ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags free will

Reply
Old 9th January 2018, 11:57 AM   #241
John Freestone
Muse
 
John Freestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 945
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
I never said anything about defining free-will so that it can be defined. Let me see if I can help you.

If free-will exists then I should be able to create a robust definition that can be demonstrated with experiments and evidence.

On the other hand, if free-will doesn't exist then I would expect that any definition would be something self-contradictory, something that could be disproved, or something that has never been detected.
We have different ways of thinking about this. You seem to want to exclude impossible definitions at the outset, where I was saying that we can come up with definitions that fit our intuitions and folk understandings, to get at what we're really interested in testing for ontological reality, and then work towards grappling with its existence. To my mind, we can only do it this way, since until we have a definition, we can't discover whether the thing to which it refers exists. I think you gave an example of the Michelson-Morley experiment. If they took your advice, wouldn't they never have got to the point of doing the experiment, since aether didn't exist? You seem to be suggesting we can know what exists before we test for it. How can we dispense with a defined-thing (concept) as non-existent until we've tried to find it, and how do we know what we're looking for until we've got a definition?

Quote:
Actually, I've never said that. Knowledge theory is finished and I could publish this anytime. I probably would have published it in 2017 if Trump had not been elected. Knowledge theory is foundational to cognitive theory which is not completed. Since cognitive theory isn't completed I'm not sure what there would be to publish. However, if I do manage to finish it then I still have no intention of publishing it while Trump is in office. The earliest I could discuss it in detail would be after November 2020.
Oh, is this just another confusion? When you say, 'knowledge theory' and 'cognitive theory', do you mean 'Knowledge Theory' and 'Cognitive Theory', the name of your up-coming publications? I thought you were referring to extant areas of psychology or philosophy.


Quote:
Well, at least you have confidence in yourself. Good for you.
Thanks.

Quote:
I find that doubtful. Did you spend 21 months doing research without being able to make progress?
I spent about 21 years doing research without making progress.

Quote:
Did the progress you made open up more questions that you couldn't answer? This is how normal research tends to work.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Research that is making progress, research that only seems to be making progress, and research that clearly isn't, all might open up more questions.

Quote:
Dunning-Kruger is when you overestimate your abilities because you lack a foundation of knowledge or experience to be able to give yourself a meaningful assessment.
Hmm, I wonder if one sign of it is defining a term for someone who introduced it. I generally try to know what I'm talking about, and I did in this case. You're half right, but you got the right half (it's also the self-underestimation of people with high ability).

Quote:
The first thing I did was familiarize myself with existing theories and research. That's the opposite of DK.
That depends a great deal on your use of the word 'familiarize'. If it's an understatement, and you mean 'study asiduously', fine; if it means what a lot of people mean by it, it's perhaps an indication of 'DK'. At the serious end of the continuum, the Dunning-Kruger effect is like a narcissistic disorder, where people parade what they imagine is their expertise, write books (or say they will), even set up lecture tours and try to inveigle their way into academic circles they have little right to be in. They have 'familiarized' themselves with current theories and imagine they know better than the experts...and obviously vastly more than ordinary folk.

Quote:
It's been a struggle and I still don't know if I can solve it. That too seems to be the opposite of DK.
This is true, but why not get help. Look, I'm not trying to be nasty. You just keep telling the world (on this public forum) that you've worked a whole lot of stuff out, you pronounce a lot of things you can prove or disprove, you correct people (incorrectly) on a whole lot of things, and you've been talking about publishing your work for years (I looked back at some of your other postings), and it all amounts to a lot of hot air, as far as I can see. What's the point? If you've not put the last piece of the jigsaw in place and can't publish until you have, you need to be doing more work or talking to academics who can help you, not repeating yourself. It reads as though you're at the cusp of some major discovery. I don't believe you for a moment. Especially when your familiarity with several relevant subjects is clearly inferior to mine, which is lay by most standards. One glaring example is that, as far as I'm aware, vast numbers of computer scientists, cognitive psychologists, biologists, neurologists, etc., consider human intelligence as fundamentally no different from what computers do, brain function is essentially computation, they will tell you that. You can read it over and over on the Net. You say otherwise, but seem unable to tell anyone why you think that. You come across, therefore, as maybe a dualist or mentalist, someone who thinks human intelligence, or just biological intelligence, is 'special', ineffable, spiritual maybe. What else can we do but guess?

Maybe you've looked at this deeper than is evident here. I wonder if your sticking point is the idea of 'general intelligence' as an ability to understand anything in any situation. Again, I'm just left guessing, since you're so vague. If this is what you think human brains can do, and that if a mechanical system can't do it, it's not 'intelligent', then I'd be glad to disabuse you of the idea. Human intelligence is very constrained (largely by evolutionary pressure), which is why we make so many errors. It's a wonder we ever stumbled our way to the scientific method.
John Freestone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2018, 12:10 PM   #242
John Freestone
Muse
 
John Freestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 945
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...owledge+theory

Words and conventional uses are important. So is the use of italics and quotation marks.
John Freestone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2018, 07:12 PM   #243
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,160
I don't want to read the whole thread.

IS there a workable definition of free will?
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump
Toontown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2018, 02:09 AM   #244
John Freestone
Muse
 
John Freestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 945
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
I don't want to read the whole thread.

IS there a workable definition of free will?
You may have to define 'workable' first. One of my main points here is that you can come up with any definition of 'free will' you want, and you can 'work' on it, so in that sense it's 'workable'. If you mean, 'Is there a definition of free will that (almost certainly) exists?', then yes, see first statement. Then there's the question of forming a definition of free will that expresses the important issues about the subject, what we ideally want to ascertain exists or doesn't, or the nature of which we want to discover. My belief so far, after a moderate amount of time reading and discussing it, is that that kind of definition (having the capacity to choose from various options that are really possible, rather than being the result of prior causes or acausal factors) shows itself to be illogical. If you have a bit of time to dig into it more, 'Trick Slattery does a very good job of it here https://breakingthefreewillillusion.com that's fairly accessible to relative novices in philosophy. It's also an eye-opener to realise that the lack of free will isn't the dreadful pronouncement that it might seem, and in fact the opposite - our delusion about it keeps us trapped in social problems of retributive responses to others, blame, envy, pride - so many unhelpful features of our psychology. I have to say, it's also the only major personal paradigm shift I've been faced with that comes anywhere near letting go of my religious superstitions - for similar reasons, the impact of hard logic and a certain amount of 'evidence' (or lack thereof).

The OP, I'm sure, would disagree.
John Freestone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st January 2018, 06:11 PM   #245
John Freestone
Muse
 
John Freestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 945
Sorry, but it's been bugging me...
Quote:
I probably would have published it in 2017 if Trump had not been elected. I still have no intention of publishing it while Trump is in office. The earliest I could discuss it in detail would be after November 2020.
What has Trump got to do with it?
John Freestone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:45 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.