God, fuck you Kratos!!!

[Gurgumul]

Don't get involved mang. When there's a boyfriend there's always problems down the line. Just GTFO.

Also if it all goes down and she sticks with the turkman will Panos' turkhate increase? Cos I didn't think it was possible.

But the boyfriend is far away, so he's pretty much nonexistent. Also Turkgirl is going home in few weeks, so I suggest getting the most of this time and fucking. Even if Turkboy finds out, he's not going to fly to Greece just to tell Panagiotis how rude he is.

[Bugnir]

Have you considered the possibility that her boyfriend might be a massive cuckold longing for his girlfriend to be GREEKED.

[Xant]

https://youtu.be/z_GLj7phZQY?t=416

Show her who's the bus, Panagiotis.

[Kafein]

Wait, are you referencing some actual argument I've had here or is that an example of a discussion that I might have? Because my stance has certainly never been that free will is impossible in a causal world.

I think we've had some discussion approaching that at some point.

do you believe you can make decisions?

Depends on what is "you", and that is the crux of the issue. If you hold the belief that "you" is not limited to a body that follows the laws of physics, then indeed you get the mind-body problem. Granted, this is thoroughly uninteresting.

But it's even worse than that if you consider that if your definition of identity is purely physical then it doesn't really hold any meaning at all. You are just a big lump of interchangeable stuff structured in some particular way and in constant flux. If "you" have free will, then absolutely every other arbitrary lump of stuff also has free will. And thus the concept of free will itself makes little sense, as it applies to everything that exists. I wouldn't expect most people to say of a rock that it has free will, yet it has it exactly as much as a human being.

[Mr_Oujamaflip]

But the boyfriend is far away, so he's pretty much nonexistent. Also Turkgirl is going home in few weeks, so I suggest getting the most of this time and fucking. Even if Turkboy finds out, he's not going to fly to Greece just to tell Panagiotis how rude he is.

It's not the boyfriend that's the problem though dude. Panos is clearly into this girl and if he takes it further it'll hit him harder when she leaves.

You would be spot on if he didn't care as much.

[Xant]

But it's even worse than that if you consider that if your definition of identity is purely physical then it doesn't really hold any meaning at all. You are just a big lump of interchangeable stuff structured in some particular way and in constant flux.

No, it's not "worse" in the least. Describing a thing doesn't make it exist any less. Yes, "you" aren't a fixed thing. So what? And as opposed to what? Would "you" only make sense if "you" weren't structured in any particular way? What is the point of what you just said, what does it refute?

If "you" have free will, then absolutely every other arbitrary lump of stuff also has free will.

This is a non sequitur. "Any arbitrary lump of stuff" isn't capable of considering different choices and making decisions.

And thus the concept of free will itself makes little sense

Only if you define it extremely weirdly.

as it applies to everything that exists.

It really doesn't.

I wouldn't expect most people to say of a rock that it has free will, yet it has it exactly as much as a human being.

A rock cannot think. A rock has no will. A rock can't make decisions. Therefore, it can't have free will.

[Gurgumul]

I think we've had some discussion approaching that at some point.

Depends on what is "you", and that is the crux of the issue. If you hold the belief that "you" is not limited to a body that follows the laws of physics, then indeed you get the mind-body problem. Granted, this is thoroughly uninteresting.

But it's even worse than that if you consider that if your definition of identity is purely physical then it doesn't really hold any meaning at all. You are just a big lump of interchangeable stuff structured in some particular way and in constant flux. If "you" have free will, then absolutely every other arbitrary lump of stuff also has free will. And thus the concept of free will itself makes little sense, as it applies to everything that exists. I wouldn't expect most people to say of a rock that it has free will, yet it has it exactly as much as a human being.

nigga I'm a fucking computer

[Kafein]

No, it's not "worse" in the least. Describing a thing doesn't make it exist any less. Yes, "you" aren't a fixed thing. So what? And as opposed to what? Would "you" only make sense if "you" weren't structured in any particular way? What is the point of what you just said, what does it refute?

It refutes the idea that you can look at the state of the universe and find a minimal subset of matter which is "you". You are a sum of parts, and it is unclear what is part of that sum and what isn't. Conversely, if you look at an emergent property of matter such as "will" as I will go into below, there is no way to find a minimal subset of matter that "has" will. Both your identity as that one person and the distinction between things that have will and things that don't are conventions based on consensus, items of language which don't hold any profound meaning.

This is a non sequitur. "Any arbitrary lump of stuff" isn't capable of considering different choices and making decisions.
(...)
A rock cannot think. A rock has no will. A rock can't make decisions. Therefore, it can't have free will.

What is "will" then? Obviously it is an emergent property of matter that we define according to some human standard. But what would you say of a robot that can fool humans into thinking it is human? Obviously, other people would consider that robot to have free will in the way you seem to define the notion. Yet it's a robot and by the same definition it trivially cannot have free will.

[Gurgumul]

this discussion

[Xant]

It refutes the idea that you can look at the state of the universe and find a minimal subset of matter which is "you".

You won't find an atom that is "you", yes, so what? Just because there is no stone that is inherently a pyramid doesn't mean pyramids don't exist.

You are a sum of parts, and it is unclear what is part of that sum and what isn't.

Yes, and?

Conversely, if you look at an emergent property of matter such as "will" as I will go into below, there is no way to find a minimal subset of matter that "has" will.

It is also impossible to find a rock that "has" pyramid-ness. Yet there are pyramids. Pyramids are an emergent property of stones stacked in a certain way. That doesn't mean pyramids don't exist, nor does it mean a robot is a pyramid.

Both your identity as that one person and the distinction between things that have will and things that don't are conventions based on consensus, items of language which don't hold any profound meaning.

No, they're not, and yes they do.

What is "will" then? Obviously it is an emergent property of matter that we define according to some human standard. But what would you say of a robot that can fool humans into thinking it is human? Obviously, other people would consider that robot to have free will in the way you seem to define the notion. Yet it's a robot and by the same definition it trivially cannot have free will.

That depends on how the robot works. Being fooled into thinking something has free will is neither here nor there. It doesn't change the true state of things.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/iv/the_futility_of_emergence/

[Xant]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Prpavi]

So what's new Panos?

[Kafein]

You won't find an atom that is "you", yes, so what? Just because there is no stone that is inherently a pyramid doesn't mean pyramids don't exist.

That's not really what I meant. When I say minimal subset, I don't mean something small like an atom, I mean something minimal that holds the property I'm talking about. Like there is a minimal amount of population that turns a settlement into what is generally called a city, you can have a minimal city.

No, they're not, and yes they do.

Can you give me a rigorous, non-circular definition of a minimal subset of matter that has free will then ?

That depends on how the robot works.

No it doesn't. As far as I can understand, your own definition of free will is as perceived by humans of a large phenomenon vastly too complex to be broken down by humans. Alternatively, what would be the difference between a robot where this is true and one where this is false?

Being fooled into thinking something has free will is neither here nor there. It doesn't change the true state of things.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/iv/the_futility_of_emergence/

What is "being fooled" when there is no "true state" to speak of? Something that is indistinguishable from a duck in every measurable aspect *is* a duck.

[sF_Guardian]

If she has a boyfriend and is just there for exchange just go for it.
WHy do ppl always make so much fuss about hiding their intentions?...

[Xant]

That's not really what I meant. When I say minimal subset, I don't mean something small like an atom, I mean something minimal that holds the property I'm talking about. Like there is a minimal amount of population that turns a settlement into what is generally called a city, you can have a minimal city.

Can you give me a rigorous, non-circular definition of a minimal subset of matter that has free will then ?

What does a minimal subset of matter having free will have to do with anything?

No it doesn't. As far as I can understand, your own definition of free will is as perceived by humans of a large phenomenon vastly too complex to be broken down by humans. Alternatively, what would be the difference between a robot where this is true and one where this is false?

Yes it does. You understand wrong then. A true AI that isn't programmed to the contrary could have free will, just like humans. A robot that is programmed like current robots/AIs wouldn't.

What is "being fooled" when there is no "true state" to speak of? Something that is indistinguishable from a duck in every measurable aspect *is* a duck.

Because there is a true state to speak of?

Why don't you define "free will" as you see it, since you're obviously using some arcane definition that no one with common sense would use.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/rc/the_ultimate_source/