- #106
JoeDawg
- 1,465
- 1
SW VandeCarr said:
Pre-determination implies a teleology. Its really a different concept than determinism, although easily confused.
Not a trick question: Why is violence bad?
- Thread starter CRGreathouse
- Start date
In summary: Yes, these things [violence?] exist in a state of nature, but a social contract could provide for protection from some but not all of these, or could provide protection from outside dangers (wildfire, other tribes) but not from internal. Alternately, a social contract could provide for protection from entirely different threats (positive rights rather than negative rights, say) without protecting from these.But agents would in nature seek to partake in the social contract that most advantages and protects them. Do we not observe people migrating from the societies that fail to protect from internal (and not just external) violence?That and we generally appear to have an evolved strong psychological response (we feel empathy) when we witness harm.
Pre-determination implies a teleology. Its really a different concept than determinism, although easily confused.
- #107
poor mystic
- 128
- 1
I don't believe that atoms have free will either, but neither do I believe that they do not.
The notion that matter is in the control of consciousness is one of the very few sufficient explanations for such observed phenomena as the dual slit experiment.
The question of whether such notions are admissible within Physics would appear to be answerable by any physicist for himself on the grounds of his own experience, for is not Physics the study of that which is?
In the larger forum, debate runs hot but never on this issue, for in accepting that consciousness (especially 'shy' consciousness) may be the fundamental determining force in the world we are left with no means of determining anything at all... our curves and relationships are shown to be evanescent; at the whim of incomprehensible, volitional forces.
I believe that Physics maintains a carefully policed disbelief in consciousness as an explanation for physical behaviour. Did it not, we could have no technology.
Yet the "conscious matter" hypothesis continues to attract all who hear of the double slit experiment; it is a watershed in our understanding of the world around us..
The notion that matter is in the control of consciousness is one of the very few sufficient explanations for such observed phenomena as the dual slit experiment.
The question of whether such notions are admissible within Physics would appear to be answerable by any physicist for himself on the grounds of his own experience, for is not Physics the study of that which is?
In the larger forum, debate runs hot but never on this issue, for in accepting that consciousness (especially 'shy' consciousness) may be the fundamental determining force in the world we are left with no means of determining anything at all... our curves and relationships are shown to be evanescent; at the whim of incomprehensible, volitional forces.
I believe that Physics maintains a carefully policed disbelief in consciousness as an explanation for physical behaviour. Did it not, we could have no technology.
Yet the "conscious matter" hypothesis continues to attract all who hear of the double slit experiment; it is a watershed in our understanding of the world around us..
- #108
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 7,220
- 24
Disclaimer #1: I have not read this thread beyond the OP and a few responses.
Disclaimer #2: Not being formally trained in Philosophy, I can not promise that what follows rises to the level of sound philosophical argument.
My opinion is that, as with the truth of a mathematical statement, the truth of any philosophical statement can be determined (modulo Godel) only within the axiomatic structure that it resides in. In other words, one must accept certain philosophical axioms or premises as true (given that they are legitimate, i.e., not mutually inconsistent), and then be able to "derive" the statement in question from these axioms.
I think that for most modern cultures, a relevant premise that is almost universally held as true, is some variant or other of the assertion that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are good things for an individual to be able to have. I also believe the given such a premise, it should be possible to rigorously derive the statement that violence, as defined in the OP, infringes on the above "good", making it "bad".
Disclaimer #2: Not being formally trained in Philosophy, I can not promise that what follows rises to the level of sound philosophical argument.
My opinion is that, as with the truth of a mathematical statement, the truth of any philosophical statement can be determined (modulo Godel) only within the axiomatic structure that it resides in. In other words, one must accept certain philosophical axioms or premises as true (given that they are legitimate, i.e., not mutually inconsistent), and then be able to "derive" the statement in question from these axioms.
I think that for most modern cultures, a relevant premise that is almost universally held as true, is some variant or other of the assertion that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are good things for an individual to be able to have. I also believe the given such a premise, it should be possible to rigorously derive the statement that violence, as defined in the OP, infringes on the above "good", making it "bad".
Last edited:
- #109
GeorgCantor
- 496
- 1
JoeDawg said:
Instead of saying 10 times what free will is NOT, why not actually tell us what free will is, according to compabilism? As far as i can see, compabilism posits an illusion of free-will or soft/weak free will(whatever that means).
Last edited:
- #110
SW VandeCarr
- 2,199
- 81
Gokul43201 said:
Gokul
Your view is close to the one I expressed in post 55. However, I don't consider a rigid axiomatic system. Rather, I consider a work in progress governed by a legal code which evolves.
Last edited:
- #111
GeorgCantor
- 496
- 1
GeorgCantor said:
JoeDawg said:
Well no. I asked you to unambiguously define what 'physical' is because it's impossible to define. Actually, it's much more likely that the spiritual(mind, self-awareness and free will) is all that exists, not physical structures in time and space. Consider the following example and let's make it more dramatic so that the philosophical implications of the thought experiment are more obvious to everyone:
We want to test 'physical matter' and prove that it is non-contextual, non-relational, non-observer-dependent, etc. so that we can have evidence that matter is real and Mind is a secondary by-product of matter.
Let the chosen object for our gedanken experiment be your dog which has just died(and you naturally assume the dog existed out there in what you call the 'universe' prior to his/her death). Decoherence is an observed process and a pretty well established fact of nature. The biggest objects that have been put into a superposition are tetraphenylporphyrin molecules which are some 50 times smaller than the HIV virus. Teams are working on larger objects like viruses and bacteria and will likely put them into a superposition within a few years. For the purposes of the thought experiment, let's assume for a moment that we have already overcome the technical difficulties for putting much larger objects into superpositions. The popular opinion is that the physical human body is responsible for the appearance of mind, awareness and free will. So, for the thought experiment we will keep your dead dog at a very low temperature(so that thermal radiation isn't emitted and which-path information could not be obtained and consequently no observer effects be present) and seal off your dog from the environment. Even without running your dog through a double slit experiment to show the interference pattern, we know the quantum behavior is now visible. There is no dog. For as long as we manage to keep your dog in a coherent state, your dog's dead body doesn't exist. Increase the temperature and the quantum effects will disappear and there you have your dog again.
The painful question is NOT where the dog was during those seconds when he/she was gone.The really fundamental question is where the dog was, when the dog was in a decohered state(i.e. seemed to be real and out there)? Don't bother to answer me, that was a rhetorical question. There is no real, non-contextual, non-relational universe 'out there'.
No. We are not making progress on free will at all. You are a primitive human being(like the rest of us), and concerning the issue of free will and self-awareness, you simply don't know what you are talking about.
Most of the issues discussed in the philosophy forum are about asking questions, they are not about giving answers. We don't know what reality is or how reality is(or even who exists and what exists), so most philosophical issues should be approached with the disclaimer that "we mostly don't know what we are talking about on these issues".
Last edited:
- #112
poor mystic
- 128
- 1
A "legal code" which evolves?
It seems to me that in its completeness, such a code must provide perfect guidance in the matter of how to avoid social disharmony, inefficiency and other troubles. Then isn't that code useful for other purposes?
If the code of behaviour accurately predicts how Jill will feel if Jack does the wrong thing, it must also be useful in determining what the right thing is, for Jack to do.
The code must also provide for Jack, helping Jill (and himself) do the best thing for himself, in every situation.
Then:
The code can become a functional substitute for Jill in Jack's life, and for Jack in Jill's.
The code becomes the decision-maker, for it has been raised above the man, who is thereby disenfranchised of himself, for he may only enact the decisions of the code.
It seems to me that in its completeness, such a code must provide perfect guidance in the matter of how to avoid social disharmony, inefficiency and other troubles. Then isn't that code useful for other purposes?
If the code of behaviour accurately predicts how Jill will feel if Jack does the wrong thing, it must also be useful in determining what the right thing is, for Jack to do.
The code must also provide for Jack, helping Jill (and himself) do the best thing for himself, in every situation.
Then:
The code can become a functional substitute for Jill in Jack's life, and for Jack in Jill's.
The code becomes the decision-maker, for it has been raised above the man, who is thereby disenfranchised of himself, for he may only enact the decisions of the code.
- #113
poor mystic
- 128
- 1
And, really amazingly. if the code is perfect he only wants to enact the decisions of the cde!
- #114
SW VandeCarr
- 2,199
- 81
poor mystic said:
You are giving an opinion. I'm referencing to a legal system that actually exists and functions. It's not perfect. That's the point I'm making in post 55. It's a work in progress.
You seem to be saying that we shouldn't have laws. Well, if you prefer anarchy, I suggest you leave this forum because IT HAS RULES.
Last edited:
- #115
poor mystic
- 128
- 1
"You seem to be saying that we shouldn't have laws"
I have never said that, and in fact my idea that "if the code is perfect he only wants to enact the decisions of the code" only demonstrates a desire for order.
First attempting to distance myself from my upset feelings due to being misrepresented, I ask myself what it is about being (textually) yelled at in the last post that I object to.
Am I upset because rules are being broken? No, I am upset, the broken rules (if they are broken) are of no consequence to me.
I have never said that, and in fact my idea that "if the code is perfect he only wants to enact the decisions of the code" only demonstrates a desire for order.
First attempting to distance myself from my upset feelings due to being misrepresented, I ask myself what it is about being (textually) yelled at in the last post that I object to.
Am I upset because rules are being broken? No, I am upset, the broken rules (if they are broken) are of no consequence to me.
- #116
apeiron
Gold Member
- 2,138
- 2
GeorgCantor said:
You keep coming at things from a wrong, or at least not useful, perspective.
Yes, we would widely agree that we cannot know the truth of reality in some direct, unmediated, sense. But then what. Do we spend the rest of time shaking our heads sadly, saying we just don't know anything? Or instead get on with modelling reality as best we can discover?
I would take you more seriously on our lack of practical understanding of freewill, self-awareness and other aspects of mind if you could demonstrate some particular familiarity of the many ways in which we do in fact have a good understanding of things.
If you knew what we do know, then you might be able to speak more accurately about what we don't yet know.
- #117
kramer733
- 323
- 0
Anything that humans deem negative to themselves or anybody is considered "bad" =) so there you have it.
- #118
DaveC426913
Gold Member
- 22,989
- 6,665
Well ... no. Therein lies the rub.kramer733 said:
See, an act that's bad for th do-ee is not necessarily bad for the do-er.
We apply things like the Golden Rule to decide why we think we shouldn't inflict it upon the do-ee, but that's not to be taken for granted. Thus the reason for this thread.
- #119
JoeDawg
- 1,465
- 1
Something that can be measured and maintains an identity.GeorgCantor said:
But you don't really want a definition, you want spiritual mumbo jumbo.
And this is likely because I'm sure you can define 'spiritual' unambiguously. Its only likely, because it suits your fancy.
Actually, the more we know about consciousness in general, the more we know about 'freewill', and we are learning more every day.
Asking questions endlessly is what psychiatrists do, not philosophers... but, then again, you might benefit from the former, since you seem to have reality issues.
Last edited:
- #120
JoeDawg
- 1,465
- 1
Well its certainly not unambiguous spirituality, but no illusion necessary.GeorgCantor said:
- #121
GeorgCantor
- 496
- 1
JoeDawg said:
You don't consider mind, awareness and free will mumbo jumbo, do you?
The point was that your 'physical' proposition is in exactly the same boat - unprovable and currently undefinable to the extend of what we experience.
Oh come on, if we have free will, how would you ever hope to explain it within a deterministic, reductionist point of view?
Actually, most of the issues in this subforum are unanswerable. It's about posing the question and approaching it from multiple directions so that the participants could form a better opinion(FOR THEMSELVES). That precludes making statements like "free will requires determinism" because:
1. You don't know what free will is(you evaded a dozen times the question what free will is and only addressed what free will is not, according to your theory)
2. There is no such thing as weak(soft) free will.
You also have a reality issue, you are just more stubborn on your reality issue. Unless you have evidence that shows how to restore the classical realism of the senses, your issue is also there, you are simply not looking at it(or afraid to do so). There are basically 2 set of rules - quantum and classical. And since matter can be put to behave quantumly(i.e. cross the classical boundery of localized objects in time and space) and behave according to the other set of rules, what is it about the classical domain that makes you think it depicts Truths? Your own naivety?
Last edited:
- #122
GeorgCantor
- 496
- 1
JoeDawg said:
Spirituality is not about measurable quantities. No magic necessary.
Last edited:
- #123
GeorgCantor
- 496
- 1
apeiron said:
I consider free will to be one of the fundamental ingredients of reality. Free will being the starting point for our investigations, we have to define where the answers are coming from - from deterministic internal processes(no free will) or from emergent behavior. I consider the former an attempt to nullify all the knowledge we have about reality, hence my issue with that approach.
Could you cite some reference(s) on what you think you know about free will(preferrably research that doesn't conlcude that free will is an illusion)?
Last edited:
- #124
GeorgCantor
- 496
- 1
GeorgCantor said:
JoeDawg said:
Does a molecule put in a coherent state maintain 'identity'?
Last edited:
- #125
JoeDawg
- 1,465
- 1
No, I consider them to be interesting philosophical questions.GeorgCantor said:
Spirituality is not an answer. Its a nonsense cop out.
There is a difference between something being unproved, and something being complete nonsense. When we throw reason out the door, as one must, with magical concepts like spirituality, then its not about proof or lack thereof, its about empty rhetoric and appeals to emotion.
I don't think I ever mentioned reductionism. Feel free to point out where I did this.
Causation is an observable phenomena. The fact we don't entirely understand it doesn't mean we should disregard it in favour of magic. That is just anti-rational rhetoric.
Well it does, sorry for your luck.
You can't make a choice, if what results from your action is random. The choice you make must cause the effect you intend, or there is no choice... there is just random event after random event. And people make choices based on their experience, their history.
No amount of appeals to supernatural magic will change that.
And your solution is that quantum mechanics is spiritual? LOL. Good luck with that.
- #126
GeorgCantor
- 496
- 1
JoeDawg said:
'Magic' is actually more sound than "we don't have free will" because of determinism. Free will is as much magic as is anything else that we don't understand.
This isn't about the randomness-determinism dichotomy. It's about a new emergent entity all together, that if it exists, isn't bound to the laws of physics as we know them.
Funny that you think what you just posted was the result of internal processes over which you have no control. Then this thread is done. There is no good and bad, all events will take place because there is no separate identity("I") that could interfere.
If magic is defined as that which is unknown, then almost everything is magic.
I said that existence is more likely spiritual, now you say i implied qm is spiritual. There is just one conclusion to be drawn from this line of "reasoning" - that existence equals quantum mechanics. If i could borrow your own rhetoric - "LOL. Good luck with that".
- #127
GeorgCantor
- 496
- 1
The whole "freewill-awareness-mind" confusion is likely to go the route of spacetime - i.e. the physical brain being not a fundamental concept of reality, but emerging from more basic rules and principles. If we can find a "background-independent" approach to mind, then we may(hope to) find the whole truth about existence and the phenomenal reality of experience, that would include the mysterious and elusive "I". Of course, neither the background independent approach towards a working GUT is near, and less so the emerging 'physical' brain(though in an emergent spacetime, every object, incl. the physical brain, would be emerging from the fundamental dynamics of some X,Y,Z entities, or from a master equation of the Mandelbrot set sort, from the mind of God, etc.).
Last edited:
- #128
apeiron
Gold Member
- 2,138
- 2
GeorgCantor said:
Sure.
http://www.dichotomistic.com/mind_readings_JCS%20freewill%20article.html
- #129
GeorgCantor
- 496
- 1
apeiron said:
I took the time to read the whole article but can't find the gist of the argument. The author seems to be confused(which should be the norm and shows he understands the nature of the phenomenon). For instance:
Nothing about the "social script" demands that we feel autonomous. This is a bare assetion that has no counterpart in Nature. Moreso, if human choice is determined in a bifold way by the chemical reactions in the brain and the social interactions, then there is no place for free will. The author doesn't address this issue and simply ignores it.
A few sentences below, you find the following(which sounds more like prose):
Here the author somehow concludes(contrary to what was stated above) that our actions are undetermined(which i agree with) but I fail to see the "explanation" or how his paper is supposed to ellucidate the topic of free will. There doesn't appear to be an argument and this is hardly surprising. For those who seek a description of the phenomenon, this paper will probably come in handy.
- #130
Galteeth
- 69
- 1
At some point in moral systems, we have to start with a priori assumptions. A common one is that one's own desire to exist and desire not to die (and not to have certain others die) should be recognized in others on the basis that others have the same preferences and those should be respected if we wish others to respect ours. There is no absolute "truth" to this in the objective sense, but utilization of such axiom based moral systems is mutually beneficial.
- #131
poor mystic
- 128
- 1
Why is violence bad?
We need to look after one another 'round here. It's dangerous, and without one another, we're ******.
We need to look after one another 'round here. It's dangerous, and without one another, we're ******.
- #132
DaveC426913
Gold Member
- 22,989
- 6,665
Ok, this thread isn't about mere platitudes.poor mystic said:
The question is not a practical one (what does it mean to our day-to-day); it is an academic one (what does it mean in principle).
- #133
- 2,845
- 0
DaveC426913 said:
Yes, that. I'm curious about how to extend commonly-accepted standards to unusual situations. If there was a sapient nonhuman species, how should humans treat them? If psychics were efficacious, what privacy implications are there? etc.
- #134
- 2,845
- 0
poor mystic said:
But why? One basic principle here seems to be some kind of altruism or expectation of reciprocity, but I can't quite tease it out.
- #135
apeiron
Gold Member
- 2,138
- 2
GeorgCantor said:
How do you define freewill? What essential aspect is there to it that this article fails to address?
- #136
GeorgCantor
- 496
- 1
apeiron said:
I define it as in the duality brain-mind. The mind is the emergent entity that is also the self-aware "I" that supervenes on the brain and has free will. It is also the entity that dreams, thinks and seeks meaning. It's sad we can't capture this emergent 'entity' that appears to be the essence of all reality. It's clear to me, self-awareness will never be reduced to interactions of electrochemical processes in the brain. Free will and the self-awareness of matter are totally mind-bending in and of themselves. I have deep conceptual problems reconciling the materialistic/reductionistic paradigm with those 2 phenomena, so i don't expect progress unless we move past the current paradigm that is also a distorted view of how the world is.
"I think therefore i am" is a correct statement and courts of law correctly assume you have free will when they charge you for wrong doing(hence the answer to the OP). You can think of free will as a god-like ability, the ability to be free to a certain extent from the laws of physics as we know them. Free will is the defining characteristic of the entity that writes this post and seeks to spread ideas and meaning. You don't believe you are deterministic electric current flowing around synapses, do you?
Last edited:
- #137
apeiron
Gold Member
- 2,138
- 2
GeorgCantor said:
OK, so you define freewill as unphysical and above the laws of physics. That would indeed make it very hard for us to talk about a physically natural explanation
.But what warrants such a belief (when a physically natural explanation appears to account for all that we actually observe)?
Remind me of the ways exactly that we are free from the laws of physics as we know them. Be specific, and provide references if you can.
GeorgCantor said:
Nor a result of random QM or chaotic processes. I've said clearly enough that random~determinism is the kind of physical dichotomy that makes sense in modelling micro-physics, but not complex systems. Here the modern literature would talk about autonomy, intentionality, and other kinds of constructs.
Random~determined is simply irrelevant as "emergence" produces new properties at higher, more complex, levels of physical organisation.
You may dispute this. But first you have to show you understand it.
- #138
GeorgCantor
- 496
- 1
apeiron said:OK, so you define freewill as unphysical and above the laws of physics. That would indeed make it very hard for us to talk about a physically natural explanation
But what warrants such a belief (when a physically natural explanation appears to account for all that we actually observe)?
No physical explanation is able to account for self-awareness and free will.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_emergence
"Strong emergence says that if systems can have qualities not directly traceable to the system's components, but rather to how those components interact, and one is willing to accept that a system supervenes on its components, then it is difficult to account for an emergent property's cause. These new qualities are irreducible to the system's constituent parts"
Yes, 'emergence' is the word. It seems we are in agreement. Free will exists and since it's an emergent property, it's not directly reduceable to the sum of its parts. What the laws of physics as we know them say, does not hold for strong emergent behavior.
- #139
apeiron
Gold Member
- 2,138
- 2
GeorgCantor said:
I put emergence in quotes for a reason. The bottom-up view of emergence is one approach - the reductionist. My approach is based on systems literature and is about the interaction of the top-down (constraints) and the bottom-up (construction). This is the most natural way to talk about the brain and other examples of complex adaptive systems.
So we both agree reductionism is inadequate. But you are not addressing something different, the systems approach, where people talk about different qualitative concepts such as autonomy.
- #140
JoeDawg
- 1,465
- 1
GeorgCantor said:
OK, the original issue was whether or not freewill *could be* compatible with determinism, there is a major philosophical branch that believes it can be, and is. The fact you disagree with it is irrelevant. And the fact you rely on spirituality as a defense tells me you don't care about accuracy, only using the facts to support your ideology.
Emergence, while interesting, is also much abused. Regardless, just because it isn't bound by physical laws as we currently understand them, doesn't mean its supernatural. If emergent phenomena exist, I see no reason they couldn't be described by physical laws. In fact, they would have to be if the universe is at all consistent. That doesn't equal reductionism, by the way.
When did I say that, in fact, I am in complete control. The internal processes ARE ME.
Not sure why anyone would define magic that way... but whatever.
No, you said freewill was spiritual because we don't understand it, and most physicists would agree we don't understand QM... therefore it must be spiritual too.
All you are doing is inserting 'spiritual' into anything you don't understand.