Free Will and Determinism

lieutenant24
lieutenant24's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
Free Will and Determinism

In discussing Paisley's criticism of the term "freethinker," (http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/13976) the question of how free will is affected by determinism has come up multiple times. Rather than further complicate the existing thread, I've deemed it better to create a new one.

Is it possible to have free will in a deterministic universe?

COME TO THE DARK SIDE -- WE HAVE COOKIES


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
lieutenant24 wrote:Is it

lieutenant24 wrote:

Is it possible to have free will in a deterministic universe?

Do I really have a choice in this matter?

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote:Nope. Cause

Strafio wrote:
Nope. Cause isn't the only 'non-random' connection between concepts.

You're making that same old leap "connection, therefore causal connection"

For example, here's another connection:

Language Game A and Language Game B are two separate language games with two separate rules.

LGame A contains a concept X. LGame B contains concept Y.

As it happens, concept X is applicable in the exact same situations where concept Y is applicable.

So although they are different concepts from different language games, they will always be applicable to the same situations.

This means they have a connection of strong supervenience.

I suppose I should've clarified how I am referring to mind as I think it's the roots of our disagreement.

 

In once sense I agree that there is a parallel connection, in another sense I think there is a casual connection.

 

To me, the mind is nothing more than the processes or capacity of the brain, thus anything that happen within that capacity, or any process that takes place within the brain will be obviously physical. In this sense, the mind is physical and merely what the brain does, the processes.

 

At an abstract level (i.e. at the self aware, linguistic, social level; how we 'use' or 'apply' mental states) they can be seen as be purely language based, unrelated to anything physical. And there is a parallel connection between this and what the brain does.

 

I suspect you call the mind is what I refer to as the abstract level described above. That seems to be the difference and the cause of our disagreement. When I say that the mind is caused by the brain it then appears to you (as per your definitions) like I'm saying the brain physically causes the non-physical abstractions, which would obviously be confusing). Instead, what I mean by that is the cause and effect takes place at a higher ontological level (i.e. the brain), while the abstractions take place at a lower ontological level (i.e. language, society, etc).

 

If I were to call the abstractions the mind then I don't think there would be much difference.

 

Strafio wrote:
What you're doing there is denying the results of the thought experiment in order to preserve what you feel belief must be based on your own prefered conceptions.

No, I'm saying that I disagree with it. Disagreeing with a thought experiment is not "denying the results" of it because of "preferred conceptions."

 

From the first person perspective of the ignorant Earth/Twin Earth people, water does NOT refer to H2O or XYZ, it refers to the substance as they see it, and since they are exactly the same from each perspective, there would be no difference in application of the word, behaviour, or belief. If we transported the Earth person to the Twin Earth there would still be no difference since everything would be the same from their perspective. So the environments would technically be different due to the chemical structure of the water, but functionally they would be the same, which is what matters.

 

I agree with externalism in what some beliefs rely on external input, however what matters is how that environment functionally appears rather than how it objectively is. If the environment is objectively different, but appears to the individual in such a way that is doesn't matter (i.e. it doesn't interrupted their beliefs) then nothing has changed.

 

Strafio wrote:
My favourite example is the Frog.
The Frog's perception isn't advanced enough to pick out the details of a fast moving fly - it just sees a 'dot' appear that it reacts too.
If a fly zips past a frog and the frog sticks out its tongue then would say that the frog saw that fly.
If a wasp zips past the frog in the same way, and in the same way the frog sticks out his tongue then we'd say that the frog saw the wasp.
In each case, the frog's experience was exactly the same - just a dot blipping by.
However, in each case the intentional state we ascribe points to the actual insect it perceived rather than be based purely on the frog's perception.

Well, like the Twin Earth thought experiment, our third person perspective is completely irrelevant if what matters is the perception of the individual (or frog in this case). If the frogs perception is the same in each case, there will be no difference.

 

Strafio wrote:
Strong supervenience implies Global Supervenience but you can accept Global Supervenience while rejecting Strong Supervenience.

That doesn't seem right. Are you sure it isn't the other way around?

If Strong Supervenience implies that the brain is all that is needed, then why would it imply Global  Supervenience which states the brain isn't enough on its own (i.e. the eternal environment is needed).

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


tothiel
tothiel's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:tothiel

Paisley wrote:

tothiel wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I did consider his arguments and I responded to each accordingly.


Ummm? So dismissing someone and not taking them seriously on the grounds that you find their avatar silly has what to do with the content of a post again?

I said that I did respond to each of his arguments as is made evident in post # 28 of this thread. Perhaps, you should get your facts straight instead of making off-the-cuff comments.

 

 

My facts are straight, you indeed made a comment that indicated that you can't take him seriously, and if you are taking him seriously..... Then why make the statement to begin with?

As through a glass darkly you seek yourself,
But the light grows weak while under Yggdrasil. --clutch


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Does the location one is

Does the location one is born in come from a deterministic universe? This would be a random event and I would have no control over where I were born. If per chance I had been born Chinese in the 3rd century it is extrememly unlikely that I would have even heard of jesus christ. Hence, my fate would lie as an eternity in hell. Doesn't it seem odd that god would give people freewill to choose yet people never given a choice suffer the same fate as those that never heard the "good" news. The freewill arguement doesn't pass the lithmus test as it is arbitrarily assigned to those that would even know which god they are "supposed" to worship.

 

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Topher wrote:I suppose I

Topher wrote:
I suppose I should've clarified how I am referring to mind as I think it's the roots of our disagreement.
To me, the mind is nothing more than the processes or capacity of the brain, thus anything that happen within that capacity, or any process that takes place within the brain will be obviously physical. In this sense, the mind is physical and merely what the brain does, the processes.

Firstly you're redefining the meaning of the word 'mind'.
Secondly, this would be reductionism.
Anyway, haven't you said before that you agree with eliminativism when it comes to the brain?
That the only place for mental concepts is on the 'abstract level'?

Topher wrote:
At an abstract level (i.e. at the self aware, linguistic, social level; how we 'use' or 'apply' mental states) they can be seen as be purely language based, unrelated to anything physical. And there is a parallel connection between this and what the brain does.

It's this 'abstract level' where the mind has it's definition.
Who talks about the mind without evoking one of these 'abstract' concepts?
This parallel connection is the strong supervenience.
It seems that we both agree that the supervenience is where the language games share rules, i.e. propositions are applicable to the same situation.
It's just that you believe that all mental concepts have this supervenience wheras I have a restriction to particular ones.
 

Topher wrote:
Instead, what I mean by that is the cause and effect takes place at a higher ontological level (i.e. the brain), while the abstractions take place at a lower ontological level (i.e. language, society, etc).

It still stands that cause is a relation between physical events.
i.e. you go back to reducing the mind to a physical 'thing'.
You can still change this by ammending your concept of cause, the same way I do to allow 'abstract concepts' such as decisions to cause physical events.
But until you make this ammendment your concept of cause must be from physical to physical and your position is reductionism.

Topher wrote:
If I were to call the abstractions the mind then I don't think there would be much difference.

Yeah. Just the strong supervenience vs global supervenience.

 

Strafio wrote:
What you're doing there is denying the results of the thought experiment in order to preserve what you feel belief must be based on your own prefered conceptions.

Topher wrote:
No, I'm saying that I disagree with it. Disagreeing with a thought experiment is not "denying the results" of it because of "preferred conceptions."

From the first person perspective of the ignorant Earth/Twin Earth people, water does NOT refer to H2O or XYZ, it refers to the substance as they see it, and since they are exactly the same from each perspective, there would be no difference in application of the word, behaviour, or belief. If we transported the Earth person to the Twin Earth there would still be no difference since everything would be the same from their perspective. So the environments would technically be different due to the chemical structure of the water, but functionally they would be the same, which is what matters.

The thing is, the scenario isn't experimenting how we'd apply language if we were also a resident of Twin Earth.
The experiment is to show how we, the observer/narrator in this imaginary scene, naturally apply our language of mind.
It shows that how we naturally apply it doesn't restrict us to narrow content.

[quote=Strafio]My favourite example is the Frog.
The Frog's perception isn't advanced enough to pick out the details of a fast moving fly - it just sees a 'dot' appear that it reacts too.
If a fly zips past a frog and the frog sticks out its tongue then would say that the frog saw that fly.
If a wasp zips past the frog in the same way, and in the same way the frog sticks out his tongue then we'd say that the frog saw the wasp.
In each case, the frog's experience was exactly the same - just a dot blipping by.
However, in each case the intentional state we ascribe points to the actual insect it perceived rather than be based purely on the frog's perception.

Topher wrote:
Well, like the Twin Earth thought experiment, our third person perspective is completely irrelevant if what matters is the perception of the individual (or frog in this case). If the frogs perception is the same in each case, there will be no difference.

See the bit in bold?
It is a proposition that is falsified by this thought experiment.
Claims about what belief and mental content are descriptive as to how we use these concepts, the same way claims about the physical world are descriptive about the physical world we observe. If we use concepts in a different way to how a claim says we should then it's the claim that is wrong.

 

Strafio wrote:
Strong supervenience implies Global Supervenience but you can accept Global Supervenience while rejecting Strong Supervenience.

Topher wrote:
That doesn't seem right. Are you sure it isn't the other way around?

If Strong Supervenience implies that the brain is all that is needed, then why would it imply Global  Supervenience which states the brain isn't enough on its own (i.e. the eternal environment is needed).


Global Supervenience doesn't state that the brain isn't enough.
All Global Supervenience states is that if a world was copied particle for particle then we would have to apply the same mental properties.
This isn't enough to imply strong supervenience, so it allows for theories where the brain isn't sufficient. (e.g. externalism)
If strong supervenience is true then it's quite obvious that global supervenience will be true also.


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Ignore Paisley when he's

Ignore Paisley when he's talking about free will. He has many dogmatic views about atheists that he refuses to change and this is one of them.

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
 Strafio wrote:Firstly

 

Strafio wrote:
Firstly you're redefining the meaning of the word 'mind'.

This is how I've always defined mind.

 

Strafio wrote:
Anyway, haven't you said before that you agree with eliminativism when it comes to the brain?

That the only place for mental concepts is on the 'abstract level'?

In a sense, yes. Although as far as I'm aware eliminativists propose removing the entire concept, even from an abstract level. I think there is purpose for it at that level.

 

Strafio wrote:
It's this 'abstract level' where the mind has it's definition.

If may be where we define mind, but it isn't what we define as mind. I think there is a difference.

 

Strafio wrote:
Who talks about the mind without evoking one of these 'abstract' concepts?

I think the mind is the brain and that these abstract concepts are simply a manifestation of the totality of the brain processes. They are how we talk about the mind on a social, linguistic level, but that level is not the mind itself.

I think we can look at the mind at the level of the physical brain, for example, to study how they arise; how the brain can produce something like consciousness, etc.

 

Strafio wrote:
It still stands that cause is a relation between physical events.

i.e. you go back to reducing the mind to a physical 'thing'.

Right. I do think the mind is a physical thing; the processes/caacity of the brain.

I don't think the abstract concepts (what you call mind) is the mind it self. I think they are merely how we talk about the mind in a social context.

 

Strafio wrote:
You can still change this by ammending your concept of cause, the same way I do to allow 'abstract concepts' such as decisions to cause physical events.

These abstractions are not physical. They are not casual. How does something non-physical cause physical events?

 

Decision making takes place at a physical level before we are consciously aware of the decision.

 

Strafio wrote:
The thing is, the scenario isn't experimenting how we'd apply language if we were also a resident of Twin Earth.

The experiment is to show how we, the observer/narrator in this imaginary scene, naturally apply our language of mind.

Who cares what we think. Putnam's question is that when Oscar and Twin Oscar say 'water' do they mean the same thing? It isn't asking what we think, it is asking what the characters think. And yes, they do mean the same thing since from their perspective there is no difference.

Remember what the claims is: some mental states are based on, and therefore require, external information. Thus, it's claimed, you change the external environment and you change the mental state.

I'm saying that providing the external environment is functionally the same, and that it doesn't interrupt the beliefs and other mental states, it have to be exactly the same. So the environment can be different but not effect beliefs which are based on external information, since they are not based on specific technicalities of the environment, but rather the general appearance and function of the environment.

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


Strafio on work PC (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Topher wrote:This is how

Topher wrote:
This is how I've always defined mind.

I mean redefining it from the rest of the world.
We already have a word for brain - it's "brain".
The word "mind" is for something different.
 

Strafio wrote:
Anyway, haven't you said before that you agree with eliminativism when it comes to the brain?

Topher wrote:
That the only place for mental concepts is on the 'abstract level'?

In a sense, yes. Although as far as I'm aware eliminativists propose removing the entire concept, even from an abstract level. I think there is purpose for it at that level.


Right. So you agree that the concept 'mind' has no purpose in the context of physics but does have a purpose in the context of social interaction.
So perhaps that's a reason to rethinking defining mind as 'brain'?

 

Strafio wrote:
It's this 'abstract level' where the mind has it's definition.

Topher wrote:
If may be where we define mind, but it isn't what we define as mind. I think there is a difference.

Where determines whether there even is a 'what'.
Why should mind refer to a physical thing if it's use comes from a language game that doesn't make such referrals?
Sounds a bit ad hoc...
 

Strafio wrote:
You can still change this by ammending your concept of cause, the same way I do to allow 'abstract concepts' such as decisions to cause physical events.

Topher wrote:
These abstractions are not physical. They are not casual. How does something non-physical cause physical events?

The nominalogical version of 'cause', the most common version, requires physical events.
However, the minimalist concept of cause is much simpler.
"If A hadn't happened then B hadn't happened"
i.e. If "action" with physical consequences" hadn't happened then mental concept "decision" wouldn't have been applicable


 

Strafio wrote:
The thing is, the scenario isn't experimenting how we'd apply language if we were also a resident of Twin Earth.

The experiment is to show how we, the observer/narrator in this imaginary scene, naturally apply our language of mind.

Topher wrote:
Who cares what we think.

What we think is what a thought experiement tests. It's the entire point.
The experiment is about how we naturally apply our language of mind to give us results about how we apply our language of mind.

Topher wrote:
Putnam's question is that when Oscar and Twin Oscar say 'water' do they mean the same thing?

No it isn't. Read it again.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/content-externalism/#2
 


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
 Strafio

 

Strafio wrote:
I mean redefining it from the rest of the world.

We already have a word for brain - it's "brain".

The word "mind" is for something different.

The mind is what the brain does, what it produces.

 

Strafio wrote:
Right. So you agree that the concept 'mind' has no purpose in the context of physics but does have a purpose in the context of social interaction.

So perhaps that's a reason to rethinking defining mind as 'brain'?

I never said it doesn't have a purpose in the physical context.

I think there is a purpose at each level. I think there are two ontological levels of mind, one is physical, the other isn't.

 

Strafio wrote:
No it isn't. Read it again.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/content-externalism/#2

Yes it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Earth_thought_experiment

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
ronin-dog wrote:Ignore

ronin-dog wrote:
Ignore Paisley when he's talking about free will. He has many dogmatic views about atheists that he refuses to change and this is one of them.

Translation: "I want to be an atheist and still believe that my free will is intact even though I cannot logically account for it."

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Paisley

Hambydammit wrote:
Paisley wrote:
At any rate, the prevailing scientific evidence based on quantum mechanics suggests that the world is fundamentally indeterminate. Moreover, prominent physicists have provided compelling quantum mind theories in which quantum indeterminacy is employed to account for free will.

So what the fuck is the problem?  If the universe is fundamentally indeterminate, then determinism fails.  Why are you making us go through this ridiculous exercise?  None of this addresses my point, which you have most definitely not addressed.  The theist can no more reconcile an omniscient god with free will than an atheist who believes in a determinist universe.  If god is not omniscient, then he is not all powerful, and must be part of a larger set of laws, which is to say that its existence is bound by the problem of determinism.

The glaring problem here for the atheist is that if the world is fundamentally indeterminate, then the atheist materialist cannot account for why there are "uncaused" physical events. If determinism is true, then the atheist materialist must admit that all intentional acts are determined by infinite causation. And if all intentional acts are determined by infinite causation, then logic dictates that infinite causation must be an intelligent agent (there's only one intentional act or will) or there is no intelligence in the universe.

From the theistic perspective, if determinism is true, then God is all powerful because God determines everything. If determinism is not true, then God is not all powerful because there are free agents also making determinations. Where's the conflict? The only thing at issue here is a matter of theology - namely, the difference between pantheism and panentheism.

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:The glaring

Paisley wrote:

The glaring problem here for the atheist is that if the world is fundamentally indeterminate, then the atheist materialist cannot account for why there are "uncaused" physical events. If determinism is true, then the atheist materialist must admit that all intentional acts are determined by infinite causation. And if all intentional acts are determined by infinite causation, then logic dictates that infinite causation must be an intelligent agent (there's only one intentional act or will) or there is no intelligence in the universe.

The definition of "determinism" does not lead so quickly to an intelligent agent. If intelligence (that is, synthetic information processing) is an emergent property of the universe, and not an intrinsic property, there is no need for a God of any sort. You are jumping a huge chasm worthy of Evil Knievel.

Just as life arose from less-orgainized non-living matter, local decreases of entropy (information processing, in this case) merely requires an energy gradient, not some master control program.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I can present

Paisley wrote:

I can present a fairly simple example to demonstrate how libertarian free will or indeterminism can coexist with determinism.

Most computer languages have some kind of built-in random function. The following presents a statement coded in a Perl program in which a built-in function will randomly "choose" a number between 1 and 10 and assign it to a designated variable:

$PickANumber = int(rand(10)) + 1;

Each time the program runs, all the statements in the program will be executed in a completely deterministic fashion. However, each time the foregoing statement is executed, it will "pick" a number that is (at least in theory) completely random.

There is one glitch here. The above function is not really random. The number that is actually chosen is based on the internal clock time of the computer. That is, whenever the program runs, then whatever number is in the "thousandths of second place" will be used. However, for all intents and practical purposes, the function is random even though in reality it is completely predetermined.

That depends on the implementation of /dev/random. For instance, Linux uses other "entropy" as well to randomize the system-level random number generator: input from peripherals, other fairly random things from the system environment.

Quote:

But if this were truly a random function, then the number that was "chosen" would have been selected without any physical cause.

Yes, but without knowing the implementation details, how could you tell the difference?

That's the key point. So far, QM seems to be disconnected from the things we are able to control. However, we have no clue what the mechanism is, so any speculation on cause is useful only in helping direct study. There are potential chaotic explanations that would leave QM in the realm of the deterministic only in the strictest sense, the same way that /dev/random is deterministic only in the strictest sense. Unless you know the implementation details, it will seem completely random, and therefore indeterminate. A sufficiently chaotic system will appear to be without cause.

This completely ignores the philosophic question of "free will," but as I stated in the other thread, that's a naive question that has no real value or even meaning. We perceive we have free will, and so that perception is how we define free will. We perceive we have intelligence, and so that is how we define intelligence. The question of whether or not we possess either of these traits is irrelevent.


 

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:How can I take

Paisley wrote:

How can I take a member of this forum seriously when he identifies himself as a kitty cat wearing a badge and carrying an uzi machine gun? ////

      Well, how can I, a hard core atheist, take an ancient character we call "Jesus" seriously, who claimed to be god, to then be nailed to a cross ?  By the content of the message.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Paisley

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:

The glaring problem here for the atheist is that if the world is fundamentally indeterminate, then the atheist materialist cannot account for why there are "uncaused" physical events. If determinism is true, then the atheist materialist must admit that all intentional acts are determined by infinite causation. And if all intentional acts are determined by infinite causation, then logic dictates that infinite causation must be an intelligent agent (there's only one intentional act or will) or there is no intelligence in the universe.

The definition of "determinism" does not lead so quickly to an intelligent agent. If intelligence (that is, synthetic information processing) is an emergent property of the universe, and not an intrinsic property, there is no need for a God of any sort. You are jumping a huge chasm worthy of Evil Knievel.

Just as life arose from less-orgainized non-living matter, local decreases of entropy (information processing, in this case) merely requires an energy gradient, not some master control program.

Emergence has nothing to do with this. (Incidentally, emergence, especially "strong emergence," is just a euphemism for "magic." Consciousness does not "magically emerge" from mindless matter.)

Determinism views the universe in mechanical terms. Thus, nature as a whole is apparently viewed as some kind of a self-programming computer. As such, all intentional acts must be predetermined by the "self-programming computer" in order for determinism to hold true. Therefore, we are left with making one of two inferences: Either the universe, in its totality, is an intelligent agent (why? because it is responsible for making all determinations which must include intentional acts) or there is no intelligence in the universe. You can't have it both ways; if you say that the human eyeball was simply the result of natural processes playing themselves out, then you must acknowledge the same for everything else. In other words, the development of a Swiss watch is completely the result of natural processes playing themselves out. Evidently, the Swiss are "blind watchmakers."

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:That

nigelTheBold wrote:
That depends on the implementation of /dev/random. For instance, Linux uses other "entropy" as well to randomize the system-level random number generator: input from peripherals, other fairly random things from the system environment.

In my example, my program was running on DOS, not Linux. Besides, this is a moot point. The term "fairly random" is meaningless. Either it is random or predetermined. There's no middle-ground here.

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:
But if this were truly a random function, then the number that was "chosen" would have been selected without any physical cause.

Yes, but without knowing the implementation details, how could you tell the difference?

Free will may be completely illusory. However, until proven otherwise, we are forced to accept our first-person evidence that it is (at least the so-called rational atheist is...remember, you are not allowed the luxury to deny the evidence).

nigelTheBold wrote:
That's the key point. So far, QM seems to be disconnected from the things we are able to control. However, we have no clue what the mechanism is, so any speculation on cause is useful only in helping direct study. There are potential chaotic explanations that would leave QM in the realm of the deterministic only in the strictest sense, the same way that /dev/random is deterministic only in the strictest sense. Unless you know the implementation details, it will seem completely random, and therefore indeterminate. A sufficiently chaotic system will appear to be without cause.

QM emphatically supports quantum indeterminacy. Until quantum theory is falsified, you will have to accept the evidence. If not, then you have no basis to profess that you have a "scientific worldview." You can't have it both ways. If you insist that science is the only avenue of inquiry and knowledge, then intellectual honesty demands that you acknowledge that the present scientific evidence suggests that materialism is invalid.

nigelTheBold wrote:
This completely ignores the philosophic question of "free will," but as I stated in the other thread, that's a naive question that has no real value or even meaning. We perceive we have free will, and so that perception is how we define free will. We perceive we have intelligence, and so that is how we define intelligence. The question of whether or not we possess either of these traits is irrelevent.

What kind of senseless drivel is this?

Science is ultimately based on what we perceive. If we perceive that we have "free will," then we have evidence that we have free will. As such, you must accept that you have free will until it is proven otherwise.

Your duplicity on this matter speaks volumes about your intellectual honesty. This endless ranting by atheists that there is no evidence for the existence of the soul or for spirit is patently false. There most certainly is.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:nigelTheBold

Paisley wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
This completely ignores the philosophic question of "free will," but as I stated in the other thread, that's a naive question that has no real value or even meaning. We perceive we have free will, and so that perception is how we define free will. We perceive we have intelligence, and so that is how we define intelligence. The question of whether or not we possess either of these traits is irrelevent.

What kind of senseless drivel is this?

Science is ultimately based on what we perceive. If we perceive that we have "free will," then we have evidence that we have free will. As such, you must accept that you have free will until it is proven otherwise.

Your duplicity on this matter speaks volumes about your intellectual honesty. This endless ranting by atheists that there is no evidence for the existence of the soul or for spirit is patently false. There most certainly is.

*sigh*

"Free will" is a concept created by philosophy. It is a philosophic question, not a scientific one. Therefore, "Free Will" has no bearing on QM. QM may have a bearing on "Free Will," but the converse is not true. You conflate the two as if they were one and the same.

As John Horton Conway demonstrated over 35 years ago, complex structures and processes are emergent artifacts of simple systems. (And no, "emergent" does not mean "magic." That's merely you trying to avoid the actual argument again, which I notice you avoided.) On a larger scale, evolution proves the same thing. Simple sets of rules result in much larger, more-complex systems.

Any discussion of "free will" is philosophic, and ultimately merely comes down to your own comfort. If you feel you need to have some sort of God to feel as if you have degrees of freedom, then that's fine. I just think you're taking it too far trying to declare it as some sort of fundamental process of the universe. That's called "projecting."

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
 

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Out of respect , I named one

Out of respect , I named one of my rock bands "Thomas Jefferson", a member of the Thomas Paine free thinkers club. Out of respect my current band is Nigel the Bold

"Free will" is a concept created by philosophy. It is a philosophic question, not a scientific one ....... " ~  nigelTheBold - June 7, 2008 - 12:09pm.

 


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Out of

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Out of respect , I named one of my rock bands "Thomas Jefferson", a member of the Thomas Paine free thinkers club. Out of respect my current band is Nigel the Bold

"Free will" is a concept created by philosophy. It is a philosophic question, not a scientific one ....... " ~  nigelTheBold - June 7, 2008 - 12:09pm.

Thanks, iGod. That's about the best compliment I could receive.

I'm assuming this is a "Rock Band" console band? If so, which console? I'm a PS3 Rock Bander.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Nigel. No , the real thing,

Nigel. No , the real thing, live. Metal Jazz Fusion. Just me (guitar, keys) and my fellow part time jammers. Just for fun, nothing serious, we rarely go out and play.

   You got style dude.  You are a fun, great thinker teacher. Thanks again, and to all the many wise ones here at RRS .... the list is long .... lol

   mark , ((((  i u god , All is ONE ! No master, No religion .....


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Nigel.

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Nigel. No , the real thing, live. Metal Jazz Fusion. Just me (guitar, keys) and my fellow part time jammers. Just for fun, nothing serious, we rarely go out and play.

   You got style dude.  You are a fun, great thinker teacher. Thanks again, and to all the many wise ones here at RRS .... the list is long .... lol

   mark , ((((  i u god , All is ONE ! No master, No religion .....

Mark,

That means even more.

You should really just call it, "RRS," or something else -- I'm just a tiny little player.

But thanks. Really. I mean it. And continue with "Nigel" if you want. I'm just that vain.

-Tony

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Paisley

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:
What kind of senseless drivel is this?

Science is ultimately based on what we perceive. If we perceive that we have "free will," then we have evidence that we have free will. As such, you must accept that you have free will until it is proven otherwise.

Your duplicity on this matter speaks volumes about your intellectual honesty. This endless ranting by atheists that there is no evidence for the existence of the soul or for spirit is patently false. There most certainly is.

*sigh*

"Free will" is a concept created by philosophy. It is a philosophic question, not a scientific one. Therefore, "Free Will" has no bearing on QM.

I didn't say it has a bearing on QM. I said that we have first-person evidence that we have free will. And according to you, I am supposed to ignore my first-person perceptions.

Also, I disagree with your assertion that "free will" is only a philosophical question. Quantum mind theories have been formulated with criteria for experimental testing. Whether they are verified or not remains to be seen. Although the scientific study of consciousness is in its infancy, this is an area that scientists are actively pursuing.

nigelTheBold wrote:
QM may have a bearing on "Free Will," but the converse is not true. You conflate the two as if they were one and the same.

I believe that if there is evidence for indeterminism, then there is evidence for conscious will. This is a logical inference. What is the alternative? There are physical events without causes?

nigelTheBold wrote:
As John Horton Conway demonstrated over 35 years ago, complex structures and processes are emergent artifacts of simple systems. (And no, "emergent" does not mean "magic." That's merely you trying to avoid the actual argument again, which I notice you avoided.) On a larger scale, evolution proves the same thing. Simple sets of rules result in much larger, more-complex systems.

I said "strong emergence." Do you know the difference between "weak" and "strong" emergence?

Materialism basically teaches that consciousness is an emergent property. This is an example of strong emergence and it is definitely akin to saying that consciousness just magically appears when a certain complexity threshold is met. It's not a real explanation.

nigelTheBold wrote:
Any discussion of "free will" is philosophic, and ultimately merely comes down to your own comfort. If you feel you need to have some sort of God to feel as if you have degrees of freedom, then that's fine. I just think you're taking it too far trying to declare it as some sort of fundamental process of the universe. That's called "projecting."

I guess prominent mathematicians and physicists such as Roger Penrose, David Bohm and Henry Stapp are projecting.

Quote:
Since Stapp sees collapse as a mental process and the deterministic evolution of brain states as physical, his approach is philosophically aligned with interactionist dualism. The process by which collapse selects an actuality from a set of possibilities is seen by Stapp as literally a process of choice, and not merely a random dice-throw

source: Wikipedia "Quantum mind"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind 

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
P - How does this relate to

P - How does this relate to "weird" GOD as you mentioned ????

A song of QM ---- "The Doors - People are Strange" WEIRD ! and what isn't ?  .... 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=old6xeBVIfw

 QM = Intermittent !???  "Out of the rain, no one remembers your name !"    

 We can debate love too ! Bros, let's not forget to really study pussy ! Very important !


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Free will may

Paisley wrote:

Free will may be completely illusory. However, until proven otherwise, we are forced to accept our first-person evidence that it is (at least the so-called rational atheist is...remember, you are not allowed the luxury to deny the evidence).

But we are, in fact, obligated to question it, as we are obligated to question all evidence. If it can be doubted, it cannot be trusted. I could just as easily make the following statement:

 

We have seen over the course of scientific experimentation and exploration that in a great many cases, phenomena occur which we cannot initially explain, but are later able to study, theorize, and eventually understand and predict in great detail, such as weather patterns. Free Will may exist. However, until proven, we are forced to accept our aggregate evidence that it is merely another apparent phenomena which will at some later time be better understood and predicted, as not a truly 'free' process, but merely an extremely complex and adaptive process.

 

It doesn't make either yours, or mine, indubitable. If it can be doubted, it cannot be trusted, and neither confidence, nor faith can be invested in it. If you choose to believe in your logical construct, feel free. But until you can show beyond all possible doubt that your construct is flawless... then don't expect everyone else to believe it.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I said "strong

Paisley wrote:

I said "strong emergence." Do you know the difference between "weak" and "strong" emergence?

Quite.

And again, you are jumping the gun. You seem to believe that just because some people believe a thing, it is true. According to Wikipedia:

Wikipedia wrote:

Some philosophers have proposed that qualia and consciousness demonstrate strong emergence.

That is, some philosophers. Which is fun, because it helps support my position that "free will" is a philosophical, and not scientific, question. It also demonstrates that consciousness is not understood, and so absolute statements about it are premature.

Notably, "strong emergence" is similar in tone to "irreducible complexity," another fallacious idea. That is, simply because we don't understand the foundations of a thing, that thing is "magic," and demonstrates the hand of a Designer.

Quote:

Materialism basically teaches that consciousness is an emergent property. This is an example of strong emergence and it is definitely akin to saying that consciousness just magically appears when a certain complexity threshold is met. It's not a real explanation.

No, it's definitely not an explanation. It's a cop-out. It's akin to saying, "We don't know the mechanisms behind it." I never claimed to explain consciousness; I was simply saying that we don't know the answer yet. The understanding is that one day we may understand the processes of consciousness.

The emergence consciousness is no more magical than a glider just "magically" appearing in Conway's game of life, or the first DNA just "magically" appearing out of a primordial environment. It's more complex than the game of life, and possibly more complex than the first assemblage of DNA, but it is certainly not "magical."

Quote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
Any discussion of "free will" is philosophic, and ultimately merely comes down to your own comfort. If you feel you need to have some sort of God to feel as if you have degrees of freedom, then that's fine. I just think you're taking it too far trying to declare it as some sort of fundamental process of the universe. That's called "projecting."

I guess prominent mathematicians and physicists such as Roger Penrose, David Bohm and Henry Stapp are projecting.

Quote:
Since Stapp sees collapse as a mental process and the deterministic evolution of brain states as physical, his approach is philosophically aligned with interactionist dualism. The process by which collapse selects an actuality from a set of possibilities is seen by Stapp as literally a process of choice, and not merely a random dice-throw

source: Wikipedia "Quantum mind"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind 

Ah, yes. Three scientists/philosophers. Again, you are describing a philosophic viewpoint of a scientist. At the moment, this is at best an hypothesis. Also, it is completely untestable at this time. As you mentioned before, the proposed tests haven't been performed yet, mostly because we are years away from being able to perform them.

Until that point, you are premature in making positive assertions of truth. You can make assertions of probabilities, or perhaps even discussions of implications, but any positive assertion based on an unproved hypothesis is building castles in the air.

In truth, I don't truly believe you are "wrong," in the common use of the word. The things on which you base your assertions have a greater-than-zero probability of being correct. However, they are in opposition to other hypothesis which have an even greater probability of being correct.

What I disagree with is your absolutism, your constant assertion that your interpretation is the "right" interpretation. The issue at hand is, we don't know. We have no empirical evidence to support any conclusions at this point. Your argument is akin to proclaiming in Copernicus's time, "The sun goes 'round the earth! That is the accepted view, and so it is!" Only, what you proclaim as the "accepted" view is actually a minority interpretation of that view. Oh, and we know now that the earth revolves 'round the sun. I actually didn't mean to imply that you are absolutely "wrong."

By the same token, you are not "right," by any stretch of the imagination.

We have only probabilities. The outcome is indeterminate at this time.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I believe that

Paisley wrote:

I believe that if there is evidence for indeterminism, then there is evidence for conscious will. This is a logical inference. What is the alternative? There are physical events without causes?

This is your fundamental error - the unjustified assumption that an apparently 'uncaused' event can ONLY be 'explained' by a conscious will.

I do agree actually with part of your belief that the origin of such events may ultimately be the 'Universe', at least in some sense, it is your assumption that it necessarily entails 'conscious will', in any way analogous to what we perceive in ourselves, is an enormous leap.

QM suggests many mysterious effects which we can't get our minds around at all easily - the history of the development of scientific concepts and explanations suggests that it may well involve concepts totally novel, rather than this primitive tendency to attribute the 'cause' of some event to a conscious agent if we can't see or imagine any more mundane explanation. The uncaused apect of QM only arises in the Planck-scale regime where Heisenberg uncertainty dominates, which means that simplistic interpretation and extrapolation to the macro level where Quantum uncertainty averages out to present us with our ordinary perception of cause-and-effect, is somewhat problematic, and would need a lot more justification.

Our perception of free will is only suggestive 'evidence' for freewill, it in no way proves it, any more than our perception that the Sun goes round the Earth proves that. The knowledge that our perceptions, even our introspective perceptions can definitely be illusory, and frequently are, as established by many experiments and observations, means it would be wilfully irrational to say we are 'compelled' to accept any perception as true, without independent evidence.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Paisley

BobSpence1 wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I believe that if there is evidence for indeterminism, then there is evidence for conscious will. This is a logical inference. What is the alternative? There are physical events without causes?

This is your fundamental error - the unjustified assumption that an apparently 'uncaused' event can ONLY be 'explained' by a conscious will.

I do agree actually with part of your belief that the origin of such events may ultimately be the 'Universe', at least in some sense, it is your assumption that it necessarily entails 'conscious will', in any way analogous to what we perceive in ourselves, is an enormous leap.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that indeterminism actually means indeterminism, that is, the view that "not every event has a cause." Now please explain to me what part of my belief that you are agreeing with.

BobSpence1 wrote:
QM suggests many mysterious effects which we can't get our minds around at all easily - the history of the development of scientific concepts and explanations suggests that it may well involve concepts totally novel, rather than this primitive tendency to attribute the 'cause' of some event to a conscious agent if we can't see or imagine any more mundane explanation.

As far as I can deduce (at least in theory), there are only two types of causes: physical causes and mental causes. The materialist makes the assumption (and that is what it is) that all mental causes are physical causes. Therefore, the only causes in the universe are only physical ones. It seems presumptuos to me to assume that the only causes in the universe are physical ones. Why isn't it possible that there are mental causes that cannot be explain in terms of the physical?

BobSpence1 wrote:
The uncaused apect of QM only arises in the Planck-scale regime where Heisenberg uncertainty dominates, which means that simplistic interpretation and extrapolation to the macro level where Quantum uncertainty averages out to present us with our ordinary perception of cause-and-effect, is somewhat problematic, and would need a lot more justification.

I do not profess to have an academic or professional background in physics. At best, I only have a layman's background (i.e. a general, high-level qualitative (not quantitative) understanding of QM that I have acquired by reading the books of physicists who write books for the general public). That being said, it is my undertstanding that QM states that nature is fundamentally indeterministic and that there are indeed physical events occurring without cause. For expressing this view, I have taken a lot of flack on this forum. It now appears to me you are concurring with my understanding that QM does indeed have an uncaused aspect. Which one is it? Does QM have an uncaused aspect? Yes or no?

Also, you have argued in another thread that chaos theory can be invoked as a plausible explanation for what "appears" to be random events on the quanutm level. On the other hand, why can't this same theory be invoked to explain how minor random events (assuming they are truly random) on the microworld level can have a random effect on the macroworld level? It would seem to me that it can work both ways.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Our perception of free will is only suggestive 'evidence' for freewill, it in no way proves it, any more than our perception that the Sun goes round the Earth proves that. The knowledge that our perceptions, even our introspective perceptions can definitely be illusory, and frequently are, as established by many experiments and observations, means it would be wilfully irrational to say we are 'compelled' to accept any perception as true, without independent evidence.

Was it willfully ignorant  to believe that the sun went around the earth during a time period when there was no evidence to suggest otherwise?

Isn't it true that all science is ultimately based on the perceptions of scientists and how they interpret the data? And isn't true that science only studies the appearances of physical phenomena and that what actually constitutes ultimate reality is not really within the purview of science?

Also, isn't it true that you operate your life as if you do believe that you have free will? In other words, aren't you already compelled to accept free will regardless of whether you claim to philosophically accept it or not? If you didn't accept it, then you would never experience regrets or guilt or become angry with yourself for making past choices. Would you really have us believe that you do not have these basic human experiences?

Finally, introspective evidence of free will may not prove conclusively the existence of free will. But by the same token, it doesn't disprove it either. The same thing can be said about indeterminism and determinism. So, the way I see it, you are presented with a dilemma. All you can say right now is that you do not know. Perhaps there are truly physical events without cause; perhaps there isn't. You really don't know. And since you really don't know, isn't the honest thing to admit that you are agnostic on this matter? However, this is not the position you are taking. You are positively affirming a purely materialistic position and suggesting that anyone who does not concur with this position is irrational.

 

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Wikipedia

nigelTheBold wrote:
Wikipedia wrote:
Some philosophers have proposed that qualia and consciousness demonstrate strong emergence.

That is, some philosophers. Which is fun, because it helps support my position that "free will" is a philosophical, and not scientific, question. It also demonstrates that consciousness is not understood, and so absolute statements about it are premature.

Absolute statements about deterministic materialism are also premature.

nigelTheBold wrote:
Notably, "strong emergence" is similar in tone to "irreducible complexity," another fallacious idea. That is, simply because we don't understand the foundations of a thing, that thing is "magic," and demonstrates the hand of a Designer.

I never stated that conscious-awareness was designed. This isn't my view. I believe conscious-awareness is fundamental and that the mental and the physical mutually-condition each other. This is known as panexperientialism. This view is compatible with weak emergence, not strong. In fact, it was developed to specifically address the problem of strong emergence.

The emergence of consciousness cannot be compared to anything else in nature. Because every other evidence of emergence that we observe in nature (e.g. the emergence of purple paint when you mix equal amounts of blue and red paint) is objective or physical phenomena. Conscious-awareness is subjective or mental phenomena. You're comparing apples with oranges (and even this metaphor doesn't fully justify what is at issue here).

And I do think it is akin to magic to say that some kind of confinguration of an electro-chemical reaction suddenly becomes consciously-aware when a certain complexity threshold level is reached. Others in academia agree with me.

Quote:
Regarding strong emergence, Mark A. Bedau observes:

"Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing."(Bedau 1997)

The link to the primary source is listed below.

http://academic.reed.edu/philosophy/faculty/bedau/pdf/emergence.pdf

source: Wikipedia "Emergence"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence 

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:
Materialism basically teaches that consciousness is an emergent property. This is an example of strong emergence and it is definitely akin to saying that consciousness just magically appears when a certain complexity threshold is met. It's not a real explanation.

No, it's definitely not an explanation. It's a cop-out. It's akin to saying, "We don't know the mechanisms behind it." I never claimed to explain consciousness; I was simply saying that we don't know the answer yet. The understanding is that one day we may understand the processes of consciousness.

Why does there have to be a "mechanism?" Why is it not possible that conscious-awareness is simply a brute fact of existence?

nigelTheBold wrote:
The emergence consciousness is no more magical than a glider just "magically" appearing in Conway's game of life, or the first DNA just "magically" appearing out of a primordial environment. It's more complex than the game of life, and possibly more complex than the first assemblage of DNA, but it is certainly not "magical."

You're comparing apples with oranges as I have already stated previously.

nigelTheBold wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I guess prominent mathematicians and physicists such as Roger Penrose, David Bohm and Henry Stapp are projecting.

Ah, yes. Three scientists/philosophers. Again, you are describing a philosophic viewpoint of a scientist. At the moment, this is at best an hypothesis. Also, it is completely untestable at this time. As you mentioned before, the proposed tests haven't been performed yet, mostly because we are years away from being able to perform them.

A scientific hypothesis must be testable by definition. Therefore, you must conclude that "free will" is considered to be a scientific issue as well as a philosophical one. Evidently, on your view, science should not even dabble in this area.

nigelTheBold wrote:
Until that point, you are premature in making positive assertions of truth. You can make assertions of probabilities, or perhaps even discussions of implications, but any positive assertion based on an unproved hypothesis is building castles in the air.

The positive assertion that I made is that scientists are actively pursuing this subject matter.

nigelTheBold wrote:
In truth, I don't truly believe you are "wrong," in the common use of the word. The things on which you base your assertions have a greater-than-zero probability of being correct. However, they are in opposition to other hypothesis which have an even greater probability of being correct.

What I disagree with is your absolutism, your constant assertion that your interpretation is the "right" interpretation. The issue at hand is, we don't know. We have no empirical evidence to support any conclusions at this point. Your argument is akin to proclaiming in Copernicus's time, "The sun goes 'round the earth! That is the accepted view, and so it is!" Only, what you proclaim as the "accepted" view is actually a minority interpretation of that view. Oh, and we know now that the earth revolves 'round the sun. I actually didn't mean to imply that you are absolutely "wrong."

By the same token, you are not "right," by any stretch of the imagination.

We have only probabilities. The outcome is indeterminate at this time.

What are the "absolute" assertions that I have made?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Absolute

Paisley wrote:

Absolute statements about deterministic materialism are also premature.

Agreed. Completely and amicably agreed.

Quote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
Notably, "strong emergence" is similar in tone to "irreducible complexity," another fallacious idea. That is, simply because we don't understand the foundations of a thing, that thing is "magic," and demonstrates the hand of a Designer.

I never stated that conscious-awareness was designed. This isn't my view. I believe conscious-awareness is fundamental and that the mental and the physical mutually-condition each other. This is known as panexperientialism. This view is compatible with weak emergence, not strong. In fact, it was developed to specifically address the problem of strong emergence.

The emergence of consciousness cannot be compared to anything else in nature. Because every other evidence of emergence that we observe in nature (e.g. the emergence of purple paint when you mix equal amounts of blue and red paint) is objective or physical phenomena. Conscious-awareness is subjective or mental phenomena. You're comparing apples with oranges (and even this metaphor doesn't fully justify what is at issue here).

And I do think it is akin to magic to say that some kind of confinguration of an electro-chemical reaction suddenly becomes consciously-aware when a certain complexity threshold level is reached. Others in academia agree with me.

Sorry.  I didn't mean to imply you thought consciousness was designed -- I was trying to refer to irreducible complexity, and draw a parallel with Strong Emergence and "magic,' and the result came out poorly.

"Emergence" is merely the statement that extremely simple rules may result in extraordinarily complex systems. I'm not sure exactly what the distinction would be between "strong" and "weak" emergence, from a practical standpoint. Quantitatively, I can see the argument, "Conway's gliders are one thing, but self-awareness is completely different class," and I'd agree. But are they necessarily qualitatively different? (That's not a rhetorical question -- I really don't know.)

I guess my intellectual response to that (after the emotional response) is, "But what about the difference between non-life and self-replicating life?" If nature and emergence can produce life, then why could it not produce self-awareness?

And then there's the whole "mental phenomena" concept, which has not been defined, and not described. I have an intuition about what you mean, but I don't see how this intuition really helps define it. Also, my intuition tells me it is related to information theory. Do you also see this relationship, or are they distinct?

Quote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

No, it's definitely not an explanation. It's a cop-out. It's akin to saying, "We don't know the mechanisms behind it." I never claimed to explain consciousness; I was simply saying that we don't know the answer yet. The understanding is that one day we may understand the processes of consciousness.

Why does there have to be a "mechanism?" Why is it not possible that conscious-awareness is simply a brute fact of existence?

There doesn't have to be a mechanism. Although I realize induction can give a false sense of predictability, science has been able to uncover mechanisms for most things. Usually it starts with an accurate description of behavior (such as with QM) and then the process moves towards explaining why the behavior works as it does (which we still haven't accomplished with QM).

So far, we have increased our understanding of the universe, and how it operates. At the moment, there seems to be no reason to assume we won't be able to uncover the cause of consciousness.

I guess my biggest issue here is, what is the description of conscious-awareness? I know there's a lot of work going on to get an accurate description (such as we have for QM, for instance), in fields as far-ranging as physics to psychology to computer science to biology. And here is where I'm definitely ignorant. I'm not aware of the current theories, outside those in information theory and physics (mostly those related to QM interpretations such as you have raised).

The lack of description makes discussion a little bit hard to ensure we share the same concepts.

Finally, there's the whole reason for science in the first place -- as a tool for discovering the "truths" about our reality. If consciousness is in fact a fundamental aspect of our universe, there is no reason it should be hidden from scientific enquiry. We might be decades or even centuries away from the foundational knowledge required, but that doesn't mean it should remain hidden and unknown.

Quote:
nigelTheBold wrote:

Ah, yes. Three scientists/philosophers. Again, you are describing a philosophic viewpoint of a scientist. At the moment, this is at best an hypothesis. Also, it is completely untestable at this time. As you mentioned before, the proposed tests haven't been performed yet, mostly because we are years away from being able to perform them.

A scientific hypothesis must be testable by definition. Therefore, you must conclude that "free will" is considered to be a scientific issue as well as a philosophical one. Evidently, on your view, science should not even dabble in this area.

That's not quite what I was trying to say. Note I did say that any proposed hypothesis on the nature of consciousness is untestable at this time. I'm not saying that science shouldn't dabble. I just believe that until we have a good model of what it is we are trying to explain, there's little hope of explaining it satisfactorily, or even in a testable manner.

Which is why even my claim that "emergence" can explain it is premature. I believe emergence can explain intelligence, as it has explained other complex evolving information systems (such as evolution). But that's merely my opinion, and one possibility among.... well, a very large, unknown number at this point.

As an aside: I know that "emergence" really doesn't explain much. As a concept, it's a powerful tool for deconstructing complex systems, but it isn't really the "explanation" for evolution. It's more a meta-explanation.

Quote:

What are the "absolute" assertions that I have made?

There are several, but the one with which I most strongly disagree is that "indeterminate QM" is necessarily non-causal. While I don't discount this viewpoint, I do disagree vehemenently that it is the only interpretation. In fact, if the 60% statistic you quoted in another thread is true (that 60% of scientists [or physicists, I don't recall]) believe in the multi-universe theory, 60% believe in a form of determinism.

I would've also disagreed if you'd said that chaos is the only explanation for QM, though I might not've been such an asshole about it.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BobSpence1

Paisley wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Paisley wrote:
I believe that if there is evidence for indeterminism, then there is evidence for conscious will. This is a logical inference. What is the alternative? There are physical events without causes?

This is your fundamental error - the unjustified assumption that an apparently 'uncaused' event can ONLY be 'explained' by a conscious will.

I do agree actually with part of your belief that the origin of such events may ultimately be the 'Universe', at least in some sense, it is your assumption that it necessarily entails 'conscious will', in any way analogous to what we perceive in ourselves, is an enormous leap.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that indeterminism actually means indeterminism, that is, the view that "not every event has a cause." Now please explain to me what part of my belief that you are agreeing with.

Did you mean to say 'that indeterminacy implies indeterminism'? That would a more meaningful assertion, consistent with how I characterise your PoV. I have gathered your belief is that the Universe is conscious in some sense, and this is the 'cause' of events with no 'physical' cause; I agree that the influence of the universe at large may well be the 'cause' of the more spooky aspects of QM, I just see a Universal 'randomness' as fitting the observations much more simply than a Universal consciousness.

Quote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
QM suggests many mysterious effects which we can't get our minds around at all easily - the history of the development of scientific concepts and explanations suggests that it may well involve concepts totally novel, rather than this primitive tendency to attribute the 'cause' of some event to a conscious agent if we can't see or imagine any more mundane explanation.

As far as I can deduce (at least in theory), there are only two types of causes: physical causes and mental causes. The materialist makes the assumption (and that is what it is) that all mental causes are physical causes. Therefore, the only causes in the universe are only physical ones. It seems presumptuos to me to assume that the only causes in the universe are physical ones. Why isn't it possible that there are mental causes that cannot be explain in terms of the physical?

But we have no evidence of mental activity not intimately correlated with physical activity in a very special class of complex material structures, namely brains, and it appears that only through such structures can consciousness interact with physical matter. This is consistent with the view that conscious mental activity is a process dependent on, or in some sense 'emergent' from, the interactions between the neurons in the brain. The evidence from fMRI scans correlated with subjects doing and thinking various things all very, very strongly support this very intimate and necessary connection, while still not having sufficient resolution to accurately map subtles of thought to physically measuremable events.

There is also very suggestive, although disputed, evidence that the physical actually causes at least some conscious mental events, such as the decision to move a finger at a particular time - the motor neural activation that is directly linked to the physical movement. The neural signal seems to precede the moment that the subject indicates he decided to move his finger.

I think it would be very presumptuous to maintain your position, in the face of such massive evidence. At best you may be able to argue your idea of 'mental causes' in the very special context of neuronal tissue, but to argue this has anything to do with quantum indeterminacy manifesting throughout the universe is extremely presumptuous.

That's all I have time to respond to just now, I have to go out for a while.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yeah Bob. The argument that

Yeah Bob. The argument that consciousness precedes E/M, or is some special divine agent, seems wishful thinking or faith driven. And hey, what is not actually fundamentally equally incredible? Geezzz, the everyday common things people blindly take for granite bums me out. Awake said Buddha, to what is right in front of your eyes, then go stare in the mirror!  

I am like on a "LSD" trip of awe and amazement 24/7 ! .....   


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BobSpence1

Paisley wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
The uncaused apect of QM only arises in the Planck-scale regime where Heisenberg uncertainty dominates, which means that simplistic interpretation and extrapolation to the macro level where Quantum uncertainty averages out to present us with our ordinary perception of cause-and-effect, is somewhat problematic, and would need a lot more justification.

I do not profess to have an academic or professional background in physics. At best, I only have a layman's background (i.e. a general, high-level qualitative (not quantitative) understanding of QM that I have acquired by reading the books of physicists who write books for the general public). That being said, it is my undertstanding that QM states that nature is fundamentally indeterministic and that there are indeed physical events occurring without cause. For expressing this view, I have taken a lot of flack on this forum. It now appears to me you are concurring with my understanding that QM does indeed have an uncaused aspect. Which one is it? Does QM have an uncaused aspect? Yes or no?

Maybe. Depends on how you try and interpret it. QT is like that.

I should made it clearer - the issue of possible acausality only arises at that level. Yes you can set up or imagine scenarios where quantum scale events ultimately have macro level effects. The classic example here would be Shroedinger's Act:

What killed the cat? Poison gas from a broken glass vial.

What caused the vial to break? It was hit by a hammer?

What caused teh hammer to hit it? An electrical solenoid?

What caused the solenoid to operate? An electrical circuit.

What caused the circuit to apply power to the solenoid? A detector connected to it was hit by a beta-particle (helium nucleus).

What caused the beta-particle to hit the detector? It was emitted bya decaying atom in a piece of radioactive material.

What caused the atom to decay? It was unstable because its binding energy was barely enough to hold the protons and neutrons together, and some slight fluctuation in that energy briefly dropped the value below the level needed to hold it together.

What caused that fluctuation? Ahh, up to this point, we have a clear cause-effect chain. Now we are into the quantum realm. It appears AS IF the Universe has this attribute of a purely randomly fluctuating 'energy' or influence of some sort.

This is not that different to what happens if we query any phenomenon - we will be able to trace the cause-effect chain only so far, because we don't have ultimate knowledge.

What causes an object to fall to the ground? Gravity.

What causes Gravity? Curvature of space-time due to the mass of the earth.

Why doe mass cause space-time to become warped? Because.. umm... ?

See the pattern here?

So QM seems to point to an irreducible random twitchiness at the Planck scale, as a fundamental attribute of the Universe. That;s about as much as we can say at the current time. Call it God if you like, doesn't seem to be something with thoughts or 'free will' unless tou think free will is equivalent to making purely random choices....

Quote:
Also, you have argued in another thread that chaos theory can be invoked as a plausible explanation for what "appears" to be random events on the quanutm level. On the other hand, why can't this same theory be invoked to explain how minor random events (assuming they are truly random) on the microworld level can have a random effect on the macroworld level? It would seem to me that it can work both ways.

Of course, see above.

Quote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
Our perception of free will is only suggestive 'evidence' for freewill, it in no way proves it, any more than our perception that the Sun goes round the Earth proves that. The knowledge that our perceptions, even our introspective perceptions can definitely be illusory, and frequently are, as established by many experiments and observations, means it would be wilfully irrational to say we are 'compelled' to accept any perception as true, without independent evidence.

Was it willfully ignorant  to believe that the sun went around the earth during a time period when there was no evidence to suggest otherwise?

Not quite equivalent circumstances. I agree, you have a point, but you have over-stated it, as usual. It would not be irrational to accept something exactly as it appeared, in the absence of indications to the contrary. "Compelled to accept", no, and definitely not treat as proved. which is the term I used.

Quote:
Isn't it true that all science is ultimately based on the perceptions of scientists and how they interpret the data? And isn't true that science only studies the appearances of physical phenomena and that what actually constitutes ultimate reality is not really within the purview of science?

I tend to agree - such a level is probably unlikely to be achievable  by our finite human brains, with or wiyjout the tools of science. The 'tools of science' include all the procedures of argument, testing, replication, peer review, etc, to minimize the distortions and prejudices of individual perceptions, as well as the development of instrumentations to massively augment or senses.

Philosophy, from the days of Classical Greece onward, demonstrates how grossly inadequate un-assisted thought and reason and logic are to gaining insight into 'Ultimate Reality' compared to empirical SCIENTIFIC enquiry.

Quote:
Also, isn't it true that you operate your life as if you do believe that you have free will? In other words, aren't you already compelled to accept free will regardless of whether you claim to philosophically accept it or not? If you didn't accept it, then you would never experience regrets or guilt or become angry with yourself for making past choices. Would you really have us believe that you do not have these basic human experiences?

Not really - I experience the act of choosing all the time, I am aware of balancing competing wants desires, assessments, and am all too aware of how my choices are affected by all these, things, as well as my mood, other distractions and concerns. Free will as something imposed over all these influences seems to be an empty philosophical concept.

Quote:
Finally, introspective evidence of free will may not prove conclusively the existence of free will. But by the same token, it doesn't disprove it either. The same thing can be said about indeterminism and determinism. So, the way I see it, you are presented with a dilemma. All you can say right now is that you do not know. Perhaps there are truly physical events without cause; perhaps there isn't. You really don't know. And since you really don't know, isn't the honest thing to admit that you are agnostic on this matter? However, this is not the position you are taking. You are positively affirming a purely materialistic position and suggesting that anyone who does not concur with this position is irrational.

 

Free will as a concept doesn't make sense to me, when you actually try to pin it down, except as a description of the process of 'coming to a decision' under the influence of all the things I listed. What else would be determining my choice? Is it possible for me too make a choice not in accord with the nett balance of my emotions, desires, memories, applied to whatever my current rational thought processes seem to suggest will be the consequences of the various possible choices.

Introspection has proved, in studies of the mind, to be of very limited usefulness beyond the basic reporting of 'what it feels like' to do or experience something.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
I hate to butt in without

I hate to butt in without anything terribly relevant to say, but in considering freewill I thought about how in retrospect freewill doesn't much matter.  That is, freewill or no, we cannot change the past so the point is very much moot.  In fact, by the time we've reached a decision the process by which we came to that decision is already in the past and so cannot be changed.  Regardless of whether or not we have freewill in retrospect it is impossible to have done anything differently, right?

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:I hate to

Thomathy wrote:

I hate to butt in without anything terribly relevant to say, but in considering freewill I thought about how in retrospect freewill doesn't much matter.  That is, freewill or no, we cannot change the past so the point is very much moot.  In fact, by the time we've reached a decision the process by which we came to that decision is already in the past and so cannot be changed.  Regardless of whether or not we have freewill in retrospect it is impossible to have done anything differently, right?

Sure.

Even if the Universe was strictly deterministic, all the way down, no quantum effects, our decisions are potentially 'determined' by such a large number of things, and each of those things could be affected by by other events, in an ever widening circle, back to the Big Bang and out to at least the event horizon (the furthest distance from which light from the earliest universe has had time to reach us), our decisions are absolutely unpredictable in any meaningful (ie non meta-physical or philosophical sense).

The scenario often presented 'if we wound everything back to the start and let it run again, would you make the same decisions?" is another ultimately pointless proposition, since again it is absolutely impossible even in principle, so who f**king cares?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Bob says, "so who f**king

Bob says, "so who f**king cares?" Yeah, hey that's what Buddha said !

  A question to everyone regarding the "Force" (gawed):

What came first, Consciousness or E/M ?  Go philosophy science. Buddha answers, whatever, "don't "worry" about it, and please no dogma".  

I say it's ONE connected damn interesting "vibration" ! Let's party to the vibration !

Seriously tho, seems C is a product of E/M , not the other way around. Just my lame guess (?) What Am I , (god of course), but what is that ? (laughing)

Crunching the numbers !      WOW !

   Pick one order,

         C = F = E/M  or   F = C = E/M   or  F = E/M = C 

   I say, No "cells", NO C  ...... Is DNA or even amino acids conscious ? When do  chemicals reactions become conscious ?  Isn't potential  C  a product of E/M requiring additional E/M stimulation? The precise moment of "awakening" (C) ?????    

   At what point does E/M "awaken" (C) ?

   At what point does the DNA (replication code) appear in simple "life" forms ?

                                      *      

                               All is connected, ONE

  

 


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
I would say unless you can

I would say unless you can know the future it is a totally absurd question. It can never be tested. You might as well spend your days pondering angels and pinhead dancing.

The ability to phrase a statement as a question in English does not mean it is a legitimate question.

The idea of determinism is an invention of free will. It can never be tested. The only way to predict the future with anything other than a quija board is with science which requires a complete understanding of all the forces and their interactions. There is no such thing in human affairs.

Simply taking time to predict causes a different input. And that is a joke because it is one of the conceits used in fiction to "resolve" the question so the hero can triumph. It should be clear this is a nonsense issue.

If you cannot test it then it is not a valid question regardless of what English permits.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


pyrokidd
Superfan
pyrokidd's picture
Posts: 253
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
bleh

Ok......I tried, I really did, to read all 3 pages of this. I just about did it, too. But halfway down this one I pretty much just skimmed it.  I have come to the following conclusions.

1) As humans, we just don't know s*** about anything. I mean yeah, we know some things, but in the grand scheme of the universe, we're essentially just speculating about everything.

2)Determinism is true. Even if our thoughts can be randomly generated through quantum activity, we don't control the random activity, but;

3) it doesn't matter, because of the manner in which we exist. If we cannot possibly know all that is needed to know, we cannot even begin to understand how it works anyway. "free will" may be illusionary, but it's an illusion we're forced to accept as a condition of existence. Until we can find an alternative, and it seems we can't, we have to live in it, so it's as real as the rest of reality.

Maybe it's both. maybe it's neither. either way, I think we can all agree it comes down to nothing more than speculation and guessing and believing whatever makes us feel better.

Sorry if at any point I don't make sense but I'm tired and confused and constantly being nagged by the thought I wasted a beautiful summer Saturday night at the computer.

"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I now must now proclaim

I must now proclaim  Pyrokidd  and  A nony Mouse  modern Buddhas, who also said don't worry about "gawed"! .....

                            RRS is a "Buddha Rising" ..... as the saying goes !