Is Free Will Possible in a Deterministic Universe?

[GeorgCantor]

I can follow what you're claiming is logic, now follow the rules you agreed to when you joined the website and source. There is original thinking, and there is synthesizing partial ideas from incomplete knowledge. These are the rules, not suggestions. I'm not asking for an appeal to authority, I'm asking for an ounce of support from a source other than your own head for your conclusions. What's the point of this site's structure if not to enforce a level of credibility? If you want to ramble about your personal take on life, maybe this isn't the place.

This is called a court of law and they obviously don't accept the conclusions of some researchers on freewill:


http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/5017/cclcourtroom.jpg




Next time you go to a court of law for speed limit violation, take your no free will references with you and report back in this thread.(or more appropriately in the General forum, where humor and joking are welcome)

 

[GeorgCantor]

Well I asked you for references to support your belief that the brain employs command protocols and algorithms, and failed to get them.

But anyway...

Aitchison, J. (1994) Words in the Mind (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).

Bain, A. (1977) The Senses and the Intellect and The Emotions and the Will, edited by Robinson, D. (Washington, DC: University Publications of America).

Bartlett, F. (1932) Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1979) The Social Construction of Reality (London: Penguin).

Bickerton, D. (1995) Langauge and Human Behaviour (London: University College London Press).

Blackmore, S. (1999) The Meme Machine (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Burr, V. (1995) An Introduction to Social Constructionism (London: Routledge).

Buruma, I. (1984) A Japanese Mirror (London: Jonathan Cape).

Clark, A. (1998) 'Magic words: how language augments human computation', in Langauge and Thought, edited by Carruthers, P. and Boucher, J. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Clark, A. and Thornton, C. (1997) 'Trading spaces: computation, representation and the limits of uniformed learning', Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, pp. 57-92.

Condillac, E.B.de (1930) Treatise on the Sensations, translated by Carr, G. (Los Angeles, California: University of California Press).

Conway, M. (1990) Autobiographical Memory (Milton Keynes, Buckingham: Open University Press).

Cooley, C.H. (1912) Human Nature and the Social Order (New York: Charles Scribner).

Coulter, J. (1979) The Social Construction of Mind (London: Macmillan).

Danziger, K. (1997) Naming the Mind (London: Sage).

Deacon, T. (1997) The Symbolic Species (London: Allen Lane, Penguin).

Dennett, D. (1998) 'Reflections on language and mind', in Langauge and Thought, edited by Carruthers, P. and Boucher, J. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Dewart, L. (1989) Evolution of Consciousness (Toronto: University of Toronto Press).

Diaz, R.M. and Berk, L.E. (1992) Private Speech (Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum).

Donald, M. (1991) Origins of the Modern Mind (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press).

Elman, J., Bates, E., Johnson, M., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D. and Plunkett, K. (1996) Rethinking Innateness (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press).

Gergen, K.J. and Davis, K.E. (1985) The Social Construction of the Person (New York: Springer-Verlag).

Goffman, E. (1969) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (London: Penguin).

Graybiel, A.M. (1998) 'The basal ganglia and chunking of action repertoires', Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 70, pp. 119-136.

Harré, R. (1983) Personal Being (Oxford: Basil Blackwell)

Harré, R. (1986) The Social Construction of Emotions (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).

Harré, R. and Gillett, G. (1994) The Discursive Mind (London: Sage).

Hobbes, T. (1951) Leviathan (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).

Jahoda, G. (1992) Crossroads Between Culture and Mind (Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf).

Jackendoff, R. (1996) 'How language helps us think', Pragmatics and Cognition, 4, pp. 1-34.

Lane, H. (1976) The Wild Boy of Aveyron (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press).

Locke, J. (1975) An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, edited by Nidditch, P. (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

Luria, A. (1973) The Working Brain (London: Penguin).

Luria, A. (1976) Cognitive Development (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press).

Luria, A. (1982) Langauge and Cognition, edited by Wertsch, J. (Chichester, Sussex: John Wiley).

Luria, A. and Yudovich, F. (1956) Speech and the Development of Mental Processes in the Child (London: Penguin).

Lutz, C. (1986) 'The domain of emotion words on Ifaluk', in The Social Construction of Emotions, edited by Harré, R. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).

Lutz, C. (1988) Unnatural Emotions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

Mead, G.H. (1934) Mind, Self and Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

Mithen, S. (1996) The Prehistory of the Mind (London: Thames and Hudson).

Mueller, R-A. (1996) 'Innateness, autonomy, universality? Neurobiological approaches to language', Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, pp. 611-675.

Müller, M. (1888) The Science of Thought (Chicago: Open Court).

Neisser, U. (1967) Cognitive psychology (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts).

Neisser, U. (1976) Cognition and Reality (New York: WH Freeman, 1976).

Passingham, R. (1993) The Frontal Lobes and Voluntary Action (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Pulvermüller, F. (1999) ' Words in the brain's language', Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, pp. 253-336.

Singh, J. and Zingg, R. (1941) Wolf Children and Feral Man (New York: Harper).

Sokolov, A.N. (1972) Inner Speech and Thought (New York: Plenum Press).

Sorabji, R. (1993) Animal Minds and Human Morals (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press).

Vygotsky, L. (1986) Thought and Language, edited by Kozulin, A. (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press).

Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in Society, edited by Cole, S. (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press).

Vygtotsky, L. and Luria, A. (1994) 'Tool and symbol in child development', in The Vygotsky Reader, edited by van der Veer, R. and Valsiner, J. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).

de Waal, F. (1982) Chimpanzee Politics (London: Jonathan Cape).

Walker, S. (1983) Animal Thought (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul),

Wertsch, J. (1991) Voices of the Mind (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press).

Whorf, B. (1956) Language, Thought and Reality (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press).

Zivin, G. (1979) The Development of Self-Regulation Through Private Speech (New York: John Wiley).

What makes you take seriously research that is the effect of a mechanistic process resultant from the Big Bang? Why should I agree to what some detemrnistic pattern is implying? You don't have free will, all you are saying is not you, but the Big Bang + what looks like the environment. Your message is thus irrelevant, it's just background noise from the Big Bang.

Free will is a philosophical issue, no matter what certain researches might conclude. I can reference you researchers on existence and reality, would you agree with ALL their contradictory and contentious claims?


BTW, all those references on the lack(illusion) of free will, will make for a good laugh in a court of law. When the judges start laughing, tell them your research says their laughter is the result of the low entropy of the Big Bang(or possibly from the Big Crunch that preceded it).

 

[GeorgCantor]

What assumptions? That freewill is needed to intervene in an unending search from algorithmic closure, or to apply a command-control protocol when definitions are not perfectly defined? My assumptions are probably just based on reason and logic. If you give me an example of a specific assumption, I will try to ascertain whether it is borrowed from a source besides my own reasoning process at the moment I said it.

Don't pay attention to THEM. There is no "them", they are just background noise from the Big Bang.

 

[imiyakawa]

In my opinion, free will and self-awareness cannot be part of the physical realm and science will never account for them, except to deny their existence or provide a simple and sketchy description without actual explanation as to who/what makes the decisions.

Are you a not-materialist, a strong emergence proponent, or neither?

 

[GeorgCantor]

Are you a not-materialist, a strong emergence proponent, or neither?

Non-materialist...hmm that's hard, i am not sure on this, i don't have a coherent picture on the measurement problem, it's not obvious to me what this world is and how it is. You could say I've become a non-realist though.

 

[imiyakawa]

i don't have a coherent picture on the measurement problem, it's not obvious to me what this world is and how it is. You could say I've become a non-realist though.

I'm more asking about your views on consciousness :)

 

[nismaratwork]

This is called a court of law and they obviously don't accept the conclusions of some researchers on freewill:


http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/5017/cclcourtroom.jpg




Next time you go to a court of law for speed limit violation, take your no free will references with you and report back in this thread.(or more appropriately in the General forum, where humor and joking are welcome)

The visual aids really drive your point home, but it's good to see that you have another place to express your faith. While freewill is currently in the realm of philosophy, that doesn't mean that such thinking doesn't require a concrete basis. This is philosophy, not "ramblings". The amount of evasion which brainstorm has participated in would seem to indicate that he is in fact, rambling, as apeiron has pointed out. Do you really need to join him and kill another thread?

Imiyakawa: He believes in a creator, as he has made clear in other threads, and one that intelligently designed the universe. He believes he sees evidence of this in the very fact that there is existence. That, would seem to be incompatible with a coherent philosophy, as god can always step in an "tweak" things. Definitely not a materialist, and as you can see from his response, he didn't even know what you were talking about.


No wonder, the visual aids are required.

 

[nismaratwork]

Could you please show, through analysis of cited statements I have made how this is the case?

I don't know what you mean by this.


What assumptions? That freewill is needed to intervene in an unending search from algorithmic closure, or to apply a command-control protocol when definitions are not perfectly defined? My assumptions are probably just based on reason and logic. If you give me an example of a specific assumption, I will try to ascertain whether it is borrowed from a source besides my own reasoning process at the moment I said it.

Why are you more interested in the source than in the defensibility of the claims themselves?


Do reason and logic only exist inside my own head? It may appear so if they are absent in yours, but I don't think I was born reasonable and logical, so I presume they are not an original product of my brain. Nevertheless, I don't have any sources to cite saying what their origin is, so maybe my reasoning that they didn't originate in my head because babies are not born reasoning logically is baseless speculation. Should I go look for some research on baby logic and reason to defend my claim? Or should I not even dare to think about such a thing because I don't have a PhD in childhood philosophy? When do you see that all you're doing is avoiding discursive engagement by saying that no knowledge is possible without it emanating from an external source? You are trying to eliminate the very possibility of having an open discussion on a topic on the basis of reason, logic, and everyday knowledge.


I don't claim by logic is either pristine or immaculately conceived, but I do subject it to critical scrutiny by explicating it. The fact that you fail to subject it to critical scrutiny, preferring to ask for citation, indicates that you wish to ignore it. Why then, I wonder, are you in discussion with me in the first place?


If you were a complete relativist, you would recognize your own position as an agent of truth-power and engage the reason of others with your own. Instead, you seem to be a semi-relativist who believes that claims are untenable except through citation of external sources, at which point they become infallible. Reason and logic may or may not be relative, but you have to engage them to validate or invalidate them. You can't invalidate claims by evaluation of their sources because you have no basis for assessing their sources as legitimate or not - unless you count peer-review and brand-recognition of titles, but if you have nothing more to go on than that, how can you possibly evaluate the actual content of knowledge independently of its source?

I was being deeply sarcastic about the relativist comment, and casting me as an authoritarian figure is amusing, but unhelpful. I will make one comment on the last sentence of your post: you evaluate using your brain, but first you need the source of what it is you're evaluating so that you can make an informed judgment.

 

[brainstorm]

I was being deeply sarcastic about the relativist comment, and casting me as an authoritarian figure is amusing, but unhelpful. I will make one comment on the last sentence of your post: you evaluate using your brain, but first you need the source of what it is you're evaluating so that you can make an informed judgment.

Everything ultimately has a genealogy, including sources and processes of development that bring them to the point of functioning as they do. Where you seem to be confused is in the role of the source verses the processing. You seem to think that the fact that knowledge has a source automatically validates is as having functionality in terms of reason or truth. You cited two examples on wikipedia that were basically just drawn out explanations to contextualize definitions. One was an unresolvable feedback loop and the other was a plot device that doesn't connect with other elements in a story. Further, you made no arguments about them. You expressed no reasoning to GROUND your citation of them. You simply connected your words with external texts and assumed that this display of relational connectedness would win you credibility. You are not alone in this. Many academians operate in this way. There are few things more annoying than reading an article or lit review that is little more than a plotting of points in relation to each other. Without a functional argument and reasoning to the point of an explicit conclusion, you are just engaging in elaborate posturing.

You are right about needing to be informed, but you also need to be aware of what you're talking about and why. I don't know exactly how I became informed of what command-control protocols, algorithms, and freewill are but it's not really relevant to understanding the argument I am making with them. All you have to be able to do is understand the meanings of the words, and read the argumentation I put forth. You can then evaluate it using reason and logic, and if you have some known argument from another source that works for you, then you can cite it as long as you sum up the argument and your reason for citing it. The point is it is not the act of citation and tracing genealogy of ideas that is the point of discourse, it is the reasoning and arrival at conclusions. These should be grounded but as long as you can adequately explain your grounds for making a claim, the claim can be evaluated according to the grounds given. If the grounds contain information which are for some reason questionable, it may be necessary to seek sources to ascertain what is valid or not about the information. However, there is nothing valid or invalid about terms themselves. Deus ex machina is not inherently valid or invalid as a term. It simply refers to an idea. You need reasoning and an argument to make a point about the term(s), and then that argument can be critically evaluated for validity or not.

 

[nismaratwork]

Everything ultimately has a genealogy, including sources and processes of development that bring them to the point of functioning as they do. Where you seem to be confused is in the role of the source verses the processing. You seem to think that the fact that knowledge has a source automatically validates is as having functionality in terms of reason or truth. You cited two examples on wikipedia that were basically just drawn out explanations to contextualize definitions. One was an unresolvable feedback loop and the other was a plot device that doesn't connect with other elements in a story. Further, you made no arguments about them. You expressed no reasoning to GROUND your citation of them. You simply connected your words with external texts and assumed that this display of relational connectedness would win you credibility. You are not alone in this. Many academians operate in this way. There are few things more annoying than reading an article or lit review that is little more than a plotting of points in relation to each other. Without a functional argument and reasoning to the point of an explicit conclusion, you are just engaging in elaborate posturing.

You are right about needing to be informed, but you also need to be aware of what you're talking about and why. I don't know exactly how I became informed of what command-control protocols, algorithms, and freewill are but it's not really relevant to understanding the argument I am making with them. All you have to be able to do is understand the meanings of the words, and read the argumentation I put forth. You can then evaluate it using reason and logic, and if you have some known argument from another source that works for you, then you can cite it as long as you sum up the argument and your reason for citing it. The point is it is not the act of citation and tracing genealogy of ideas that is the point of discourse, it is the reasoning and arrival at conclusions. These should be grounded but as long as you can adequately explain your grounds for making a claim, the claim can be evaluated according to the grounds given. If the grounds contain information which are for some reason questionable, it may be necessary to seek sources to ascertain what is valid or not about the information. However, there is nothing valid or invalid about terms themselves. Deus ex machina is not inherently valid or invalid as a term. It simply refers to an idea. You need reasoning and an argument to make a point about the term(s), and then that argument can be critically evaluated for validity or not.

No brainstorm, I happen to agree with apeiron here, and believe that you are talking a load of ****. I believe you are willing to ramble instead of presenting a foundation for your beliefs because they are baseless and weak. I've tried to be polite, and also reasonable, from here we can let the mentors decide who is correct.

Oh yes, and Deus ex Machina as a term has its roots in theater, which is then generalized in many ways. See, I provided a source for the term without requiring endless meandering to do so. What you are attempting to engage in is not discourse, as apeiron has pointed out many times in this thread, which in my view, you are killing. If you want to sidetrack into the epistemology, then start a thread for that instead of dragging this one hopelessly off-topic to justify your refusal to comply with the rules you agreed to when you clicked "accept" to join.

 

[brainstorm]

No brainstorm, I happen to agree with apeiron here, and believe that you are talking a load of ****. I believe you are willing to ramble instead of presenting a foundation for your beliefs because they are baseless and weak. I've tried to be polite, and also reasonable, from here we can let the mentors decide who is correct.

Oh yes, and Deus ex Machina as a term has its roots in theater, which is then generalized in many ways. See, I provided a source for the term without requiring endless meandering to do so. What you are attempting to engage in is not discourse, as apeiron has pointed out many times in this thread, which in my view, you are killing. If you want to sidetrack into the epistemology, then start a thread for that instead of dragging this one hopelessly off-topic to justify your refusal to comply with the rules you agreed to when you clicked "accept" to join.

The only thing substantial you say in this post is that Deus ex machina has roots in theater. You give no reasoning why that is relevant to any point you have made or are trying to make. Your posturing and citation of rules and authority is empty without any substantive reasoning. It's really not fair of you to lack the ability to engage any of the actual substantitve discourse that was taking place on this thread and then accuse me or anyone else of lacking content because citations weren't provided. If there was a reason to seek a citation for a particular claim, I could understand you asking for such. However, you didn't even dispute a specific claim. You just began by insisting on citations to even justify posting a thought in the first place.

If you're not able or willing to discuss/debate at a substantive level, what is you point with all the citing of sources you seem to find so profound? Self-aggrandizement?

 

[GeorgCantor]

The visual aids really drive your point home, but it's good to see that you have another place to express your faith. While freewill is currently in the realm of philosophy, that doesn't mean that such thinking doesn't require a concrete basis. This is philosophy, not "ramblings". The amount of evasion which brainstorm has participated in would seem to indicate that he is in fact, rambling, as apeiron has pointed out. Do you really need to join him and kill another thread?

Untimately it's YOU who has faith, for i actually KNOW that I have free will. You can make up any nonsense theory you like, but if it denies MY OWN existence and my free choice, that theory is very certainly WRONG. I am willing to accept that you may not have freewill or that you may ultimately not exist, but if your theory denies my observations and the choices I make, your little theory is hopelessly wrong. Make up a theory that you don't have freewill and i will accept it right away.

Imiyakawa: He believes in a creator, as he has made clear in other threads, and one that intelligently designed the universe.

You also believe in a 'creator', you just call it random, dumb, coincidental "Big Bang", "Big Crunch", "quantum fluctuation", etc. But as you correctly imply, that's not my view of the so-called 'creation'.

He believes he sees evidence of this in the very fact that there is existence. That, would seem to be incompatible with a coherent philosophy, as god can always step in an "tweak" things. Definitely not a materialist, and as you can see from his response, he didn't even know what you were talking about.


No wonder, the visual aids are required.

That would ONLY become incoherent(if you actually know what you are talking about) ONLY if i defined in strict terms what i mean by "God".

The visual aids were meant for those who have lost their way in this "determinism FTW" delusion. Oh, i forgot i was talking to a pattern left over from the Big Crunch, Yucks!

 

[GeorgCantor]

If you're not able or willing to discuss/debate at a substantive level, what is you point with all the citing of sources you seem to find so profound? Self-aggrandizement?

He can't put up a single coherent, logical argument by himself, because his theory is nonsensical and full of contradictions. That's where the citations part comes into play, as materialism/determinism has hit the limit of its own applicability and even its own death as a possibility to explain everything. I guess he is not aware of the existence of emergent behavior and non-linear systems.

 

[GeorgCantor]

I'm more asking about your views on consciousness :)

Some of these "what is..." questions are not easy to answer(some are quite impossible). I could ask what is space, what is time, what is consciousness, what is an electron, what is reality, etc...so take whatever i say as a mere proposition. If you want truths, ask apeiron, nismaratwork, or the scientists whose opinion they appear to take as gospel.

A person(the "me" part, the self) in my view is not entirely a physical phenomenon. I think it's obvious in the examples i gave about people who can control their heartbeat, that there must be 'something', an agency/entity, that is influencing how the brain controls the heart rhythm, that is feeling dignity, that is feeling deep emotional pain, that is self-aware, etc. That 'something'(call it an emergent phenomenon, self, soul, whatever) together with the physical body makes up who you really are. It's the "Ghost in the machine" and i am much more certain that the ghost exists, than the machine. As you have probably noticed, I take seriously my own existence.


Without being too certain, this is the position that fits ALL the evidence in my opinion, incl. the notion of freewill.

 

[imiyakawa]

Without being too certain, this is the position that fits ALL the evidence in my opinion, incl. the notion of freewill.

Ok thanks for explaining.

Going back to my first question, some philosophers would say emergence from the brain falls under the semantic category of non-materialism (Chalmer's actually states "I am not a materialist" even though he thinks consc. is a property supervening on the brain).

Others would say that adhering to the category of non-materialism strictly leads you to an extra thing, not of the brain - using outdated jargon, substance dualism or idealism (consciousness monism).

I was asking which you thought more probable [so "(call it an emergent phenomenon, self, soul, whatever)" doesn't really help with that]. I already knew you weren't a reductive materialist (i.e. I knew you didn't think the level of explanation most appropriate was at the level of singular brain cells, or even "lower".)

 

[GeorgCantor]

I was asking which you thought more probable [so "(call it an emergent phenomenon, self, soul, whatever)" doesn't really help with that]. I already knew you weren't a reductive materialist (i.e. I knew you didn't think the level of explanation most appropriate was at the level of singular brain cells, or even "lower".)

Actually what you are asking me is what I ultimately wish to know too :).
It seems to me that the self is an emergent phenomenon. But this is mainly due to the past success of science and i am aware this position could be wrong or even naive in that it takes a certain leap of faith that a non-realist will always question. But i find more evidence in this "emergent self" position than in a soul that finds a body and supervenes on it(aka idealism). From what i know, this is how it seems, had i more information i may have had another opinion.

 

[nismaratwork]

He can't put up a single coherent, logical argument by himself, because his theory is nonsensical and full of contradictions. That's where the citations part comes into play, as materialism/determinism has hit the limit of its own applicability and even its own death as a possibility to explain everything. I guess he is not aware of the existence of emergent behavior and non-linear systems.

What theory is it that I have, other than a desire to see this conversation move along from the point where apeiron was requesting (as per PF rules) sources? For the rest, you're really going to kill every thread that doesn't conform to your religious beliefs, aren't you? How crude. I appreciate the wide ranging ad hominem from you and brainstorm, but my request remains the same: brainstorm, follow the rules. I was enjoying reading this thread until it became bogged down by his rambling, and inability to actually converse with apeiron.

 

[brainstorm]

Ok thanks for explaining.

Going back to my first question, some philosophers would say emergence from the brain falls under the semantic category of non-materialism (Chalmer's actually states "I am not a materialist" even though he thinks consc. is a property supervening on the brain).

Others would say that adhering to the category of non-materialism strictly leads you to an extra thing, not of the brain - using outdated jargon, substance dualism or idealism (consciousness monism).

I was asking which you thought more probable [so "(call it an emergent phenomenon, self, soul, whatever)" doesn't really help with that]. I already knew you weren't a reductive materialist (i.e. I knew you didn't think the level of explanation most appropriate was at the level of singular brain cells, or even "lower".)

First, I think your understanding of non-materialist approaches to consciousness are anchored in materialism in that they use materialism as a measuring tape for non-materialism, but that is really a parallel discussion for another thread.

The reason I reply was to note that materialism always contains the logic of determination underlying the very possibility of free-will and consciousness by virtue of the assumption that unconscious materials behave in a mechanistic, deterministic way. No one thinks that water flows in whatever direction it wants.

Whether consciousness and free-will emerge from material conditions or not, the fact remains that free-will and creative consciousness gives humans the ability to generate and operate according to non-materialistic ideologies. In fact, idealism is so advanced in human cognition that it allows materiality to be conceptualized according to idealized cognition. Ironically, utilizing idealism for the purpose of insisting on the inevitability of materialistic mechanics determining all human thought and behavior negates recognition of idealism as the very basis for materialist thought.

 

[nismaratwork]

Untimately it's YOU who has faith, for i actually KNOW that I have free will. You can make up any nonsense theory you like, but if it denies MY OWN existence and my free choice, that theory is very certainly WRONG. I am willing to accept that you may not have freewill or that you may ultimately not exist, but if your theory denies my observations and the choices I make, your little theory is hopelessly wrong. Make up a theory that you don't have freewill and i will accept it right away.


You also believe in a 'creator', you just call it random, dumb, coincidental "Big Bang", "Big Crunch", "quantum fluctuation", etc. But as you correctly imply, that's not my view of the so-called 'creation'.


That would ONLY become incoherent(if you actually know what you are talking about) ONLY if i defined in strict terms what i mean by "God".

The visual aids were meant for those who have lost their way in this "determinism FTW" delusion. Oh, i forgot i was talking to a pattern left over from the Big Crunch, Yucks!

Lets be clear, you have absolutely no idea what I believe, as I haven't discussed it on this site, or with you. You're just going on in the manner you always do when your faith is on the line in these threads, which is to characterize all things which do not agree with you, as being in fundamental agreement anyway. I didn't imply anything either, I stated it outright, based on what you said, also outright, in another thread. You seem to think I am pushing a theory here, when I haven't done anything but read this thread since, I think, page 1. You really need to actually read the material before you go spouting a diatribe like this.

 

[imiyakawa]

The reason I reply was to note that materialism always contains the logic of determination underlying the very possibility of free-will and consciousness by virtue of the assumption that unconscious materials behave in a mechanistic, deterministic way. No one thinks that water flows in whatever direction it wants.

I wasn't aware that materialism implied determinism. Searle, Dennet, etc. call themselves materialists but they fully acknowledge stochastic phenomena. It would've, a while ago, been used alongside the inherent implication of atomism and determinism. I don't think so today (see wiki). There has been greater use of the term "physicalism", though, perhaps because some perceive the category of materialism to subtly imply determinism.

In fact, idealism is so advanced in human cognition that it allows materiality to be conceptualized according to idealized cognition. Ironically, utilizing idealism for the purpose of insisting on the inevitability of materialistic mechanics determining all human thought and behavior negates recognition of idealism as the very basis for materialist thought.

When I say idealism, I meant the philosophical definition of it. The view that either consc is the antecedent cause of the material or that consc is building the material world up and it is actually illusory.
---
Oh well, enough of this, hijacking thread :D Thanks Georg for clearing up what you mean.

 

[Pythagorean]

Words from Wiki that I agree with. Basically, stochastic systems are likely systems where our modeling fails because there's so much parameter space to search through that it's unlikely we'll find the parameter range in which a deterministic model exhibits chaos. Thus it appears random to us (due to a lack of a priori knowledge) and stochastic modeling is more time-efficient.

Many mathematical models of physical systems are deterministic. This is true of most models involving differential equations (notably, those measuring rate of change over time). Mathematical models that are not deterministic because they involve randomness are called stochastic. Because of sensitive dependence on initial conditions, some deterministic models may appear to behave non-deterministically; in such cases, a deterministic interpretation of the model may not be useful due to numerical instability and a finite amount of precision in measurement. Such considerations can motivate the consideration of a stochastic model even though the underlying system is governed by deterministic equations.

Wiki's references (appealing to authorities of philosophy and math):

Werndl, Charlotte (2009). Are Deterministic Descriptions and Indeterministic Descriptions Observationally Equivalent?. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 40, 232-242.
Werndl, Charlotte (2009). Deterministic Versus Indeterministic Descriptions: Not That Different After All?. In: A. Hieke and H. Leitgeb (eds), Reduction, Abstraction, Analysis, Proceedings of the 31st International Ludwig Wittgenstein-Symposium. Ontos, 63-78.

J. Glimm, D. Sharp, Stochastic Differential Equations: Selected Applications in Continuum Physics, in: R.A. Carmona, B. Rozovskii (ed.) Stochastic Partial Differential Equations: Six Perspectives, American Mathematical Society (October 1998) (ISBN 0-8218-0806-0).

 

[Pythagorean]

as a side note, I'm currently scanning the parameter space of the Morris Lecar model (a neuron model) for chaos. Others have had luck simply adding random noise:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/ml7701701xv1l25j/

To me, this isn't very helpful. If the result came from tuning physically meaningful parameters, than we can begin to make some statement about the system to test, but by adding random noise, all we can do is log the observation.

We can also say that the noise simulates each neuron being in a slightly geographic position, due to their history and interaction with their environment (which have fully deterministic causality, but there are obviously technical difficulties in being able to sense, store, and crunch this information).

 

[imiyakawa]

Of course. There are two interpretations. Markov or Brownian properties may be fully determined (for macroscopic Markov walks, but for Brownian motion I'm not so sure) underneath but are labeled stochastic. Or any system with a statistical "random variable".

The other interpretation of the word is as a synonym for actual randomness/indeterminacy. (Search stochastic quantum dynamics, or stochastic interpretations.)

I was employing the latter definition. I should have used the word indeterminate for specificity.

It's kind of like statisticians calling a coin flip random, physicists calling it determined (forgetting the debate about any free will that preceded the toss.).

Modern self-labeled materialists acknowledge the possibility (or probability, depending on personal inclination) of indeterminate quantum phenomena, and this implies that those individuals do not perceive an inherent implication of determinism.

 

[Pythagorean]

I hear what you're saying imiyakawa

I should also add that it's completely possible there may be some indeterminate systems and phenomena that are necessary for determinism to take place.

Regardless of whether truly random systems exist or not, I don't think there's any lack of deterministic processes in the universe.

It's quite possible that they co-exist, but I don't think whole phenomena, like consciousness or the weather are completely random. I think all systems are, for the most part, deterministic.

 

[imiyakawa]

I think all systems are, for the most part, deterministic.

Exactly. I'd even port this to systems we would intuitively call micro. The determinism evolves on top of the system due to the lack of coherence of superpositions as well as the non-existence of a compounding/chaotic effect when individual wavefunctions reduce to an unlikely state space value (you may say an "unprobabilistic "collapse"").

I'm noob at QM, so someone may like to clean that up, but I think you get the drift.

As for the exact wording of your quote, we need to specify it. From human's perspectives, the endogenous (resultant) of the system will essentially be determined (until someone says otherwise, and I am open to this.) I guess we can say the future probability distributions of the system are determined (by the laws of coupling, shroedinger eq'n, etc) with some outcomes [from the perspective of the endogenous only] being much more probable [or definite?].

The actual system at the subatomic/atomic level (and not viewed from the macro perspective) is another story.

 

[Pythagorean]

Exactly. I'd even port this to systems we would intuitively call micro. The determinism evolves on top of the system due to the lack of coherence of superpositions as well as the non-existence of a compounding/chaotic effect when individual wavefunctions reduce to an unlikely state space value (you may say an "unprobabilistic "collapse"").

I'm noob at QM, so someone may like to clean that up, but I think you get the drift.

As for the exact wording of your quote, we need to specify it. From human's perspectives, the endogenous (resultant) of the system will essentially be determined (until someone says otherwise, and I am open to this.) I guess we can say the future probability distributions of the system are determined (by the laws of coupling, shroedinger eq'n, etc) with some outcomes [from the perspective of the endogenous only] being much more probable [or definite?].

The actual system at the subatomic/atomic level (and not viewed from the macro perspective) is another story.

Well, speaking of perspectives, I'm a n00b at QM too, despite taking a full year formal course in it. My professor, however, presented QM as a deterministic science. I try not to make a habit of trying to speak philosophically of QM, because I don't really understand it holistically.

Anyway, the concept of determinism as it applies in the sciences is generally meant to be void of human perspective. That is, a deterministic system will evolve in the same way every time as long as the initial conditions are exactly the same (and the system is isolated, of course). This should happen regardless of human opinion.

In other words, the ideal "determinism" is not really about what humans can or can't determine (though it is obviously limited by it).

 

[GeorgCantor]

Lets be clear, you have absolutely no idea what I believe, as I haven't discussed it on this site, or with you.

Reading your posts I had the impression you agreed with apeiron's position that free will is illusory. A self that negates itself is an oxymoron and could not serve as the basis for a logical argument. The "freewill is an illusion" conclusion is actually a spectacular failure on part of the researchers involved and their methodology, not something to be proud of. Anything that we can't explain, well...it doesn't exist - how cute. Magnetism doesn't exist, quantum entanglement doesn't exist, wave-particle duality doesn't exist, self-awareness doesn't exist, existence is also an illusion, reality doesn't exist, relative spacetime as well doesn't exist. I can't explain why anything exists, oh well I forgot, it doesn't. Talk about killing threads.

 

[apeiron]

Reading your posts I had the impression you agreed with apeiron's position that free will is illusory.

I wish you would quit saying I believe freewill is an illusion. I said it is a social construction, which is something quite real.

 

[GeorgCantor]

I wish you would quit saying I believe freewill is an illusion. I said it is a social construction, which is something quite real.

So it's pre-determined by the environmental, societal and physical influences, but you are saying it's somehow freewill?

 

[nismaratwork]

Reading your posts I had the impression you agreed with apeiron's position that free will is illusory. A self that negates itself is an oxymoron and could not serve as the basis for a logical argument. The "freewill is an illusion" conclusion is actually a spectacular failure on part of the researchers involved and their methodology, not something to be proud of. Anything that we can't explain, well...it doesn't exist - how cute. Magnetism doesn't exist, quantum entanglement doesn't exist, wave-particle duality doesn't exist, self-awareness doesn't exist, existence is also an illusion, reality doesn't exist, relative spacetime as well doesn't exist. I can't explain why anything exists, oh well I forgot, it doesn't. Talk about killing threads.

You're completely wrong about my views, given that the one thing I did imply on page one is that I don't believe in determinism... I was debating that with apeiron actually. You didn't read before you snapped to your judgment without cause, and I am also not a purely logical positivist / empiricist. My belief in free-will is not well grounded by the standards of this forum however, which is why after briefly debating an analogy with apeiron, I didn't pursue the point beyond my depth. My only aim in later pages came from, as I said, a desire to see another user stop dancing around the basis for their beliefs and provide something more concrete in accordance with PF.

Having come to this, I will say that my beliefs are probably functionally similar to apeiron, in that I don't believe that humans have the kind of free-will usually discussed by courts of law (as referenced earlier). I believe that we have a great deal of biological baggage, the baggage of how we are nurtured, and the circumstances in which we find ourselves. If I were not an atheist, I suspect my philosophy would tend towards dualism. As it is, I don't presume that people are capable of finding these kinds of answers, so when the discussions leave the realm of the academic, and move into that of deeply held beliefs, I tend to back off.

As an example of free will, consider symbolic acts of self-immolation: what options did that person have? They could have overcome their morality in favor of a desire to live and:

-Kept their heads down regarding the issue at hand.
-Switched sides so to speak, and attempt to curry favor with the issue or regime.
-Left the field entirely to pursue the life of a hermit or other personal endeavors.
-OR... they could choose to end their certainty of existence in what they must know is a symbolic act.

I find it difficult to accept such an act as anything other than mentally ill, or a profound act of free will. They have chosen to NOT be a tree, or rather, a burning bush. This is a superficial example of course, but it is a powerful one for me. It is contradicted by those driven by compulsions, benign or lethal however, and this individual act could be construed as deciding that the universe is neither homogeneous or isotropic based on examination of our solar system alone. I really don't know, so for me this is just a personal belief, much as your faith in a creator is, albeit mine is far more open to logical inquiry and is not certain.

Now, when you say that spacetime doesn't exist, I would say, "indeed not", because it is a model used to describe an underlying physical reality; it is an element of a theory and all of those are wrong as the saying goes. I am not a solipsist however, but when I operate within a certain set of guidelines, be they personal or mutually agreed upom, then I draw various conclusions. I don't require empirical evidence of spacetime, because I accept it as conditional, as I do all things. I don't believe that the lens through which humanity views the universe is so vast that it can ever deliver the answers we want. I have no problem with the ensuing revisions, and uncertainty, but see it as a healthy and constant evolution of thought.

That, is my personal philosophy: I have deep faith in ignorance and limitations, and I mistrust certainty.

 

[apeiron]

Anyway, the concept of determinism as it applies in the sciences is generally meant to be void of human perspective. That is, a deterministic system will evolve in the same way every time as long as the initial conditions are exactly the same (and the system is isolated, of course). This should happen regardless of human opinion.

Let's again make the distinction between reality and our models of reality. Our models are clearly "deterministic". That is just built into them as an axiom. If a, then b. It is the way we do maths and logic. We assume as a formal model that this must lead to that which must lead to the next, in strict step by step fashion.

But the map is not the terrain. Reality may behave with sufficient regularity that deterministic models give us simple maps. But what may underly that superficial regularity could be a more complex causality. And we start to appreciated this fact when we start to look at reality on the scale of the very small and the very energetic.

So determinism (and randomness) are concrete features of our formal models. They are "real" in that epistemological sense. But we don't know them to be true of reality in an ontological sense. And indeed, as we stretch our observations, we find reality starting to behave in ways which don't conform to our simple maps.

Just consider the quantum zeno effect. This is equally troubling for a naive belief in either the determined or the random.

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

 

[imiyakawa]

Does anyone here think the definition of free will through the prism of physics is applicable? That's the discussion I see to have more dire consequences.. Despite any correct set of premises that basically begs the question,

Georg, when you hear people deny free will in the total sense, it's highly likely they're talking about it from a physicist's perspective. This definition has achieved attention in the literature and so this is likely what you've heard, much to your dismay.

They're likely asserting that a third type of causality that would enable conscious causation (there are two ways of looking at conscious will, I'm talking from the physicist's perspective) has no reason to exist until demonstrated why a complex system that has "emergent properties" can lead to this [this doesn't include a type of law that enacts on the level that consciousness 'arises', if it does actually arise on a particular 'level', as it is still determined [not literally, perhaps] by laws]. They also assert that the illusion of it is no issue as consciousness doesn't emerge on the fundamental level.

 

[The riddler]

No one really knows if the universe is deterministic or random (simples).

But with free-will I am not sure. Answers.com defines free-will as "the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies" but we're effected by external agencies when we make desicisions all the time. For example, I dare whoever is reading this reply to put your fist through your computer screen right now, you wouldn't do it (i assume) due to the following reasons:

1. You'd probably have to spend money buying another one from some company
2. Over the years the world has taught you that it would be a stupid thing to do
3. Anyone in the room with you would think you were nuts causing you to become sociable upset
4. You might hurt your hand

Reason 2 is based on what exeternal agencies have taught you since you were very young (Causing a perminent effect). Some people may suggest that reasons 3 and 4 do count as free-will because they are based on nature, but is that not an external agency in itself?

 

[brainstorm]

But with free-will I am not sure. Answers.com defines free-will as "the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies" but we're effected by external agencies when we make desicisions all the time.

I hear the argument repeatedly that the impossibility of absolute freedom means that freedom is absolutely impossible. That's a logical mistake. Relative freedom is still freedom. It's an ingredient in the mix. Then you have to look at the extent to which free-will is constrained or influenced by other factors. I don't think anyone would claim that free-will has absolute power over everything, but then who would argue that free-will has no effect on anything either?

 

[nismaratwork]

I hear the argument repeatedly that the impossibility of absolute freedom means that freedom is absolutely impossible. That's a logical mistake. Relative freedom is still freedom. It's an ingredient in the mix. Then you have to look at the extent to which free-will is constrained or influenced by other factors. I don't think anyone would claim that free-will has absolute power over everything, but then who would argue that free-will has no effect on anything either?

People who believe in a completely deterministic universe, fates, and so forth. In other words, anyone who thinks that a god writes a destiny for them, or that the initial conditions at the BB did the same. I don't believe that, but plenty do, and their concept of free-will combined with fate obviates the element of freedom.