible is true.

I mean same world, but that whatever you call "free will" isn't really free will. Everything is exactly the same, but you know that there's no free will. (In other words, you learn that this is a world we would see under determinism.) You can still choose, you can still regret, you can still deliberate. But you know for a fact that determinism is true.

And I'm not talking about religious stuff, just day-to-day stuff.

A rock doesn't have a mind. I think within the next 200 years computers will be able to deliberate and regret. Sadly, by then we'll probably be dead and I won't win any points with that.

But this isn't about what, this is about why. You keep saying "x is incompatible with y." That's a pretty big claim. But you're not explaining why x is incompatible with y. Why don't you think that deliberation and regret could exist in a deterministic world? What kind of reasoning supports that?

When someone asks me what I'd do as a woman, I assume that I have the same personality I do now but that I am in a woman's body instead of that of a man. Some flexibility is often necessary for these types of things. You have asked me in some cases what I would do or think if there were a benevolent God. To me this is utterly impossible, so I have to let some things slide in order to answer. But I guess sometimes maybe it's not really possible to manage that. So fair enough.

Well, I agree with all that. Eh, some people are dumb, others oversimplify to get a point across, and we have plenty of both in RGT (I wish I could say more of the latter than the former).

if by "might not" you mean "didn't", then sure.

i was saying you refuse to allow for AI to have free will because of your Christian beliefs. well, you say you'll accept it if you see it, but we're not getting anywhere on that because we already discussed how both ourselves, and AI have a set range of choices to chose from given to them by their creator and you simply say "well, we could have decided differently, and the AI could not." (without any reasoning)


one thing i can say is jib pays when he says he'll pay. (even though my thread attempt was quite lame and probably against the spirit of the bet)

Poker Stars $0.05/$0.10 No Limit Hold'em - 5 players
2+2 Hand Converter Powered By DeucesCracked

Hero (BB): $5.00
UTG: $19.95
CO: $10.55
BTN: $11.00
SB: $5.00

Pre Flop: ($0.15) Hero is BB with J 8
UTG raises to $0.40, CO raises to $1.80, 2 folds, Hero raises to $5 all in, 1 fold, CO calls $3.20

Flop: ($10.45) 7 A 3 (2 players - 1 is all in)

Turn: ($10.45) 3 (2 players - 1 is all in)

River: ($10.45) 4 (2 players - 1 is all in)

Final Pot: $10.45
Hero shows J 8 (a pair of Threes)
CO shows Q Q (two pair, Queens and Threes)
CO wins $9.95
(Rake: $0.50)

in an effort to get more people posting in RGT, here is the thread this all started from

Oh come on. It's not like the majority of people from north america aren't theists .... idk why your not admitting it. Why would you talk about Thor and refer to him as "god" and when your talking about Yahweh referring to him as "God?"

Ok Madnak,

What do you think of this in terms of regret of one's choice (not to be confused with outcome)

P1. Free will is the ability to choose otherwise without it being random
P2. In a deterministic world an agent cannot choose otherwise given the same set of variables (unless it is random.)
P3. Agent A is said to have regret if he/she wishes they would have chose otherwise in situation X.
C1 (P2). Agent A does not believe that they have could have chosen differently in situation X if Agent A believes in determinism.
P4. Agent A regrets choice C in situation X
C2 (C1 & P4). Agent A does not believe in determinism.

jib, put it like this:

p1
p2
con1

p3
p4
con2

p5 (con1)
p6 (con2)
con3

or its meaningless

It works, but it's a very technical definition and I don't think most people ever do wish they could "choose otherwise" in the sense you mean.

We got onto this talking about other cultures, and you claimed that the fact they experience regret suggests that they believe in free will. But nobody ever says "I wish I could keep all factors exactly the same, including myself, but that my choice was different." If they did say that, then you'd have a point.

But nothing that people do in fatalistic cultures indicates that they're overly concerned with whether they are the ultimate cause of their actions. In fact, they believe the gods cause everything.

According to your definition, I've never experienced regret in my life and I doubt the ancients ever did either.

Do you not see the contradiction?

That all depends on how you define the words. In particular, what is a "choice"?

I think you're not understanding your own argument, because you don't have an argument. I don't see that you're "refuting" anything at all.

The majority of the people on earth hold some affirmative belief in the supernatural. Therefore, Ryanb9 believes in the supernatural.

I guess that if you were to show that free will was an illusion, I would act exactly the same, but I would not regret anything. I would not hold my deliberation in the same class as my rational actions, but I would still act as if free will existed.

But I think this is my point. If determinism is true then we would have to live ours lives as if free will was true. Which means that how we perceive ourselves would contradict our beliefs.

The way that we act is consistent with free will, not determinism. So why believe that determinism is true? I am not saying that it cannot be, but what evidence is there that would force us to contradict our perceptions?

lol, yeah probably. But I don't see what a mind has to do with it. A mind in a deterministic world is just really sophisticated/complex rock rolling down a hill.

I attempted to in my above (previous to this) post.

I was being a little nitty. I attempted to answer in this post.

i would agree with you if thats what i was saying but it's not. i was saying the majority of people do it so you dont have to be ashamed to admit you do it as well.

There is no contradiction.

You already asked me that, and I already answered. But that is not a valid argument, regardless of definitions. Logic is thankfully not the kind of discipline where you can just slap something together and "see if it works," valid arguments need to have particular structures.

Jib has made a number of arguments in this thread. I've responded to all of them. If you have issues with my responses, you're free to talk about them on an individual basis. I've also made plenty of arguments of my own, I even offered to formalize some of them.