But this is wholly dependent upon *YOUR* declaration that this is indeed what it is "modeling."

Changing a variable from 3 to 2 can "model" an infinite number of situations. Why is it that this particular usage is so decisively "modeling" this particular thing? This is what I simply do not understand about your position.

True or false: In some form or another, you *REQUIRE* this calculation in order for you to have a model.

If false, can you explain how one can avoid it?

Translation: madnak reserves the right to continue to redefine things.

That is philosophy of science stuff. They don't write specifically about gravity, right?

Most experimental scientists are uninterested in philosophy of science matters related to infallibilism. They are trying to show one theory to be a better [b]model[b] or a worse one than another. Sometimes they also just try to show one to be incorrect in isolation. Really bad ones try to prove theories correct.

Most theoretical scientists, or at thoughtful ones, I think, realize that not only just their specific ideas, but the entire paradigms on which their ideas depend will be disproven. They just don't tell the undergrads that because the "well, what is the point then?" conversations are uncomfortable/virtually impossible with teenagers who get unsettled/confused over gray areas of thought.

I think there are a great many topics in the philosophy of science that would surprise you.

Philosophers work on things like time, gravity, quantum mechanics and all sorts of other topics where you might have a hard time distinguishing between: theoretical mathematics, theoretical physics, and philosophy.

I happen to live in USA.

What libertarian propaganda do you mean?

If you mean libertarianism, as in the whole wee government, maximum individual freedom from government intervention thing, that is not related to philosophical libertarianism. (freedom from government intervention does not equal or approximate freedom from prior cause and effect)

If you mean libertarian as it is meant here, I have happened to miss the propaganda. If you could fill me in on where this propaganda can be found, I would love to know at least an example so I can avoid being tricked by the libertarian agenda.

Because the program is being used to play the bean game.

I'm not saying the program can only choose within the bean game - put it into any situation where its model corresponds to an action taken, and you have choice.

What do you mean by "in some form or another?" A physical simulation would certainly work as an alternative. If you define that as the subtraction calculation, then I would think you'd also have to define the action itself as the subtraction calculation.

I'm not redefining anything. I'm saying that the details (at this level of abstraction) are irrelevant. That doesn't mean I need to change my definition - on the contrary, to some extent I could choose them arbitrarily. I'm trying to use the details that are most consistent with my internal conception of choice, but even if I were to just close my eyes and point, the logic wouldn't change.

I was watching an American television show recently in which a bad guy tried to stop the heroes, I think by using some kind of magic spell or mind control device, and was defeated by the "power of free will."

I'm sure I could watch most children's shows and find the same thing - nonsensical or magical references to "free will."

I experienced the same thing in school, have even experienced it in counseling sessions.

There is a powerful indoctrination going on here in the US, for anyone who notices. I can collect specific examples of how the American media references free will in a libertarian (or out-and-out magical) way if you like, but it will take some time.

In other words, there is a blurring of the lines between math, science and philosophy, right?

Umm, durr.

Searle is not a philosopher. He is a philosopher/linguist/psychologist.

Are there any "pure" philosophers that are relevant? Even ethics involves social systems nowadays, right?

It seems that theoretical <insert field here>, implies a philosophical bent, and possibly requires it.

But that's the whole point. Your conception of choice is so broad and so vague that it is conceivable that almost anything can stand as a model for almost anything else. Except, of course, simple circuitry which is for some reason not sufficient for modeling certain things, even though the same circuitry is used by computers to make the things that you're considering to be models...

Edit: Is it possible for the planet earth, complete with all the living beings on it, is a serving as a model for something else? Where are the boundaries?

It's just that everything you're saying and doing is completely arbitrary. The longer we go, the more arbitrary it all seems. You've (almost) admitted to completely changing your position, which is at least a start.

What logic?

Let's try this very simple code:

Would this be sufficient to be a choice? It has a model of something (2-1), it's doing some internal processing to determine between two situations, it has two different possible outcomes (even though one will never actually be accessed).

Not "simple circuitry," a single simple circuit. I've also said a marble is not an appropriate physical model for a horse. And a blade of grass isn't a model for a marble.

Of course the earth can serve as a model. The boundaries are in fidelity, breadth of correspondence, and detail - as I mentioned earlier.

Huh? My position is what it has been from the very beginning of the thread.

Your whole position is that compatibilism is logically contradictory, remember?

Show title?

Cite examples?

Please do this research and report your findings.

Yes. That seems about like the simplest possible choice, as far as I can tell.

I think it's quite well established that madnakian logic prevents anyone from proving that any two statements are logically contradictory.

Well. Ahem. Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

I will, may take a couple days.

Here is a physical representation of the same thing:



So all I would need is a physical mechanism to remove the one block and this would also be a choice?

That is like saying that the Brits are subjected to vast amounts of alien protector propaganda due to Dr. Who.*

I am sure you couldn't watch "most" and find "the same thing. You could, watching tv see people struggling over decisions, but this is not the same as free will. Finding something on kid's tv that approximates (in your head) free will is not the same thing as finding something that is indoctrinating free will. An example is not the same as "most."

TMI. I really didn't need to know that you have had counseling or anything about your experience with it. Some things are better left unsaid.

FYI, I trained and worked as a clinical psychologist for years. Either you had a crappy counselor, or you misunderstood him/her, or s/he thought that your world view was hurting you and was trying (unsuccessfully) to alter it.

Personal experience has NOTHING to do with propaganda.

There is a powerful indoctrination going on here in the US, for anyone who notices. I can collect specific examples of how the American media references <insert something or other here> in a <something or other way> (or out-and-out magical) way if you like, but it will take some time.

Pick any set of related ideas parallel (in their relationship) to yours, and I can do the same. The only caveat is that they must not be obscure.

*Best show ever!

Just so you know where I was going with the bean game. I was going to draw a simple circuit diagram with LEDs lighting up the number 1 or 2 based on the binary input of the state of the bean game. This was inspired by the chess machine that you were treating like a black box in which choice magically happens.

Your definition of choice, with all its vague notions and fiat declarations does not represent a meaningful concept of choice.

I agree that a new phenomena can be predicted to occur can be predicted a priori. The specifics have (at least so far) failed to be predicted. Snowflakes are the typical argument, I think. That a snowflake will exist a priori is different than knowing the snowflakes shape a priori

When I was a writer, if someone misunderstood me, I took it as a lack of clarity on my part.

When I was a teacher, if someone misunderstood me, I took it as a lack of clarity on my part.

As a manager, if someone misunderstands me, I take it as a lack of clarity on my part.

so i have attempted to follow this thread and failed due to the out of the norm vernacular but what exactly is free will?

Stuff that is not cause by previous stuff.

That would also be a model.

I disagree.

The Brits are subjected to plenty of propaganda through their media, just like any culture.

It's not people struggling over decisions. It's decisions that have explicitly magical properties and specific values.

That's absurd. Personal interactions are probably the main vector for cultural indoctrination. Anecdotal evidence can't establish, of course, that this value or that value is being transmitted within a particular culture. But there are few quantifiable ways to precisely measure that in the first place, so anecdotes have their place.

What do you mean by "obscure?" Does that mean "uncommon in American culture?" If so, you're begging the question.

If not, the traditional Buddhist belief that the abiding self is an illusion. Or the belief that the soul exists but is neither indivisible nor eternal.

We can't predict the shape of an individual snowflake, but I'd wager most scientists believe that this is due to the fact that the formation of a snowflake is sensitive to chaotic environmental factors.

Other instances of "weak" emergence, including emergence from algorithmic processes and the surface tension of fluids, can be a priori predicted.

The question of whether "strong" emergence exists at all is controversial. But "weak" first-order emergence is not.

Either you don't try to communicate anything challenging, or you have too high a regard for your readers, students, and employees.

Or you're too cynical. Brian's points there are the right attitude. I tell my students to write their papers as if they're explaining it to a 6 year old.