There is no Hope without Jesus

Healthy skepticism of ALL worldviews is good. Skeptical of non-belief like found in Atheism? Post your challenging questions. Responses are encouraged.
Nils
Valued Member
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:51 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Sweden
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 6 times

Re: There is no Hope without Jesus

#376

Post by Nils » Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:43 pm

Kenny wrote:
Fri Mar 23, 2018 2:54 pm

Nils wrote:
Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:39 pm
Well, we should agree on terminology, otherwise it is meaningless to discuss. What I mean by heredity is the contents of the genes, the genetic information that the embryo has directly after conception. That is what a have been talking about all the time.
Okay; so going by your definition, heredity is a part of who we are. With that said; do you agree we have the ability to act contrary to this genetic information?
Nils wrote:
Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:39 pm
With the environment is mean all physical influences (and hence all higher level influences) there are on the individual, from conceptions onward.
By definition, influence are things we are able to work past, they do not determine what we do. IOW we are able to act contrary to these physical influences. Do you agree?
Nils wrote:
Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:39 pm
We may call them HeredityN and EnvironmentN (short H&En) if you please to distinguish them from your definitions. Your definitions are reasonable too but too vague to be used when discussing the metaphysical problem of Free Will.
I ask you to read my reasoning above (starting with "At time t1") with my definitions in mind because this reasoning is central to me. Do you understand what I say? Comments?
I don’t think our definitions are much different from each other. With that said; judging from the above replies, do you agree with me that we are able to act contrary to H&En?
I think saying that you “act contrary to H&E” is misleading. You always choose according to who you are. If who you are is dependent of something else, X, besides H&E, then you choose according H&E&X. But that doesn’t mean you act contrary to H&E.

We are talking about different things. Earlier you have said for instance “just because a person is raised in an environment that puts them at a disadvantage doesn’t mean they will not be able to rise above their environment and become successful.” You then discuss psychology. It is reasonable in that context to say as you do and what you mean is that it seems to us that this person has an environment (and perhaps heredity) that usually would cause her to be unsuccessful but there may be environmental (or heredity factors) that we don’t know about that with make it possible to be successful.

I on the other hand is talking about metaphysics so when I talk about H&E I assume that we know everything. I have to return to the reasoning I did earlier, slightly modified. And note that this has little to do with “the brain development of infants” besides that the brain develops.

At time t(1), say two days after conception, there is an embryo, let’s call it Em. Em is determined by the contents of it’s genes and possibly to some minor degree by the environment but not by anything else. Em doesn’t do any thinking and there is no independent “you”. Let’s call “How Em was” at time t(1) H(1).
How Em was at t(2), i.e. H(2), say a month later, is determined by of how Em was at t(1), H(1), and the environment between t(1) and t(2), but not by anything else (but possibly randomness, but I leave this out).
The same is valid at any times t(n) and t(n+1). How Em was at t(n+1), H(n+1), is determined by of how Em was at t(n), H(n), and the environment between t(n) and t(n+1), nothing else. From that follow that at time n+1 Em is determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and time t(n+1) and nothing else.
This is valid until present time.
During Ems development Em starts thinking but there is never a time m at which it is valid that how Em was at t(m), H(m), was completely determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and t(m) but at time m+1 it was not completely determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and t(m+1).
So, Ems “own” and Ems “independent thinking” is completely determined by H&E. It will never develop a free will.
If you don’t agree, where exactly is my reasoning erroneous?
Nils

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3662
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 73 times

Re: There is no Hope without Jesus

#377

Post by Kenny » Tue Mar 27, 2018 5:46 am

Nils wrote:
Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:43 pm
Kenny wrote:
Fri Mar 23, 2018 2:54 pm

Nils wrote:
Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:39 pm
Well, we should agree on terminology, otherwise it is meaningless to discuss. What I mean by heredity is the contents of the genes, the genetic information that the embryo has directly after conception. That is what a have been talking about all the time.
Okay; so going by your definition, heredity is a part of who we are. With that said; do you agree we have the ability to act contrary to this genetic information?
Nils wrote:
Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:39 pm
With the environment is mean all physical influences (and hence all higher level influences) there are on the individual, from conceptions onward.
By definition, influence are things we are able to work past, they do not determine what we do. IOW we are able to act contrary to these physical influences. Do you agree?
Nils wrote:
Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:39 pm
We may call them HeredityN and EnvironmentN (short H&En) if you please to distinguish them from your definitions. Your definitions are reasonable too but too vague to be used when discussing the metaphysical problem of Free Will.
I ask you to read my reasoning above (starting with "At time t1") with my definitions in mind because this reasoning is central to me. Do you understand what I say? Comments?
I don’t think our definitions are much different from each other. With that said; judging from the above replies, do you agree with me that we are able to act contrary to H&En?
I think saying that you “act contrary to H&E” is misleading. You always choose according to who you are. If who you are is dependent of something else, X, besides H&E, then you choose according H&E&X. But that doesn’t mean you act contrary to H&E.

We are talking about different things. Earlier you have said for instance “just because a person is raised in an environment that puts them at a disadvantage doesn’t mean they will not be able to rise above their environment and become successful.” You then discuss psychology. It is reasonable in that context to say as you do and what you mean is that it seems to us that this person has an environment (and perhaps heredity) that usually would cause her to be unsuccessful but there may be environmental (or heredity factors) that we don’t know about that with make it possible to be successful.

I on the other hand is talking about metaphysics so when I talk about H&E I assume that we know everything. I have to return to the reasoning I did earlier, slightly modified. And note that this has little to do with “the brain development of infants” besides that the brain develops.

At time t(1), say two days after conception, there is an embryo, let’s call it Em. Em is determined by the contents of it’s genes and possibly to some minor degree by the environment but not by anything else. Em doesn’t do any thinking and there is no independent “you”. Let’s call “How Em was” at time t(1) H(1).
How Em was at t(2), i.e. H(2), say a month later, is determined by of how Em was at t(1), H(1), and the environment between t(1) and t(2), but not by anything else (but possibly randomness, but I leave this out).
The same is valid at any times t(n) and t(n+1). How Em was at t(n+1), H(n+1), is determined by of how Em was at t(n), H(n), and the environment between t(n) and t(n+1), nothing else. From that follow that at time n+1 Em is determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and time t(n+1) and nothing else.
This is valid until present time.
During Ems development Em starts thinking but there is never a time m at which it is valid that how Em was at t(m), H(m), was completely determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and t(m) but at time m+1 it was not completely determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and t(m+1).
So, Ems “own” and Ems “independent thinking” is completely determined by H&E. It will never develop a free will.
If you don’t agree, where exactly is my reasoning erroneous?
Nils
Do you see H&E as being within us, or outside of us?

Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

Nils
Valued Member
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:51 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Sweden
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 6 times

Re: There is no Hope without Jesus

#378

Post by Nils » Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:20 am

Kenny wrote:
Tue Mar 27, 2018 5:46 am
Nils wrote:
Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:43 pm
Kenny wrote:
Fri Mar 23, 2018 2:54 pm

Nils wrote:
Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:39 pm
Well, we should agree on terminology, otherwise it is meaningless to discuss. What I mean by heredity is the contents of the genes, the genetic information that the embryo has directly after conception. That is what a have been talking about all the time.
Okay; so going by your definition, heredity is a part of who we are. With that said; do you agree we have the ability to act contrary to this genetic information?
Nils wrote:
Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:39 pm
With the environment is mean all physical influences (and hence all higher level influences) there are on the individual, from conceptions onward.
By definition, influence are things we are able to work past, they do not determine what we do. IOW we are able to act contrary to these physical influences. Do you agree?
Nils wrote:
Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:39 pm
We may call them HeredityN and EnvironmentN (short H&En) if you please to distinguish them from your definitions. Your definitions are reasonable too but too vague to be used when discussing the metaphysical problem of Free Will.
I ask you to read my reasoning above (starting with "At time t1") with my definitions in mind because this reasoning is central to me. Do you understand what I say? Comments?
I don’t think our definitions are much different from each other. With that said; judging from the above replies, do you agree with me that we are able to act contrary to H&En?
I think saying that you “act contrary to H&E” is misleading. You always choose according to who you are. If who you are is dependent of something else, X, besides H&E, then you choose according H&E&X. But that doesn’t mean you act contrary to H&E.

We are talking about different things. Earlier you have said for instance “just because a person is raised in an environment that puts them at a disadvantage doesn’t mean they will not be able to rise above their environment and become successful.” You then discuss psychology. It is reasonable in that context to say as you do and what you mean is that it seems to us that this person has an environment (and perhaps heredity) that usually would cause her to be unsuccessful but there may be environmental (or heredity factors) that we don’t know about that with make it possible to be successful.

I on the other hand is talking about metaphysics so when I talk about H&E I assume that we know everything. I have to return to the reasoning I did earlier, slightly modified. And note that this has little to do with “the brain development of infants” besides that the brain develops.

At time t(1), say two days after conception, there is an embryo, let’s call it Em. Em is determined by the contents of it’s genes and possibly to some minor degree by the environment but not by anything else. Em doesn’t do any thinking and there is no independent “you”. Let’s call “How Em was” at time t(1) H(1).
How Em was at t(2), i.e. H(2), say a month later, is determined by of how Em was at t(1), H(1), and the environment between t(1) and t(2), but not by anything else (but possibly randomness, but I leave this out).
The same is valid at any times t(n) and t(n+1). How Em was at t(n+1), H(n+1), is determined by of how Em was at t(n), H(n), and the environment between t(n) and t(n+1), nothing else. From that follow that at time n+1 Em is determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and time t(n+1) and nothing else.
This is valid until present time.
During Ems development Em starts thinking but there is never a time m at which it is valid that how Em was at t(m), H(m), was completely determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and t(m) but at time m+1 it was not completely determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and t(m+1).
So, Ems “own” and Ems “independent thinking” is completely determined by H&E. It will never develop a free will.
If you don’t agree, where exactly is my reasoning erroneous?
Nils
Do you see H&E as being within us, or outside of us?

Ken
'
Heredity is genes, inside. Environment and its causes are inside and outside. But why do you ask, it should be clear from what I write. But "If you don’t agree, where exactly is my reasoning erroneous?"

Nils

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3662
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 73 times

Re: There is no Hope without Jesus

#379

Post by Kenny » Tue Mar 27, 2018 1:07 pm

Nils wrote:
Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:20 am
Kenny wrote:
Tue Mar 27, 2018 5:46 am
Nils wrote:
Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:43 pm
Kenny wrote:
Fri Mar 23, 2018 2:54 pm

Nils wrote:
Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:39 pm
Well, we should agree on terminology, otherwise it is meaningless to discuss. What I mean by heredity is the contents of the genes, the genetic information that the embryo has directly after conception. That is what a have been talking about all the time.
Okay; so going by your definition, heredity is a part of who we are. With that said; do you agree we have the ability to act contrary to this genetic information?
Nils wrote:
Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:39 pm
With the environment is mean all physical influences (and hence all higher level influences) there are on the individual, from conceptions onward.
By definition, influence are things we are able to work past, they do not determine what we do. IOW we are able to act contrary to these physical influences. Do you agree?
Nils wrote:
Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:39 pm
We may call them HeredityN and EnvironmentN (short H&En) if you please to distinguish them from your definitions. Your definitions are reasonable too but too vague to be used when discussing the metaphysical problem of Free Will.
I ask you to read my reasoning above (starting with "At time t1") with my definitions in mind because this reasoning is central to me. Do you understand what I say? Comments?
I don’t think our definitions are much different from each other. With that said; judging from the above replies, do you agree with me that we are able to act contrary to H&En?
I think saying that you “act contrary to H&E” is misleading. You always choose according to who you are. If who you are is dependent of something else, X, besides H&E, then you choose according H&E&X. But that doesn’t mean you act contrary to H&E.

We are talking about different things. Earlier you have said for instance “just because a person is raised in an environment that puts them at a disadvantage doesn’t mean they will not be able to rise above their environment and become successful.” You then discuss psychology. It is reasonable in that context to say as you do and what you mean is that it seems to us that this person has an environment (and perhaps heredity) that usually would cause her to be unsuccessful but there may be environmental (or heredity factors) that we don’t know about that with make it possible to be successful.

I on the other hand is talking about metaphysics so when I talk about H&E I assume that we know everything. I have to return to the reasoning I did earlier, slightly modified. And note that this has little to do with “the brain development of infants” besides that the brain develops.

At time t(1), say two days after conception, there is an embryo, let’s call it Em. Em is determined by the contents of it’s genes and possibly to some minor degree by the environment but not by anything else. Em doesn’t do any thinking and there is no independent “you”. Let’s call “How Em was” at time t(1) H(1).
How Em was at t(2), i.e. H(2), say a month later, is determined by of how Em was at t(1), H(1), and the environment between t(1) and t(2), but not by anything else (but possibly randomness, but I leave this out).
The same is valid at any times t(n) and t(n+1). How Em was at t(n+1), H(n+1), is determined by of how Em was at t(n), H(n), and the environment between t(n) and t(n+1), nothing else. From that follow that at time n+1 Em is determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and time t(n+1) and nothing else.
This is valid until present time.
During Ems development Em starts thinking but there is never a time m at which it is valid that how Em was at t(m), H(m), was completely determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and t(m) but at time m+1 it was not completely determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and t(m+1).
So, Ems “own” and Ems “independent thinking” is completely determined by H&E. It will never develop a free will.
If you don’t agree, where exactly is my reasoning erroneous?
Nils
Do you see H&E as being within us, or outside of us?

Ken
'
Heredity is genes, inside. Environment and its causes are inside and outside. But why do you ask, it should be clear from what I write. But "If you don’t agree, where exactly is my reasoning erroneous?"

Nils
If Heredity (genes) is inside, and half of environment is inside, whatever actions resulting from that part of you is a part of freewill, because there are no outside sources forcing your hand. do you agree?
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21089
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 194 times
Been liked: 1053 times

Re: There is no Hope without Jesus

#380

Post by RickD » Tue Mar 27, 2018 1:40 pm

Nils,

Did you choose to be a determinist?
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

Nils
Valued Member
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:51 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Sweden
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 6 times

Re: There is no Hope without Jesus

#381

Post by Nils » Tue Mar 27, 2018 1:44 pm

Kenny wrote:
Tue Mar 27, 2018 1:07 pm
Nils wrote:
Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:20 am
Kenny wrote:
Tue Mar 27, 2018 5:46 am
Nils wrote:
Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:43 pm
Kenny wrote:
Fri Mar 23, 2018 2:54 pm



Okay; so going by your definition, heredity is a part of who we are. With that said; do you agree we have the ability to act contrary to this genetic information?


By definition, influence are things we are able to work past, they do not determine what we do. IOW we are able to act contrary to these physical influences. Do you agree?


I don’t think our definitions are much different from each other. With that said; judging from the above replies, do you agree with me that we are able to act contrary to H&En?
I think saying that you “act contrary to H&E” is misleading. You always choose according to who you are. If who you are is dependent of something else, X, besides H&E, then you choose according H&E&X. But that doesn’t mean you act contrary to H&E.

We are talking about different things. Earlier you have said for instance “just because a person is raised in an environment that puts them at a disadvantage doesn’t mean they will not be able to rise above their environment and become successful.” You then discuss psychology. It is reasonable in that context to say as you do and what you mean is that it seems to us that this person has an environment (and perhaps heredity) that usually would cause her to be unsuccessful but there may be environmental (or heredity factors) that we don’t know about that with make it possible to be successful.

I on the other hand is talking about metaphysics so when I talk about H&E I assume that we know everything. I have to return to the reasoning I did earlier, slightly modified. And note that this has little to do with “the brain development of infants” besides that the brain develops.

At time t(1), say two days after conception, there is an embryo, let’s call it Em. Em is determined by the contents of it’s genes and possibly to some minor degree by the environment but not by anything else. Em doesn’t do any thinking and there is no independent “you”. Let’s call “How Em was” at time t(1) H(1).
How Em was at t(2), i.e. H(2), say a month later, is determined by of how Em was at t(1), H(1), and the environment between t(1) and t(2), but not by anything else (but possibly randomness, but I leave this out).
The same is valid at any times t(n) and t(n+1). How Em was at t(n+1), H(n+1), is determined by of how Em was at t(n), H(n), and the environment between t(n) and t(n+1), nothing else. From that follow that at time n+1 Em is determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and time t(n+1) and nothing else.
This is valid until present time.
During Ems development Em starts thinking but there is never a time m at which it is valid that how Em was at t(m), H(m), was completely determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and t(m) but at time m+1 it was not completely determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and t(m+1).
So, Ems “own” and Ems “independent thinking” is completely determined by H&E. It will never develop a free will.
If you don’t agree, where exactly is my reasoning erroneous?
Nils
Do you see H&E as being within us, or outside of us?

Ken
'
Heredity is genes, inside. Environment and its causes are inside and outside. But why do you ask, it should be clear from what I write. But "If you don’t agree, where exactly is my reasoning erroneous?"

Nils
If Heredity (genes) is inside, and half of environment is inside, whatever actions resulting from that part of you is a part of freewill, because there are no outside sources forcing your hand. do you agree?
I can only answer you question by relating to my argument with "Em" above. That shows how I think. So please comment on it and if you don't agree, tell me why. If you don't understand something, ask, and I will try to explain. (When and how does Em get free will?)

Nils

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21089
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 194 times
Been liked: 1053 times

Re: There is no Hope without Jesus

#382

Post by RickD » Tue Mar 27, 2018 1:55 pm

John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

Nils
Valued Member
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:51 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Sweden
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 6 times

Re: There is no Hope without Jesus

#383

Post by Nils » Tue Mar 27, 2018 2:02 pm

Kurieuo wrote:
Sun Mar 25, 2018 6:36 am
Nils wrote:
Sun Mar 25, 2018 1:43 am
PaulSacramento wrote:
Fri Mar 23, 2018 4:22 am
It seems to me that Nil either doesn't understand free will of he is committing the same error that Harris does, which is redefining free will in a way that can be shown to not exist.

Free will is simply the ability to CHOOSE between whatever options you are presented.
WIth this definition it seems that also computers have free will.
No it doesn't. A computer doesn't choose anymore than a clock, digital or otherwise, chooses to move to the next second. They don't possess the ability to do other than what they've been instructed or mechanically engineered to do.
A computer program that controls a self-driving car for instance is far more complicated, even if not as complicated as a human. Simulation programs can create new knowledge and self-learning programs can cause the computer to act beyond what the programmers thought of. So in some cases computers do possess the ability to do other than what they’ve been instructed to do.

Your thinking seems to be:
1. Free will is simply the agents ability to CHOOSE between whatever options you are presented.
2. To have this ability the agent should have something more than computers have.
3. This extra ability is free will.
4. Free will is simply the agents ability to CHOOSE ….
etc

or ……… ?

Nils

User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 9926
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 632 times
Been liked: 648 times

Re: There is no Hope without Jesus

#384

Post by Kurieuo » Tue Mar 27, 2018 3:33 pm

Nils wrote:
Tue Mar 27, 2018 2:02 pm
Kurieuo wrote:
Sun Mar 25, 2018 6:36 am
Nils wrote:
Sun Mar 25, 2018 1:43 am
PaulSacramento wrote:
Fri Mar 23, 2018 4:22 am
It seems to me that Nil either doesn't understand free will of he is committing the same error that Harris does, which is redefining free will in a way that can be shown to not exist.

Free will is simply the ability to CHOOSE between whatever options you are presented.
WIth this definition it seems that also computers have free will.
No it doesn't. A computer doesn't choose anymore than a clock, digital or otherwise, chooses to move to the next second. They don't possess the ability to do other than what they've been instructed or mechanically engineered to do.
A computer program that controls a self-driving car for instance is far more complicated, even if not as complicated as a human. Simulation programs can create new knowledge and self-learning programs can cause the computer to act beyond what the programmers thought of. So in some cases computers do possess the ability to do other than what they’ve been instructed to do.

Your thinking seems to be:
1. Free will is simply the agents ability to CHOOSE between whatever options you are presented.
2. To have this ability the agent should have something more than computers have.
3. This extra ability is free will.
4. Free will is simply the agents ability to CHOOSE ….
etc

or ……… ?

Nils
There is still input and output happening. What a program does given a particular input might be randomised into particular responses. That input may not be predictable, which causes a program to carry out a different set of instructions rather than the ones it otherwise would have done (eg a person jumping in front of a computer controlled car which is detected via hardware (input) generating the programmed response in the computer to immediately brake rather than continue accelerating), there is no real decision being made by the program itself. Self learning is simply more sophisticated routines and algorithms, but there is not the freedom there to explore whatever topic it desires, indeed programs don't have desires except to carry out the desires of their programmers.

Compare this to Judeo-Christian framework, where a story is told of our creator giving us a choice, a real choice, to either follow Him or not. We were able to follow our own path, one He did not desire us to pursue for it pushed Him out of the picture. We desired to follow our own path in life, and THAT is why there is so much wrong in the world (so the story goes). Programs on the other hand merely run according to instructions they are given, aren't the true authors of their choices, indeed a robot would have no desire or preference over killing people compared to not killing except any restraints and/or predispositions (ie weightings) the creator may have programmed in.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 9926
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 632 times
Been liked: 648 times

Re: There is no Hope without Jesus

#385

Post by Kurieuo » Tue Mar 27, 2018 3:46 pm

In summary there is no REAL intelligence when it comes to computers, hence why the field is called artificial intelligence. Computerized appliances, phones, devices, machines, etc are made to APPEAR intelligent, but it's all mere appearance. Perhaps you've been hoodwinked by how well something has been programmed to believe true intelligence actually exists, but it's merely artificial and always will be unless consciousness is had, or the omega factor (if you have watched astroboy), which allows one to make a free response of their own choosing.

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3662
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 73 times

Re: There is no Hope without Jesus

#386

Post by Kenny » Tue Mar 27, 2018 6:03 pm

Nils wrote:
Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:43 pm
I think saying that you “act contrary to H&E” is misleading. You always choose according to who you are. If who you are is dependent of something else, X, besides H&E, then you choose according H&E&X. But that doesn’t mean you act contrary to H&E.
I see myself as often acting contrary to environment (the “E” in H&E) because I see environment as outside of myself
Nils wrote:
Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:43 pm
We are talking about different things. Earlier you have said for instance “just because a person is raised in an environment that puts them at a disadvantage doesn’t mean they will not be able to rise above their environment and become successful.” You then discuss psychology. It is reasonable in that context to say as you do and what you mean is that it seems to us that this person has an environment (and perhaps heredity) that usually would cause her to be unsuccessful but there may be environmental (or heredity factors) that we don’t know about that with make it possible to be successful.
No; that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying this person has an environment (and perhaps heredity) that usually would cause her to be unsuccessful, but this person has an independent mind that allows them to make choices contrary to their environment, that lead her to success.
Nils wrote:
Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:43 pm
I on the other hand is talking about metaphysics
Please define metaphysics.
Nils wrote:
Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:43 pm
so when I talk about H&E I assume that we know everything.
How do you assume we know everything? I’m a little lost on that one.
Nils wrote:
Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:43 pm
I have to return to the reasoning I did earlier, slightly modified. And note that this has little to do with “the brain development of infants” besides that the brain develops.[

At time t(1), say two days after conception, there is an embryo, let’s call it Em. Em is determined by the contents of it’s genes and possibly to some minor degree by the environment but not by anything else. Em doesn’t do any thinking and there is no independent “you”. Let’s call “How Em was” at time t(1) H(1).
How Em was at t(2), i.e. H(2), say a month later, is determined by of how Em was at t(1), H(1), and the environment between t(1) and t(2), but not by anything else (but possibly randomness, but I leave this out).
The same is valid at any times t(n) and t(n+1).
What does t(n) and t(n+1) represent? For the sake of discussion, I will assume t(n) and t(n+1) is now and in the future. If it means something else, please explain, and I will adjust my responses accordingly
Nils wrote:
Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:43 pm
How Em was at t(n+1), H(n+1), is determined by of how Em was at t(n), H(n), and the environment between t(n) and t(n+1), nothing else.
If you are saying how the person (Em) is today is determined strictly by whatever he was as an embryo, I disagree. Since evolving from an embryo to a person he has developed a brain and this brain allows him to behave and act contrary to whatever he was as an embryo.
Nils wrote:
Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:43 pm
From that follow that at time n+1
I am assuming n+1 is the future. If something else let me know
Nils wrote:
Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:43 pm
Em is determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and time t(n+1) and nothing else.
This is valid until present time.
Again; I believe the development of a brain allows us to act contrary to all of that.
Nils wrote:
Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:43 pm
During Ems development Em starts thinking but there is never a time m at which it is valid that how Em was at t(m), H(m), was completely determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and t(m) but at time m+1 it was not completely determined by H(1) and the environment between t(1) and t(m+1).
So, Ems “own” and Ems “independent thinking” is completely determined by H&E. It will never develop a free will.
If you don’t agree, where exactly is my reasoning erroneous?
Nils
[/quote]
This last part you lost me. I have no idea what point you are making.
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

User avatar
1over137
Technical Admin
Posts: 5197
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 6:05 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Slovakia
Has liked: 128 times
Been liked: 284 times

Re: There is no Hope without Jesus

#387

Post by 1over137 » Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:47 pm

Hi Nills,

it seems to me you are looking at people like artificial neural networks.
Like programmer saying: Hey, network, I programmed you, go and learn based on what you encounter (environment).
In your example with Em, and in your thinking, (what free will is), Em will never have free will.
It all starts with definition of free will...
But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
-- 1 Thessalonians 5:21

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.
-- Philippians 1:6

#foreverinmyheart

User avatar
1over137
Technical Admin
Posts: 5197
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 6:05 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Slovakia
Has liked: 128 times
Been liked: 284 times

Re: There is no Hope without Jesus

#388

Post by 1over137 » Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:57 pm

This topic made me to look more into neural networks
http://neuralnetworksanddeeplearning.com/chap1.html seems to be a good start for all ;)
But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
-- 1 Thessalonians 5:21

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.
-- Philippians 1:6

#foreverinmyheart

Nils
Valued Member
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:51 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Sweden
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 6 times

Re: There is no Hope without Jesus

#389

Post by Nils » Wed Mar 28, 2018 12:33 am

RickD wrote:
Tue Mar 27, 2018 1:55 pm
So much to comment now, but I take this first. The guy either don't know the arguments for no free will or he doesn't understand them or perhaps he has an agenda that he wants free will to exist. The topic of free will is a philosophical issue that has been debated in thousand of years and still is one of the hottest. It is astonishing that some organisation that calls itself a university can publish this propaganda.
There are lot of things that are correct but much is contentious and still some are plainly wrong. Just one example. He says that many materialist thinks that every mental event can be explained by reducing them to physics. Very few materialists think so. Most, and I, think that the mind is irreducible to physical events (just as a computer chess program is irreducible to logical gates).

To comment the video in full would take many pages, so I have to reftrain.

Again, generally, the more I comment the more comments I get. I don’t complain, not at all, it is fun and interesting, but I hope that you all can be patient if my answers take time.

Nils

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21089
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 194 times
Been liked: 1053 times

Re: There is no Hope without Jesus

#390

Post by RickD » Wed Mar 28, 2018 3:26 am

Nils,

When you get a chance, I'd rather have you respond to my post #373, before you respond then the video I posted.
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

Post Reply