|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
 Posted - 04/08/2005 : 21:56:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Strict determinism is garbage. If it were true there would be, as Dave_W said, no real meaning to anything. People could not be held accountable because they had no choice in the matter.
But what type of naturalism would allow for "meaning"? Does quantum randomness provide for the mechanism of free will? Is "meaning" based on randomness really more satisfying than "meaning" based on determinism? Any kind of naturalism destroys the concept of free will. The only escape hatch is to hypothesize something supernatural like a soul.
To pharaphrase Dave:
Your Honour, I had no choice but to go to the bar after work. I had no choice but to have nine beers. The victim had no choice but to insult me. I had no choice but to break a bottle over his head, and then grind the shattered glass into his neck. You see, your Honor, we've learned that random quantum fluctuations beyond my control combined with the way my brain is wired forced me to react in this fashion. I had no choice whatsoever, my actions were determined by random events which were outside of my control. Even this speech is beyond my ability to stop. Were I to walk up to your bench, your Honor, and start peeing (as I'm doing now), there would be nothing I could do about it. And there's nothing you can do but scream in response, and there's nothing your bailiffs can do but drag me out of the courtroom.
In other words, you can blame quantum randomness for everything just as easily as determinism.
Determinism merely says that the way an isolated system changes is absolutely determined by its initial conditions. I think it's a mistake to infer that this makes life meaningless. |
 |
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2005 : 22:39:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Right, Gorgo, it doesn't make sense.Given the circumstances both inside and outside the body, they couldn't have done other than what they did. Nevertheless, we still hold individuals responsible, in the sense of applying rewards and sanctions, so that their behavior stays more or less within the range of what we deem acceptable. There is a certain amount of cognitive dissonance necessary to make both of those statements. They're saying "people cannot help but do what they do, but we're all for trying to change that through rewards and sanctions." And how is a sanction anything but "retributive?" Synonyms for "punishment" don't mean anything except "punishment."
I think that it's just a matter of being pragmatic. If a part on your car breaks so that your car won't run you either repair the part or replace it. That's just practical. It's not about punishing the defective part. Take away the moral outrage and you have the same situation with humans in relation to society. We are all still human though and it can be hard for us to imagine this perspective.quote:
And no, naturalism doesn't undermine the idea of personal responsibility.
I agree.quote:
Determinism does.
Here I disagree. I don't believe that personal responsibility depends on free will. A person may not be morally responsible for their actions, but they are still responsible for their actions in the same way that a broken part is responsible for the fact that the car won't run. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2005 : 00:05:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
I think that it's just a matter of being pragmatic. If a part on your car breaks so that your car won't run you either repair the part or replace it. That's just practical. It's not about punishing the defective part. Take away the moral outrage and you have the same situation with humans in relation to society. We are all still human though and it can be hard for us to imagine this perspective.
We don't punish broken machinery (unless we're insane) because we don't expect it to learn from its mistakes or to try to do better, next time. A system of "rewards and sanctions" will only function on those systems which are capable of learning. Determinism undercuts the value of learning, though.quote:
Here I disagree. I don't believe that personal responsibility depends on free will. A person may not be morally responsible for their actions, but they are still responsible for their actions in the same way that a broken part is responsible for the fact that the car won't run.
In an absolutely deterministic universe, the broken part is not responsible. Let's say it's a drive shaft that's snapped in two. Well...- the drive shaft isn't responsible because it only reacted to the stresses placed on it by the starter motor;
- the starter motor isn't responsible because it only reacted to being energized by its power cables;
- the cables aren't responsible because they only supplied current supplied by a battery and switch;
- the battery and switch aren't responsible because they only reacted to the driver turning the ignition key;
- the driver isn't responsible because he only tried to start the car because his boss expects him at work;
- his boss isn't responsible because she is only acting on behalf of the CEO;
- the CEO isn't responsible because he is only setting expectations based on the well-being of the company;
- the company isn't responsible because it is only acting on behalf of its stockholders;
- the stockholders aren't responsible because they're only acting with enlightened self-interest within a capitalist society;
- the society isn't responsible because it owes its existence to the philosophical decisions of its founders;
- the founders aren't responsible because they were only acting in the interest of the species (or whatever)...
And on and on, all the way back to the Big Bang. The only thing upon which true "blame" can rest in an absolutely deterministic world is the absolute origin of the universe itself - everything since then has been determined.
As soon as you "stop the buck" somewhere down the chain of responsibility and say "it is that person/thing's fault," you ascribe to that person or thing a free will to do as it might not have otherwise done, contradicting that web page's claims.
In fact, this is the basis for accident investigations. When a plane falls from the sky, it's not enough to find a broken part and blame it. Instead, we check to see if the pilot put too much stress on that part, or we check the part for manufacturing defects, or we check inspection logs to ensure the part was examined in the proper fashion (etc). Only if none of these things is found to be probable do we chalk the incident up to "accident due to part failure for no apparent reason." After all, it is not the part's fault if the pilot was incompetent, the steel used was substandard, and/or it hadn't been properly inspected.
Determinism goes farther, though, and tells us it's also not the fault of the pilot, the manufacturer, or the inspectors. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2005 : 01:00:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
We don't punish broken machinery (unless we're insane) because we don't expect it to learn from its mistakes or to try to do better, next time. A system of "rewards and sanctions" will only function on those systems which are capable of learning.
I agree with you up to here.quote:
Determinism undercuts the value of learning, though.
How does determinism undercut learning? Learning provides information and conditioning that would not otherwise have been available. Any deterministic equation would have to take that into account.quote:
In an absolutely deterministic universe, the broken part is not responsible. Let's say it's a drive shaft that's snapped in two. Well...- the drive shaft isn't responsible because it only reacted to the stresses placed on it by the starter motor;
- the starter motor isn't responsible because it only reacted to being energized by its power cables;
- the cables aren't responsible because they only supplied current supplied by a battery and switch;
- the battery and switch aren't responsible because they only reacted to the driver turning the ignition key;
- the driver isn't responsible because he only tried to start the car because his boss expects him at work;
- his boss isn't responsible because she is only acting on behalf of the CEO;
- the CEO isn't responsible because he is only setting expectations based on the well-being of the company;
- the company isn't responsible because it is only acting on behalf of its stockholders;
- the stockholders aren't responsible because they're only acting with enlightened self-interest within a capitalist society;
- the society isn't responsible because it owes its existence to the philosophical decisions of its founders;
- the founders aren't responsible because they were only acting in the interest of the species (or whatever)...
And on and on, all the way back to the Big Bang. The only thing upon which true "blame" can rest in an absolutely deterministic world is the absolute origin of the universe itself - everything since then has been determined.
True, but I wasn't talking about ultimate responsibility, I was only talking about determining that a certain part was defective and repairing or fixing that part in order to put the car in working order. It's not about morality.quote:
As soon as you "stop the buck" somewhere down the chain of responsibility and say "it is that person/thing's fault," you ascribe to that person or thing a free will to do as it might not have otherwise done, contradicting that web page's claims.
Let's assume that the driveshaft was defective and snapped. There is no need to assume that it did anything other than what inevitably it had to do, nonetheless replacing the driveshaft puts the car back in working order. Therefore the driveshaft was responsible for the car not running regardless of where the ultimate responsibility may lie.quote:
In fact, this is the basis for accident investigations. When a plane falls from the sky, it's not enough to find a broken part and blame it. Instead, we check to see if the pilot put too much stress on that part, or we check the part for manufacturing defects, or we check inspection logs to ensure the part was examined in the proper fashion (etc). Only if none of these things is found to be probable do we chalk the incident up to "accident due to part failure for no apparent reason." After all, it is not the part's fault if the pilot was incompetent, the steel used was substandard, and/or it hadn't been properly inspected.
Naturally if we discover that a factory is making defective aircraft parts it behoves us to remedy the situation regardless of were ultimate moral responsibility may lie.quote:
Determinism goes farther, though, and tells us it's also not the fault of the pilot, the manufacturer, or the inspectors.
Only morally. Determinism removes free will from the equation as does any form of naturalism. That does not mean that we cannot take action to rectify a bad situation. If determinism is correct then it merely means that such corrective actions are also forordained. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2005 : 02:29:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
I agree with you up to here.quote:
Determinism undercuts the value of learning, though.
How does determinism undercut learning? Learning provides information and conditioning that would not otherwise have been available. Any deterministic equation would have to take that into account.
Not to speak for Dave, but from what I understand of determinism, there can be no "learning" because there can be no teachers. The teachers are just as preordained to pass on whatever instructions as he/she was preordained (determined) to do by the series of causes before them. A deterministic system won't "take into account" any learning since it isn't a new variable. It's incorrect for you to say it otherwise wouldn't have been available. Of course it would have. In a deterministic universe, everything that will ever occur--every interaction--flows directly from the first cause and can be inevitably traced back to that source.
Thus, the whole idea of learning becomes absurd. It would be like saying that balls "learn" to fall when let go in midair.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 04/09/2005 02:33:00 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2005 : 02:36:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
I think that it's just a matter of being pragmatic.
<snip by Mabuse>
Yes, as Dave eloquently put it, the buck has to stop somewhere.
The bigger the system to be determined is, the more chaotic it's behaviour will be.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well...- the drive shaft isn't responsible because it only reacted to the stresses placed on it by the starter motor;
- the starter motor isn't responsible because it only reacted to being energized by its power cables;
- the cables aren't responsible because they only supplied current supplied by a battery and switch;
- the battery and switch aren't responsible because they only reacted to the driver turning the ignition key;
- the driver isn't responsible because he only tried to start the car because his boss expects him at work;
- his boss isn't responsible because she is only acting on behalf of the CEO;
- the CEO isn't responsible because he is only setting expectations based on the well-being of the company;
- the company isn't responsible because it is only acting on behalf of its stockholders;
- the stockholders aren't responsible because they're only acting with enlightened self-interest within a capitalist society;
- the society isn't responsible because it owes its existence to the philosophical decisions of its founders;
- the founders aren't responsible because they were only acting in the interest of the species (or whatever)...
And on and on, all the way back to the Big Bang. The only thing upon which true "blame" can rest in an absolutely deterministic world is the absolute origin of the universe itself - everything since then has been determined.
Consider the classic popularised example of chaos theory: The butterfly that flaps it's wings on a field is ultimately responsible for a storm on the other side of the globe.
Imagine that you analyse the storm, and work yourself backward in time in order to explore the triggering event, every once in a while take the information you have and run a simulation that ends up with the storm. At some point the simulation will start to differ from the actual event, because the simulation isn't precise enough: variables have to be truncated/averaged to a pre-defined precision.
The longer we travel back in the time-line, more precision is needed, and more variables are included in the system (in order to be considered closed, as Matt said earlier). Sooner or later we will end up having to deal with the randomness of nuclear decay.
quote:
the driver isn't responsible because he only tried to start the car because his boss expects him at work;
At this point, the system expands drastically. The decision by the guy's boss that could have led to the part not breaking down would also affect so many other things more directly, and with higher priority that it makes no sense blaming the boss. I guess this is where normal sane people thinks it's time to stop the buck: The driver is responsible for the maintenance of the car.
Maybe I'm not subscribing to determinism after all. The idea of determinism creates this dissonance: on one hand, the only true random events are found on quantum levels, suggesting that any system not depending on quantum events should be determinable. On the other hand, large systems becomes chaotic because of our limited ability to process them, thus we have to accept the illusion of free will as reality.
I suppose this is one of the reasons religious people (I'm thinking Christians here) believe in an omniscient God; "He's got a plan for you", suggesting that God somehow can see through apparent random events and see that person's destiny. Releasing that person from his responsibility, and give that person the comfort of knowing that nothing he could have done would have made a difference.
Yet they think that they have free will: on one hand comfort in the knowledge that they are not responsible, on the other hand, they have free will when accepting God as their personal saviour.
I believe in free will, and personal responsibility. As such I find it hard to accept determinism. There must be a middle way, some point where the determinism breaks down.
quote:
As soon as you "stop the buck" somewhere down the chain of responsibility and say "it is that person/thing's fault," you ascribe to that person or thing a free will to do as it might not have otherwise done, contradicting that web page's claims.
<snip>
Determinism goes farther, though, and tells us it's also not the fault of the pilot, the manufacturer, or the inspectors.
What then, is the answer? Limited Determinism? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2005 : 03:43:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Not to speak for Dave, but from what I understand of determinism, there can be no "learning" because there can be no teachers. The teachers are just as preordained to pass on whatever instructions as he/she was preordained (determined) to do by the series of causes before them. A deterministic system won't "take into account" any learning since it isn't a new variable.
I take it that you mean that, from a deterministic standpoint all information is contained in the first cause. This is correct, but I don't see how that prevents learning. Information can be redistributed within the system. In particular, scientific information is already contained in nature, so we don't really learn anything new when we discover it. It is new to us, but we only represent a subsystem of the whole. It is just a predetermined transfer of information from one form into another. (I use scientific innformation as an example but of course all information, not merely scientific information would by definition originate in the first cause.)quote:
It's incorrect for you to say it otherwise wouldn't have been available. Of course it would have. In a deterministic universe, everything that will ever occur--every interaction--flows directly from the first cause and can be inevitably traced back to that source.
You are correct. I did not mean to imply that with a given set of initial conditions a deterministic universe could be different than what it is. All that I meant was that any deterministic equation that failed to take learning into account would be fataly flawed.quote:
Thus, the whole idea of learning becomes absurd. It would be like saying that balls "learn" to fall when let go in midair.
Only the possibility of learning truly new information becomes absurd. Information transfer from place to place and from one form to another is still possible. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2005 : 03:45:48 [Permalink]
|
But things like education and social programs reduce crime, don't they? Doesn't that speak to the fact that while individuals make certain choices, they make them within a narrow range of options?
While I'm not sure about total determinism, is there really much evidence that retribution does much to reduce crime? We have the governor of a state that executes a large number of people becoming a President of the U.S. and a mass murderer himself in the name of "freedom." What did he learn? Didn't he just learn that the guy with the biggest gang can do what he wants?
Isn't that what his methods teach?
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2004-04/01wise.cfm
"But get-tough policies are far less instrumental in reducing crime rates than the relative strength of the economy at any given moment. As indicated by cross-state crime comparisons, there is simply no positive relationship between the severity of a state's laws and decreases in murder, rape or assault: the three most serious violent crimes (Currie, 1998: 58-60). Expanding a city's police force or prison capacity likewise has not been found to bear any positive relationship to reducing homicide rates.
Also, since the majority of new incarcerations have been for non-violent offenses--disproportionately drug offenses--it makes little sense to credit the prison binge for declining crime rates: after all, those bearing the brunt of the lock-'em up policy are not violent offenders at all, let alone the worst of the worst.
What's more, the very crackdown policies that obviously can reduce crime in the short-run (by removing particular felons from the streets) can actually have a boomerang effect, thereby increasing crime overall.
Researchers have found that incarceration of youthful offenders--a staple of the get-tough crowd that prefers prosecuting young criminals as adults--tends to delay the onset of delinquency cessation, and thereby increase the risk of future offending by these juveniles upon release (Blumstein, Cohen and Golub, 1989; also Glassner, 1999: 74)
Likewise, once an offender has a criminal record, their future prospects for employment and earnings fall dramatically, thereby increasing the likelihood of re-offending. Studies have found that those with criminal records have unemployment rates of nearly 50 percent, and that having a prison record reduces the amount of hours employed after one's release by 25-30 percent. In part, this is because so many employers--as many as 6 in 10 according to one study--openly admit that they would never knowingly hire an ex-offender (Street, 2002: 6)."
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2005 : 04:20:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Maybe I'm not subscribing to determinism after all. The idea of determinism creates this dissonance: on one hand, the only true random events are found on quantum levels, suggesting that any system not depending on quantum events should be determinable. On the other hand, large systems becomes chaotic because of our limited ability to process them, thus we have to accept the illusion of free will as reality.
I suppose this is one of the reasons religious people (I'm thinking Christians here) believe in an omniscient God; "He's got a plan for you", suggesting that God somehow can see through apparent random events and see that person's destiny. Releasing that person from his responsibility, and give that person the comfort of knowing that nothing he could have done would have made a difference.
Yet they think that they have free will: on one hand comfort in the knowledge that they are not responsible, on the other hand, they have free will when accepting God as their personal saviour.
I believe in free will, and personal responsibility. As such I find it hard to accept determinism. There must be a middle way, some point where the determinism breaks down.
Well as far as we know, determinism does break down at the quantum level. As Dave has said, the evidence seems to indicate that quantum processes have a distinctly random element. But probabilistic naturalism does not rescue free will from its illusionary status any more than flipping a coin to "make a choice" can give a computer or a human a truely free will. At best this could give the illusion of free will. The choice is due to some random element that is outside the control of the person who thinks that they are exercising free will.quote:
What then, is the answer? Limited Determinism?
Maybe Probabilistic Determinism, that is, events are determined by a combination of initial conditions and quantum randomness. I don't see how it's possible to rescue free will without resorting to the supernatural though. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2005 : 07:50:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Maybe Probabilistic Determinism, that is, events are determined by a combination of initial conditions and quantum randomness. I don't see how it's possible to rescue free will without resorting to the supernatural though.
Even the supernatural, especially in the case of an "omnipotent" being, makes free will impossible.
Also, who says we live in a closed system where "new information" can't enter? Open system/closed system, it is all speculation at this point. Even if the system is closed, could not a truly random element within the system account for "new" information becomming available?
My approach to the problem of free will is from the opposite direction. My experience every day tells me that I have free will. Free will and any type of determinism are mutually exclusive. Determinism, therefore (based on everyday experience), is bunk.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2005 : 15:58:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
My experience every day tells me that I have free will. Free will and any type of determinism are mutually exclusive. Determinism, therefore (based on everyday experience), is bunk.
Ah, but if your experience of free will is an illusion, then the bunking of determinism is an illusion also.
Hm... Time to get an aspirin.... |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2005 : 16:13:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Even if the system is closed, could not a truly random element within the system account for "new" information becomming available?
Yes. Consider a "brain in a box" scenario, in which a human brain floats in a tank being fed nutrients and being given problems to solve (and the "inputs" - except the food - are disconnected until it has solved a problem).
Under total and absolute determinism, the brain ought, as it mulls the problem over, quickly settle on one or more solutions as being the best possible, and once it reaches this state, no further "processing" is necessary. Without outside input, the brain state will not change any more.
With randomness, the brain should still quicky settle on one or more solutions, but further processing may result in entirely new solutions "coming to mind," and/or the brain "changing its mind" about a previously analyzed solution. The longer you let the brain process, the more of these state changes should occur, with the optimal solution(s) to the problem becoming more and more likely to be found.
I'm talking about randomness affecting the decision-making process by opening up new possibilites which may not have been analyzed first. Except for "snap judgements," we all tend to think about our decisions for several "iterations" before actually putting them into action. It's what thinking is all about.
So to expand on the Coke vs. diet Coke thing from page one, randomness might kick in at some point during the "thinking about it" stage, and "remind" Dr. Mabuse that the diet Coke has that peculiar aftertaste, and taking that into account (where he hadn't done so the first few seconds of his indecision), he might decide that he's not in the mood to deal with that, and go with Coke. Or he might decide to use that information just to "brace himself" for the unpleasantness, and instead decide in favor of his girlish figure.
What I'm not talking about is the idea that randomness makes the decision for us (in which case there'd be no free will, either). It might play a small role in "snap judgements," as suggested earlier, but those aren't thought about, anyway.quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
How does determinism undercut learning? Learning provides information and conditioning that would not otherwise have been available. Any deterministic equation would have to take that into account.
Again, all the training and education in the world won't matter if at a critical moment you're determined to not use it. And determinism suggests that people not take responsibility for such lapses - they have no control over their brains, and should not be expected to do otherwise as they have done. "I should have known better" should be a phrase without the meaning of regret that it carries, because at any given decision-point, all our training may be for naught.quote:
It's not about morality.
The failure of parts is an analogy you built. When it comes to human beings, and "rewards" and "sanctions," it is entirely about morality. The cited web page also claims that morality isn't undercut by these ideas, but I don't see how it cannot be demolished. If we have no control over our actions, then a person who acts "morally" does so completely by accident. Ditto for a person who acts immorally. There can be no difference between the two, from a purely deterministic point of view, and so the very idea of rewarding some behaviour and sanctioning other behavior seems both capricious and ridiculous.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2005 : 18:06:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
But things like education and social programs reduce crime, don't they? Doesn't that speak to the fact that while individuals make certain choices, they make them within a narrow range of options?
I agree, good point Gorgo. If you think about it, even if it's not an illusion, "free will" not totally free.quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Even the supernatural, especially in the case of an "omnipotent" being, makes free will impossible.
Well the supernatural is not testable, so pretty much anything goes.quote:
Also, who says we live in a closed system where "new information" can't enter?
If the universe (and by this I mean everything that exists) is finite then by definition we live in a closed system. If it is infinite then its open. quote:
Open system/closed system, it is all speculation at this point. Even if the system is closed, could not a truly random element within the system account for "new" information becomming available?
Absolutely. Randomness could allow for new information.quote:
My approach to the problem of free will is from the opposite direction. My experience every day tells me that I have free will. Free will and any type of determinism are mutually exclusive. Determinism, therefore (based on everyday experience), is bunk.
Quantum mechanics, (based on everyday experience), is also bunk. So what? It just shows that everyday experience is not a good way to judge the theory.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave_W
Under total and absolute determinism, the brain ought, as it mulls the problem over, quickly settle on one or more solutions as being the best possible, and once it reaches this state, no further "processing" is necessary. Without outside input, the brain state will not change any more.
This is not nessessarily true. Completely deterministic equations can result in chaotic behaviour.quote:
With randomness, the brain should still quicky settle on one or more solutions, but further processing may result in entirely new solutions "coming to mind," and/or the brain "changing its mind" about a previously analyzed solution. The longer you let the brain process, the more of these state changes should occur, with the optimal solution(s) to the problem becoming more and more likely to be found.
Randomness may be a part of the mechanism but there is no need to assume that deterministic chaos or a sufficiently complex pseudorandom process would not work equally well.quote:
I'm talking about randomness affecting the decision-making process by opening up new possibilites which may not have been analyzed first. Except for "snap judgements," we all tend to think about our decisions for several "iterations" before actually putting them into action. It's what thinking is all about.
True but whether there is true randomness or only pseudorandomness seems to have little practical effect.quote:
So to expand on the Coke vs. diet Coke thing from page one, randomness might kick in at some point during the "thinking about it" stage, and "remind" Dr. Mabuse that the diet Coke has that peculiar aftertaste, and taking that into account (where he hadn't done so the first few seconds of his indecision), he might decide that he's not in the mood to deal with that, and go with Coke. Or he might decide to use that information just to "brace himself" for the unpleasantness, and instead decide in favor of his girlish figure.
Regardless, the decision must be random, or deterministic or a combination of both.quote:
What I'm not talking about is the idea that randomness makes the decision for us (in which case there'd be no free will, either).
Okay, here's the million dollar question. If free will is not an illusion based on randomness or determinism or on a combination of the two, but it does have a naturalistic explanation, what might that explanation be?quote:
Again, all the training and education in the world won't matter if at a critical moment you're determined to not use it.
Sorry, I guess I don't understand your point here. quote:
And determinism suggests that people not take responsibility for such lapses - they have no control over their brains, and should not be expected to do otherwise as they have done. "I should have known better" should be a phrase without the meaning of regret that it carries, because at any given decision-point, all our training may be for naught.
I can see how this point of view seems comonsensical, but consider an analagy to evolution. Evolution suggests "survival of the fittest" is an accurate discription of how life evolves, but it does not suggest "survival of the fittest" as a moral standard. Evolution seeks to explain how things are, not how they ought to be. The same can be said of determinism.
quote:
The failure of parts is an analogy you built. When it comes to human beings, and "rewards" and "sanctions," it is entirely about morality. The cited web page also claims that morality isn't undercut by these ideas, but I don't see how it cannot be demolished.
Determinism doesn't deal with morality in the same sense that evolution does not deal with morality. For example, The belief that all people should be treated equally is an ethical belief that seems to be undercut by the idea of evolution. It is not undercut however because morality is about how thing |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2005 : 18:15:44 [Permalink]
|
| In case it provides the proper rewards and sanctions for you behavior, thanks for all the links and discussion. This is interesting. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2005 : 19:49:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
But things like education and social programs reduce crime, don't they? Doesn't that speak to the fact that while individuals make certain choices, they make them within a narrow range of options?
Most of them aren't hampered by having deep philosophical dicsussions about how they make their choices.quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
I agree, good point Gorgo. If you think about it, even if it's not an illusion, "free will" not totally free.
We're talking about the ability to freely make choices, here. If people choose to do so within the framework provided by a society, they still have free will. There are plenty of people still who commit crimes, or lead "alternative" lifestyles, or who are simply "contrarian" who show that the options provided by our society aren't always adhered to.quote:
This is not nessessarily true. Completely deterministic equations can result in chaotic behaviour.
I think you're misunderstanding chaos theory. Completely deterministic equations can result in chaotic behaviour if they're started with even slightly different inputs. But start them with precisely the same numbers, over and over, and you'll get precisely the same results, over and over. That's what deterministic means. The chaotic equations, if you start them with (for example) 0.00000, will result in a 1.0, say. Start the same process with 0.00001, and the result might be 1,893,127.35, maybe. Start it with 0.00002, and the result may be -32.
Besides which, neural processing isn't like math. It's feedback and feed-forward loops, and is more analogous to systems finding lowest-energy states. I used the term "iteration" in quotes for a reason: the brain doesn't iterate like we iterate the equations in chaos theory.quote:
Randomness may be a part of the mechanism but there is no need to assume that deterministic chaos or a sufficiently complex pseudorandom process would not work equally well.
As above, I'm not sure how to apply either to the brain-in-a-box scenario. On the other hand, we know that randomness exists within the brain, and can affect its processing. Which should get trimmed with Occam's Razor?quote:
True but whether there is true randomness or only pseudorandomness seems to have little practical effect.
As above, we know there is true randomness.quote:
Regardless, the decision must be random, or deterministic or a combination of both.
It's both, and it creates a free will through being both.
You brought up evolution, so let's run with that (but only for a moment). While mutation is clearly a random process, selection certainly is not. Mutation creates possibilites for selection to "choose" from. I'm saying that randomness provides extra possibilities when we make a decision.quote:
Okay, here's the million dollar question. If free will is not an illusion based on randomness or determinism or on a combination of the two, but it does have a naturalistic explanation, what might that explanation be?
Why do you insist it is an "illusion?" Why is it not the case that free will is truly free? If I'm trying to decide between walking to work or driving, the proper answer is never "I'll paint the telephone yellow." Free will is constrained by context, but that doesn't make it an illusion.quote:
I can see how this point of view seems comonsensical, but consider an analagy to evolution. Evolution suggests "survival of the fittest" is an accurate discription of how life evolves, but it does not suggest "survival of the fittest" as a moral standard. Evolution seeks to explain how things are, not how they ought to be. The same can be said of determinism.
Well, for one thing I know that determinism is an incorrect explanation of how things are, but keep reading.quote:
Determinism doesn't deal with morality in the same sense that evolution does not deal with morality. For example, The belief that all people should be treated equally is an ethical belief that seems to be undercut by the idea of evolution.
Actually, it only seems to be undercut by the idea of evolution if your idea of evolution is naive. After all, evolution implies that our own genes won't survive if our species doesn't survive, and the best way to ensure our species' survival is - partially - through fairness.quote:
It is not undercut however because morality is about how things ought to be and evolution is about how things are. Ditto for determinism.
No, it is at this point where the analogy between evolution and determinism breaks down.
Like any good scientific theory, evolution is both descriptive and predictive. It predicts, for example, that a reduction in the genetic diversity of a species will increase its chances of extinction due to (more-or-less) random environmental changes. Therefore, applying this knowledge to human society, it tells us that programs of forced sterilization, eugenics, or even simple racism are wrong-headed if our goal is to increase the overall chances of survival for our descendants. We can, indeed, base a consistent and useful morality upon evolution's actual statements.
Determinism, on the other hand, is simply a philosophy. If you know of any currently-testable hypotheses it makes, I'd like to know about them. Because the only predictions I've seen from it so far require the elimination of quantum randomness, so they aren't at all testable (nevermind the "know every particle's location and momentum" hurdle, which might be testable in theory, but not in practice).quote:
There is a difference between the two, namely the way they act. This is all that morality needs in order to make a distinction between the two.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
