Well if SATs are at that level then the answer to your question would be that I would have answered what the question was asking and not what it was not asking. Obviously. Otherwise I would not have got into university. What a stupid question. — Isaac

?? You just said you didn't take the SAT. You're not in the US apparently. Some people get relatively poor scores on the reading comprehension section. Some people get relatively poor scores on the mathematics section, etc.

This is true only if we decide to leave out objective reality in our logic. If you base logic on what really is/occurs around you, than it is 'speculative' only to the extent you don't trust your senses and their interpretation. — lepriçok

I cannot disagree more. Seriously, it simply does not work like that.

A system such as logic is not the real world, and does not even try to correspond to the real world. It is an abstract, Platonic world constructed from -- and dealing with -- language expressions. Any claim that says that such abstract, Platonic world corresponds with the real, physical world is wrong. It simply doesn't.

The same holds true for arithmetic. Standard arithmetic gets constructed from 9 speculative beliefs. Anybody who says that this corresponds to the real, physical world, is basically saying that the construction logic of the real, physical world would consist of 9 rules. That is simply nonsense. We do not know the construction logic of the real, physical world.

You can use language expressions to build -- and reason within -- completely imaginary worlds that have nothing to do with the real, physical world. You can use it to construct stories in science fiction. You can describe imaginary events that never took place, in a world that does not even exist, and so on.

If you seek to establish and somehow guarantee correspondence with the real, physical world, you will need to use the principles of an empirical knowledge-justification system such as science.

Therefore, without a knowledge-justification guarantee from an empirical domain of knowledge (such as science), you are not even allowed to assume correspondence between language expressions and the real, physical world.

These are not axioms, rather basic truths of life that everyone agrees with. This solves your problem. Reason and logic must be grounded in this reality to avoid the speculative catastrophe — lepriçok

Logic has nothing to do with the real, physical world. It is an axiomatic system based on 14 speculative beliefs. You can perfectly use it to reason about imaginary worlds. In fact, out of the box, that is even all you can do. You usually add more premises, i.e. more speculative beliefs than the original 14 ones, and then draw conclusions inside this completely speculative system. Your conclusions/theorems will then be provable from the speculative beliefs in the system.

If you want to establish some kind of correspondence with the real, physical world, you will have to use an empirical knowledge-justification method such as science. Logic is purely axiomatic and does not offer such guarantees whatsoever.

You are badly confusing logic with science.

Science will demand that you experimentally test your conclusions. It will therefore demand that your conclusions are testable (falsifiable). In science, you cannot stop after declaring a few logical inferences and calculations, and then be done with it. That is not simply not allowed. In science, you must also satisfy the numerous requirements of the regulatory framework of falsification. You see, science talks about the real, physical world. Logic does not do that. Logic just talks about arbitrary premises, using some other arbitrary premises (its axioms).

We have to take it on blind trust. — lepriçok

On what other basis do you accept the 14 axioms of propositional logic, other than blind trust?
On what other basis do you accept the 9 axioms of standard arithmetic, other than blind trust?

You do not want to blindly trust, only because you are ignorant of the fact that you are doing that already. It is ignorance and arrogance.

Isaac, classical mechanics was found by Faraday, Maxwell and co. getting on for 200 years ago to be a special case of something bigger. (I have been reading Kaku.)

Our actions, before we undertook them, were contingent, but after we have presented them to those around us as a fait accompli, they experience them as a kind of necessity.

I believe the fields mentioned by Popper are of propensity to individuality. It is a shame boundaries aren't often mentioned in philosophy. Those are exchange places.

I believe necessity (in an occurrence) is a special case of contingency.

Libertarianism should be viewed as having both a metaphysical and an empirical basis.

I believe necessity (in an occurrence) is a special case of contingency. — Fine Doubter

I don't understand this sentence, because contingency is literally the negation of necessity. "Contingent" means "not necessary".

?? You just said you didn't take the SAT. You're not in the US apparently. — Terrapin Station

Perhaps you should improve your reading comprehension skills.

Perhaps you should improve your reading comprehension skills. — Isaac

See my SAT score.

See my SAT score. — Terrapin Station

So now academic achievement is a measure of relevant intellectual skills.

So now academic achievement is a measure of relevant intellectual skills. — Isaac

Your reading comprehension and reasoning problems evidenced in this post: (1) SAT is a standardized test that's taken on one occasion; it's evaluated "blindly," and by machines. Obtaining a degree is a long process that isn't standardized, and there are lots of different subjective, biased factors involved. (2) You're again suggesting that you're an Aspie, and you read everything as "literal" as possible.

(1) SAT is a standardized test that's taken on one occasion; it's evaluated "blindly," and by machines. Obtaining a degree is a long process that isn't standardized, and there are lots of different subjective, biased factors involved. — Terrapin Station

Where have I said anything to the contrary?

Where have I said anything to the contrary? — Isaac

Via conflating my comments about academic achievement and its implications for intelligence (which you're reading overly "literally") with a comment (that you also read overly "literally") about the SAT.

Via conflating my comments about academic achievement and its implications for intelligence (which you're reading overly "literally") with a comment (that you also read overly "literally") about the SAT. — Terrapin Station

"Where?" was the question, not "how?". Tell me what comment gave you this impression and I can explain what I actually meant by it.

"Where?" was the question, not "how?". — Isaac

Haha, overly "literal" again. I quoted the comment in question right above the content of mine we're talking about. That's the whole idea behind quoting something and then commenting after you quote it.

I quoted the comment in question right above the content of mine we're talking about. — Terrapin Station

Yes, I'm just asking which quote, you've quoted several. None of them seem to me to imply anything like the conflation you're suggesting. Simply saying "I've quoted it" doesn't help.

Yes, I'm just asking which quote, you've quoted several. — Isaac

You quoted the passage that starts with this: "(1) SAT is a standardized test . . ." and asked where you said anything to the contrary.

The passage that starts with "(1) SAT is a standardized test . . . " followed me quoting a single, eleven-word sentence of yours.

Free will obtains via the fact that the world is not strongly deterministic. The standard view in the sciences, by the way, is that the world is not strongly deterministic, where that's been the standard view for over 150 years now, but somehow the message isn't getting through. — Terrapin Station

If you are talking about qm effects or patterns, these are not deterministic, but so far I haven't heard how these could lead to freedom. They are not chosen, nor is there any evidence, yet, that the variablity in qm can be utilized by a conscious being. As in, out of the range of possible the wave function options I collapsed it in this way. And my choice was not determined by previous experiences I've had and/or my nature. I don't see any evidence yet that non-deterministic processes in science support any free will theory.

The passage that starts with "(1) SAT is a standardized test . . . " followed me quoting a single, eleven-word sentence of yours. — Terrapin Station

Right, thank you. So the issue I was getting at was not that your talk of reading comprehension was the same as your talk of degree-level students being judgeable as 'morons'. It's about the fact that you reference paragraphs which cover degree-level topics as being understandable with SAT-level comprehension skills.

The topics we're discussing, the types of proposition used in them and the necessary context are all at the level where there is "lots of different subjective, biased factors involved" - like a degree. Yet you're claiming any misunderstandings are down to a failure of SAT-level skills, that the propositions used are of such a simple and non-contextual nature that only basic reading comprehension is required.

If you can show me a SAT paper where the test consists of correctly interpreting the meaning of a proposition about the relationship between free-will and indeterminacy in science, I'd be very surprised.

If you are talking about qm effects or patterns, these are not deterministic, but so far I haven't heard how these could lead to freedom. — Coben

I'm not only talking about quantum mechanics. Hasn't anyone here actually studied science? Another class of phenomena that haven't been considered deterministic for a long time is (macro) stochastic phenomena. How could one have studied science and not be familiar with stochastic phenomena? And if we haven't studied science, why would we be arguing something based on science?

The whole idea is that people on message boards argue against free will based on a belief that the sciences posit a Laplacean, strongly deterministic world. They haven't conventionally posited that for over 150 years.

It's about the fact that you reference paragraphs which cover degree-level topics as being understandable with SAT-level comprehension skills. — Isaac

This would be another reading comprehension issue on your part. What are you reading the above way?

blah, blah, posturing. Stochastic processes have a random element. How does random translate into free will. And sure, I am no expert in whether stochastic models are ontologically non-deterministic or practically carried out as if there is a random element given the complexity of the variables and parameters. But that's all neither here nor ad hommy there. I don't see where free will comes in via random elements.

blah, blah, posturing. — Coben

Good argument.

Stochastic processes have a random element. How does random translate into free will. — Coben

Where was the part where anyone said, "Hey, I have a blueprint for how free will works in terms of mechanism," or "Just in case I don't have a blueprint for how free will works, that suggests that there is no free will, even though the only support for that is a view that was popular in the sciences only over 150 years ago"? No one wrote anything like that.

I am no expert in whether stochastic models are ontologically non-deterministic — Coben

That's not an issue that the sciences even addresses because the sciences don't care. Scientists typically don't want to do ontology. They want to do science, and they conventionally approach it instrumentally. They tend to see ontological questions like that as something that philosophers can do while they're also debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, hopefully someplace where they're not going to bother scientists.

Which is part of the point. The sciences haven't conventionally posited a Laplacean, strongly deterministic world for a long time.

What are you reading the above way? — Terrapin Station

The matter which started this whole sub-discussion. And, in fact, most of our other discussions recently, which have all followed the same pattern I've already outlined...

I call you out on something you've said which does not make sense, is incoherent, or contradicts other things you've said.

Instead of explaining why it's not a contradiction/incoherent, or heaven forbid, actually admitting that you might just be a tiny bit wrong about something, you just say that my reading comprehension (SAT-level) is at fault.

But none of the matters we're discussing contain propositions which are sufficiently non-contextual, or simple enough to be tested in that manner. They consist almost entirely of propositions which are complex enough to be judged by the subjective, 'no-single-right-answer', type of assessment made at higher levels of study.

So any misunderstanding is very unlikely, especially considering someone sufficiently versed in English to form arguments, to be to do with reading comprehension. Hence my supposition that this is just you trying to steer the discussion away from the flaws in your argument.

Instead of explaining why it's not a contradiction/incoherent, or heaven forbid, actually admitting that you might just be a tiny bit wrong about something, you just say that my reading comprehension (SAT-level) is at fault. — Isaac

Because every response of yours is based on not being able to read or reason very well. I'm not going to continually respond to argumentative posts of a few hundred words that are fueled by reading comprehension and reasoning problems without commenting on that fact. Especially when I hate arguing.

Because every response of yours is based on not being able to read or reason very well. — Terrapin Station

Yes, this whole sub-discussion started when I asked you to support that assertion, and why you proceed with it (despite the complete absence of any unbiased evidence) instead of taking the more humble, or charitable approach that your communication skills might be at least partly to blame.

Now we're back to the beginning again with you just making a wildly unfair and unjustified assertion about my intelligence without any evidence other than that I disputed the clarity of what you've said.

So, if your only evidence that someone lacks comprehension or reasoning skills is that they question the coherence or consistency of what you say, and if you refuse to articulate your ideas to anyone who falls into that category, then who exactly is left for you to talk to? Everyone who already agrees?

Yes, this whole sub-discussion started when I asked you to support that assertion, and why you proceed with it (despite the complete absence of any unbiased evidence) — Isaac

Which is why I'm now focusing my posts on pointing out your reading comprehension and reasoning gaffes as they occur.

o, if your only evidence that someone lacks comprehension or reasoning skills is that they question the coherence or consistency of what you say, — Isaac

Nope. And here's another reading comprehension and reasoning gaffe. I'll keep pointing them out for you.

Fine, if the best you've got by way of intelligent discussion is just to label every disagreement as a reading comprehension issue then there's no point continuing is there.

Fine, if the best you've got by way of intelligent discussion is just to label every disagreement as a reading comprehension issue — Isaac

Not even remotely what I'm doing. Hence, another example of the problem.

Stochastic processes have a random element. How does random translate into free will. — Coben

Not only that, but...

1. Stochastic processes are a modelling method, no-one is claiming that they actually are random, only that one of the variable in the model is random. So whilst you're totally right to say random does not equal free-will, it's not even true that the existence of stochastic models demonstrates anything ontologically.

2. Stochastic processes are defined as a separate set of equations to those describing classical and quantum physics. The passage I quoted showed that the scientific opinion on the brain is that it acts as a classical (non-stochastic) system. When the "non-free-will crowd" are talking about determinism in science they are obviously talking about the science relating to the brain, not just all science. So the opinion of science, as it relates to the matter in question, is that brain function is best modelled as classical objects - not quantum, not stochastic.

As you say, the rest is just posturing and guff.

1. Stochastic processes are a modelling method, — Isaac

Yes, that's what I thought. I didn't think it was an ontological difference, but an in situ, practical way of modeling.

Even it if was a new ontological position in science, and I am assuming you are correct it is not, it still wouldn't help his position, since we'd need a way to make random phenomena a source of free choices.

I am assuming you are correct, because if it was based on a non-deterministic ontology (and further one not related to qm processes) then I think it would have trickled down to non-experts like me who do take a strong interest in science.

Stochastic processes are a modelling method, no-one is claiming that they actually are random — Isaac

Again, a reading comprehension problem, as I already addressed this.

The sciences do not make an ontological commitment to "what's really the case ontologically behind stochastic processes." This means that it is not the standard view in the sciences that stochastic processes are really strongly deterministic. The sciences treat stochastic processes instrumentally instead.

The passage I quoted showed that the scientific opinion on the brain is that it acts as a classical (non-stochastic) system. — Isaac

That comment was irrelevant to what I'd said, where the irrelevance was addressing a reading comprehension misunderstanding.

it still wouldn't help his position — Coben

My position was "You can't use a belief that science has a Laplacean, strongly deterministic view of the world as a support for determinism." And I was mocking the fact that people approach it that way, despite the fact that it would imply that they're at least 150 years out of date.

I had already told you above that it's not an ontological claim, which doesn't imply that science is really positing a Laplacean view. That ("it's really Laplacean") would be an ontological claim that isn't being made, which is just my point.