Nicker on 15/4/2008 at 21:07
Quote Posted by Vivian
What, so everything else in the universe is predictable if you know enough about it, but humans have some kind of magic get-out clause?
That is simply not true. There are many un-calculables in the universe and while the chemical activity in the human brain can be modeled and described there are too many variables inside and out to predict any given decision by any given person at any given time.
Vivian on 15/4/2008 at 21:21
Ultimately is there such a thing as too many variables? Too many to process currently, yes, but too many, period? How would that be possible?
catbarf on 15/4/2008 at 21:44
Quote Posted by Nicker
That is simply not true. There are many un-calculables in the universe and while the chemical activity in the human brain can be modeled and described there are too many variables inside and out to predict any given decision by any given person at any given time.
Nothing can be predicted with absolute certainty, but eventually we get to the point where we say 'Okay, the chance of my arm amputating itself and then moving 3cm to the right is so low that we will ignore it.' And in that manner, we could predict the human brain.
Nicker on 15/4/2008 at 21:50
Quote Posted by Vivian
Ultimately is there such a thing as too many variables? Too many to process currently, yes, but too many, period? How would that be possible?
Certainly the number of binary variables exceeds our ability to define, record and calculate them (at present) and possibly we could do so in the future, if we had a machine with more information processing capability than it's test subject, namely the universe. That doesn't seem likely but is perhaps theoretically possible.
However not all possibilities are simple binary choices. And the act of measuring what's going on alters what's going on. Human consciousness is not computable. Within our cells the micro-tubules take care of business through a sort of quantum computing, not through binary choices. That's enough non-computable activity right there to put the boots to predetermination - if that's what people here mean by materialistic determinism (as offered in the context of the VS free-will debate).
Anyway - I'd say that those who believe all was written before or as the universe was born are the ones who have some es'plaining to do.
Nicker on 15/4/2008 at 22:03
Quote Posted by catbarf
Nothing can be predicted with absolute certainty, but eventually we get to the point where we say 'Okay, the chance of my arm amputating itself and then moving 3cm to the right is so low that we will ignor it.' And in that manner, we could predict the human brain.
That's why we need some definitions here. Determinism, as it seems to be presented here, is treading the line of hocus-pocus.
Is free will the ability to choose any reality from the entire spectrum of possibilities the universe can offer or is it one's ability (or lack thereof) to make a decision without external compulsion, especially in the form of a prescripted event.
The chance of the spontaneous amputation you described is less than nil, as it is not included in the set of possibilities available in a lawful universe. Either the laws would have to be broken or ignored or there are rules about such things we are not aware of. Or the universe is not lawful but is arbitrary and subject to external manipulation.
Anyway - the terms are still a bit vague.
Ben Gunn on 15/4/2008 at 23:34
Quote Posted by Nicker
That's why we need some definitions here. Determinism, as it seems to be presented here, is treading the line of hocus-pocus.
Hocus pucos? Why is that? It doesn't matter if you can prove it or not (and you are right, quantum theory has proven that you can't)- the discussion here is on the principal level, not the practical- how does things work fundamentally, before you introduce an hypothetical viewer that changes the picture by merely being there to view it.
A determinist after quantum theory can still say that everything in the universe is determined according to the cause-effect chain, only now the knowledge of this chain,- the determining factors- is impossible. For us, The chain is forever veiled, it doesnt mean it's not there.
If you want a definition, Wiki's is as good as any-
Quote:
Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and behavior, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences.
Muzman on 16/4/2008 at 01:34
Quote Posted by Ben Gunn
(Not only in the east.) Free will, as a concept, died something like 2400 years ago, when Democritus introduced for the first time a mechinistic-deterministic world view (our modern science is preaty much based on that view and that's why Democritus was mentioned in the Dicky D tube you linked here earlier)-
since then it has been ressurected and killed repeatedly.
It will never vanish because in our actual, mundane lives we will never stop feeling that our will, and other's, is free. There's no point in being angry with a child for doing something wrong if you think he had no choice in doing it.
well yeah, but outside of philosophy departments Aristotle has been running the show pretty much unchallenged in the public mind (much of modern Christianity being very Aristotelian ultimately).
I'm not saying it's going to vanish, for the reasons you state it's very tricky, rather develop more nuance. You can't be too angry with a child for being what they are, you can if you don't want them to do whatever it is again (and what they did might make you genuinely annoyed! So your expression is honest). This analogy could get messy. The understanding of any one descision is both vaguely understood and so complex that the idea of a 'choice' as some sort of psychological artifact, or easily identifiable point in time and space, is probably limiting at best. And that's really the point; it can't be a one or the other, if will ain't free then it's determined, sort of logic however unbeatably that is argued (with or without god). On close inspection of things it ceases to be usefull. You could say it's human to extrapolate principles and grand conclusions and meanings from the facts that sound great but probably don't work very well on the small scale (I would) and so things might not change very much. But I'm hoping we'll grow a bit as this stuff becomes more well known, at least here and there.
Epos Nix on 16/4/2008 at 03:02
Quote:
(Not only in the east.) Free will, as a concept, died something like 2400 years ago
I didn't mean to say that free-will is a dead concept in Buddhism. I meant to say that free-will as an
absolute concept (quoting Muzman's post) doesn't exist in Buddhism.
Free-will in Buddhism exists as a very ambiguous subject, one that is very hard to pin down and define. This is because while humans, being the free agents they are, have a certain amount of influence over their environment and the choices they make, this influence is wholly dependent on the idea of a 'self', which is in itself a delusion. So one could say that free-will, or the delusion thereof, is a gross product of humanity grasping the concept of 'self'.
To look at it another way: let's assume humanity has given birth to a successful AI, one that can make choices for itself and can think and understand every bit as well as a human can. The AI exhibits free-will as far as we can see, but break the AI down into its base components and you start to realize that what appeared to be free-will is merely the causation of voltage manipulation within the AI's cpu. While it appears the AI has free-will on the macro side of things, look at the micro and it appears to be merely the causality of electrical impulses in a bunch of transistors.
Likewise, humans can appear to be free agents, but taking apart a human piece by piece to try to find the 'self' among all of it is impossible. The Buddhist term for this is "inter-dependent arising".
Ben Gunn on 16/4/2008 at 14:10
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
I didn't mean to say that free-will is a dead concept in Buddhism. I meant to say that free-will as an
absolute concept (quoting Muzman's post) doesn't exist in Buddhism.
Well, I didnt mean it literally either. The three of us used it as a figure of speech though maybe each meant it for something a bit different. Why looking for misunderstandings where there are none?
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
Free-will in Buddhism exists as a very ambiguous subject, one that is very hard to pin down and define. This is because while humans, being the free agents they are, have a certain amount of influence over their environment and the choices they make, this influence is wholly dependent on the idea of a 'self', which is in itself a delusion. So one could say that free-will, or the delusion thereof, is a gross product of humanity grasping the concept of 'self'.
If our "free" will is only an illusionary product of the self delusion doesnt that lead in the end to a deterministc conclusion? I know the eastern logic is fundementally different from the "or-or" dichotomian logic of the west and it has no problem with the answer "both". But I guess Im too conditioned by the western way of thinking to really understand the buddhist reply.
To me the question, after refining it a bit, is basically the same:- With all the cultural conditioning (culture here include everything- education, peer pressure, art, popular art... in short- everything not biological) and with all the biological restrictions and influence of the genes- and even if every product of our minds is a delusion- is there still an autonomous component to our will?
If not- Ill have to conclude that the determinists are right, as Vivian said- everything is causally determined but humans have a magical ticket out? (or something like that).
I guess thats where my western conditioning kicks in.
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
To look at it another way: let's assume humanity has given birth to a successful AI, one that can make choices for itself and can think and understand every bit as well as a human can. The AI exhibits free-will as far as we can see, but break the AI down into its base components and you start to realize that what appeared to be free-will is merely the causation of voltage manipulation within the AI's cpu. While it appears the AI has free-will on the macro side of things, look at the micro and it appears to be merely the causality of electrical impulses in a bunch of transistors.
This particular hypothetical AI is not helping us much. Nowhere do I see here a proof that this machine posses self-awereness. It may appear intelligent but it only "chooses" what to do from amongst pre-programmed branching paths, according to sets of conidtions and laws that had been put there by humans.
Only to a skynet-like super AI that does something unpredictable which also exhibit a self-preservation interest (like taking over the world) can you assign a conciousness and will. Even then you cant be sure, but maybe such a machine will have profound consequences on the way we percieve ourselves.
Though I doubt if religious folks and anyone who believe we have a soul will see it as a proof for the materialistic position.
I guess all I'm trying to say in all this blabber is that hardware/software- brain/mind analogies are usually only confusing and misleading even when made only to illustrate a point.
People tend to forget that the computer never performs logical or mathematical actions, only physical. Only to a human conciousness the latter represents the formers.
Vivian on 16/4/2008 at 15:05
You what? The way computers work is too based on physics to be comparable to a human brain?
Theres a lot of bullshit wandering around out here today, isn't there?
Cept you Nicker - good point about quantum stuff. I suppose this is what people mean when they talk about (
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526120.600-chaotic-will.html) chaos math and free will?
