|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 04/11/2005 : 16:01:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Not to be picky but this sounds a lot like a theistic argument about the existence of god. Whether we like the results or not we should look at the evidence before calling something garbage. At this point in time we know of some things that we can not determine (e.g. Dave W's example of radioactive decay). We also have the Uncertainty Principle dictating that we cannot monitor both a particle's exact position and its momentum. However pointing to these as evidence against full determinism is a sort of argument from ignorance as we could in the future learn of ways to predict such events.
(emphasis added)
I haven't? Amazing that you can tell. Maybe you should call up the JREF and apply for their prize.
And please... stop attempting to ascribe some philosophical meaning to the physics of quantum mechanics. The next thing you know you'll be trying to say that the proof of Bell's inequality means that the universe is all one piece and we are, like, ya know, all connected and stuff... pass that doobie man.
So, again, determnism (within the context of human consciousness) is garbage. Unless you have some evidence that says otherwise?
|
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 |
|
 |
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2005 : 17:18:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Hence the "brain in a box" thought experiments - in which we can precisely control the inputs.
I agree that a thought experiment may be the best that we can do in this situation. I'll try to come up one.quote:
Chaos theory or no, if I'm not mistaken, functional MRI tests have shown that brains, when faced with a task to accomplish, do quickly settle down into an "I've made my choice" state. So do artifical neural nets. We're not talking about do-overs here, either (though with the neural nets, we can make 'em deterministic and chaotic).
If brains do quickly settle down into an "I've made my choice" state then what makes you think that true randomness is required in the first place? On the other hand if brains do require randomness then why would the pseudorandomness of chaos theory be an unsuitable replacement?quote:
quote:
Because there is no concievable naturalistic explanation that can account for it. It's not a matter of not being creative enough in coming up with an explanation. It's just that whatever you base it on becomes the agent of free will. So if free will is explained through a combination of determinism and randomness then there is no reason to give free will a higher priority or purpose than any other processes which are a combination of determinism and randomness. Free will cannot be simplified to a naturalistic explanation and remain free.
I've read the above several times, now (and in your other post), and I still don't get it. Of course there is an "agent of free will," whether it is a single thing (like randomness) or an emergent property of a system (my guess). We're talking about where it resides amongst this huge pile of naturalistic stuff.
I suspect that your idea of free will is different from what I consider to be the common understanding of free will. The common definition of the term "free will" is more than just: "Free will" is an emergent property of a complex system provided that the system in question has an element of true randomness.quote:
Determinism, on the other hand, would eliminate it altogether, in that it denies that my parents had any choice whatsoever in conceiving me at the moment in time that they did, and it denies that I could possibly do anything other than grow up to become a computer programmer and an editor for the SFN.
Determinism says that it is unthinkable that the SFN would fail to form out of an AOL atheist chat room, when it did and in the fashion that it did, which of course is predicated upon AOL being what it was then, which is predicated upon the Internet being what it was before AOL, which is predicated upon DARPANET being what it was, which is predicated upon the military being what it was, which is predicated upon the government being what it was, etc., etc..
You correctly represent determinism. I agree that if determinism is correct then all of the above is absolutely true.
Just to be clear, determinism is a form of naturalism and is identical to it in every way except for the fact that determinism denies the existence of true randomness and naturalism doesn't.quote:
quote:
To put it another way. If free will is completely explained by naturalistic processes then how can it be free?
Quantum events are completely explained by naturalistic processes, even though we cannot predict the decay of a single C14 atom. Naturalistic determinism would require both the explanation and the prediction, but simple naturalism only requires the exaplanation. Hell, we even know why a C14 atom decays, we just don't know when it will.
I agree, this is essentially why I believe that probabilistic naturalism is superior to deterministic naturalism.quote:
In other words, I still don't see why you're claiming that natural processes can't be "free." I'm not even sure we have that term properly defined, so we may be talking past one another here.
I agree with bloody_peasant's definition of free will.quote:
quote:
Well it all depends on context. Often evolution says, kill or be killed. Survive at all costs. Produce more offspring than you can support. Evolution is not always politically correct.
Evolution says no such things. Plenty of species have evolved wonderful mechanisms to avoid the "kill or be killed" scenario, and most others simply try to flee. "Survive at all costs" undermines evolutionary theories by denying the fact that we often do things which reduce our own reproductive success in favor of that of our close relatives or even distant relatives (species-mates). And producing more offspring than an animal can support means that they're all less likely to survive to reproductive age. The only animal I'm aware of that regularly produces broods it's incapable of supporting is Homo sapiens, and I couldn't tell you why.
Come on Dave. I think my point is pretty clear here.quote:
You're right, though, that evolution isn't always "PC," in that it shows us why we're designed to be short-sighted "rape the environment" kinda critters who are obviously meat-eaters. Of course, I can't say why you brought up "PCness," either.
The point is, if we're going to base a morality on evolution we can't just pick and choose what parts of evolution we want to use or it's not really based on evolution but on our decision of what parts of evolution we incorporate into it. You say that it is possible to base a consistent and useful morality on evolution, so assuming it is possible to incorporate all of evolution into a morality, what |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2005 : 19:02:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
If brains do quickly settle down into an "I've made my choice" state then what makes you think that true randomness is required in the first place?
Without it, all is determinism.quote:
On the other hand if brains do require randomness then why would the pseudorandomness of chaos theory be an unsuitable replacement?
It may be suitable, but with true randomness available, it isn't necessary.quote:
I suspect that your idea of free will is different from what I consider to be the common understanding of free will. The common definition of the term "free will" is more than just: "Free will" is an emergent property of a complex system provided that the system in question has an element of true randomness.
I should hope my idea is different from the common understanding, which either involves the supernatural or the mystical. My idea is naturalistic.quote:
I agree, this is essentially why I believe that probabilistic naturalism is superior to deterministic naturalism.
Great. Is determinism off the table, then?quote:
quote:
In other words, I still don't see why you're claiming that natural processes can't be "free." I'm not even sure we have that term properly defined, so we may be talking past one another here.
I agree with bloody_peasant's definition of free will.
Capitalized or not?  quote:
Did you even try to understand my point here before responding? No, I'm not saying that it's unscientific to use science to achieve a goal. What I'm saying is that the goal itself is not science. If our goal is to trigger a runaway greenhouse effect then science can help us do just that.
I apologize. Obviously, I was having trouble understanding. You've cleared it up now. Thanks.quote:
Okay, time for a thought experiment. Let's imagine a completely deterministic brain. This brain appears to have free will. There is no way to discriminate this brain from a brain with true free will other than a do-over. Does this brain have a truly free will? I think that we would all agree that it does not. A do-over quickly reveals that in spite of appearing to have free will the exact same initial conditions and inputs result in the exact same behaviour.
Okay same scenario. It's still deterministic but we eliminate the possibility of a do-over(perhaps by simply failing to keep a precise record of the initial conditions). Does the brain now have free will? This is a bit tougher. But I suspect that we all still agree that it does not.
Now let's introduce a random number generator. I'm talking about true randomness not pseudorandomness. Perhaps the numbers are generated by measuring the decay of radioactive atoms. In this case whether we keep a record of the initial conditions or not, the randomness of the system ensures that a do-over is not possible. Does the brain now have free will?
I would still say no. But we probablly have a disagreement at this point. But if the brain is now expressing true free will when it wasn't the first two times then what is the difference between them? The only possible difference is the random number generator.
Yes you can say that free will is an emergent property of complex deterministic and probabalistic calculations but the only difference between the brain with true free will and the one without is the added randomness, so free will must somhow trace back to randomness.
I wouldn't mind the "agent of free will" simply being randomness, if it's true. I don't know.
What about my thought experiment about rewinding time? Obviously, the point I was trying to make is that given huge spans of rewind, what happens is completely unpredictable, and shorter rewinds will lead to more predictability. How far back does one need to rewind life to go from "illusion of free will" to "Free Will" (as bloody_peasant put it)?
In other words, if you only rewind a hundredth of a second, it's unlikely that any particular decision will be different the second (or third or fourth) time around. But if we rewind a 100 years, it's very probable that something will be different. If true, there exists some amount of rewind time which, after the "do over," will result in any particular person having a measurable percentage chance of deciding a "balanced dilemma" differently than the first time.
If true, bloody_peasant's "Free Will" test is passed, and "Free Will" becomes nothing more than the accumulation of random events over time.
Given that neurology isn't nearly "complete," all of this discussion must be largely speculative. With that in mind, I can imagine that natural selection has designed brains which, when faced with the same input over and over again, try something different every once in a while - even if the "normal" response is successful (after all, there could be a more successful action to take). There may very well be a small neural circuit which does nothing but detect and amplify truly random events (or a circuit which acts as a pseudorandom generator), and the brain uses this as a modifier of the weights it gives possible reactions to a situation, sometimes giving rise to unpredictable, Free Will-style decisions.
If that's still an illusion in your book, fine by me.
I'll remind you that I got into this thread because of perceived inconsistencies on the web page which Gorgo posted in the OP. Determinism doesn't function on several levels of reality (including some "macro" events, despite the assertions of Thomas Ash), but if it did, and we all really are walking slaves to our constituent atoms and our environment, then holding people responsible for their actions seems a cruel philosophy (which does, indeed, address morality). Still does.
With determinism safely out of the way, however, and some modicum of free will internalized to the individual (even illusory free will), we get our personal responsibility back. Training and education (and even sheer vindictive retribution), then, act directly on the person in question, and not towards attempting to raise some societal average of "goodness." They do so - within my hypothetical framework above - by creating other neural circuits to battle against the "let's try |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2005 : 19:47:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dave W. wrote
And producing more offspring than an animal can support means that they're all less likely to survive to reproductive age. The only animal I'm aware of that regularly produces broods it's incapable of supporting is Homo sapiens, and I couldn't tell you why.
Actually, all living things would be expected to produce at least as many offspring as can be supported or more. Any descendants of an organism that reproduces more than it's siblings will soon be more numerous than the siblings descendants. When resources get sparse, a higher proportion of fast breeders compared to slow breeders will survive (assuming slow breeders have no other selective advantage). Therefore, if you're reproducing below your potential, you would - evolutionarily - be selected against. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2005 : 20:24:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
Actually, all living things would be expected to produce at least as many offspring as can be supported or more. Any descendants of an organism that reproduces more than it's siblings will soon be more numerous than the siblings descendants. When resources get sparse, a higher proportion of fast breeders compared to slow breeders will survive (assuming slow breeders have no other selective advantage). Therefore, if you're reproducing below your potential, you would - evolutionarily - be selected against.
Bearing in mind that most animals don't provide for their young at all after birth, I'd like you to name one - besides humans - which regularly attempts to rear more children than it can feed in any given environment. That was, after all, the point of contention there: to always have more kids than you can feed, not just "when resources get sparse." It's an idea of forcing the "sparse resources" scenario.
For example, if some hypothetical parent birds can only reliably meet the daily nutritional requirements of two hatchlings, then having three (or more) of them immediately puts at least one chick (and possibly all three) at a disadvantage compared to another pair of the same birds who only had two chicks to feed from the start.
Note that the level of actual available resources here isn't mentioned, because the parents only have so-many hours a day to work with, and they must also feed themselves for their offspring to have any chance of survival. That's what's providing the limiting factor, not food availability overall. (Obviously, if big juicy cicadas are lining up to be dinner, this would add a new twist to the equation, but I'm talking about averages, here.)
So, does there exist a species in which childhood malnutrition is the norm due to parents having too many kids to be able to support them all? Or does this mostly happen when a species normally has so-many kids in a brood, and resources get tight all of a sudden? |
- 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 - 04/11/2005 : 21:35:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
On the other hand if brains do require randomness then why would the pseudorandomness of chaos theory be an unsuitable replacement?
It may be suitable, but with true randomness available, it isn't necessary.
Well then it also follows that with pseudorandomness available true randomness isn't neccessary.quote:
quote:
I agree, this is essentially why I believe that probabilistic naturalism is superior to deterministic naturalism.
Great. Is determinism off the table, then?
As the most likely explanation. Yes. As a possible explanation. No.quote:
quote:
I agree with bloody_peasant's definition of free will.
Capitalized or not?
You know, I didn't even realize that there was a capitalized and uncapitalized version of free will until now, but the capitalized version works for me. I will continue to type it in lower case however.quote:
I apologize. Obviously, I was having trouble understanding. You've cleared it up now. Thanks.
No problem, I've been there too.quote:
I wouldn't mind the "agent of free will" simply being randomness, if it's true. I don't know.
What about my thought experiment about rewinding time? Obviously, the point I was trying to make is that given huge spans of rewind, what happens is completely unpredictable, and shorter rewinds will lead to more predictability. How far back does one need to rewind life to go from "illusion of free will" to "Free Will" (as bloody_peasant put it)?
Okay, with determinism of the table, I agree. The further you rewind the system the greater the unpredictability and scope of divergence becomes. I don't see how it ever goes from the illusion of free will to actual free will though.quote:
In other words, if you only rewind a hundredth of a second, it's unlikely that any particular decision will be different the second (or third or fourth) time around. But if we rewind a 100 years, it's very probable that something will be different. If true, there exists some amount of rewind time which, after the "do over," will result in any particular person having a measurable percentage chance of deciding a "balanced dilemma" differently than the first time.
I agree with this.quote:
If true, bloody_peasant's "Free Will" test is passed,
I disagree here.
bloody_peasant said:
quote:
First let me define what I see as Free Will. If we were somehow able to add up ALL of the factors leading up to a potential choice for an individual including the internal brain biology and assuming we had the knowledge to predict actions based on neurology, than an individual with true Free Will would be able to make a choice that violated our prediction. They would in sum be able to make decisions based not on the accumulated list of effects, but on some other arbitrary criteria thus breaking the chain of cause and effect.
emphasis mine
Suppose we roll a quantum die. This is exactly like a regular six sided die except that it is truly random. We can roll a number from one to six on this die. In order to satisfy bloody_peasant's definition, free will must be able to cause a number other than one to six to be the result of rolling the die.quote:
...and "Free Will" becomes nothing more than the accumulation of random events over time.
Okay, if this is all that free will is then we have a definition of free will that is not contradicted by naturalism.
It will be hard for me to get used to the idea that this is all that is meant by the term 'free will' though.quote:
Given that neurology isn't nearly "complete," all of this discussion must be largely speculative. With that in mind, I can imagine that natural selection has designed brains which, when faced with the same input over and over again, try something different every once in a while - even if the "normal" response is successful (after all, there could be a more successful action to take). There may very well be a small neural circuit which does nothing but detect and amplify truly random events (or a circuit which acts as a pseudorandom generator), and the brain uses this as a modifier of the weights it gives possible reactions to a situation, sometimes giving rise to unpredictable, Free Will-style decisions.
I concur, so long as free will is nothing more than the accumulation of random events over time.quote:
If that's still an illusion in your book, fine by me.
No, no, in this case free will is not likely an illusion, but I think that calling it "free will" is inappropriate. I would suggest calling it "the accumulation of random events over time."quote:
With determinism safely out of the way, however, and some modicum of free will internalized to the individual (even illusory free will), we get our personal responsibility back. Training and education (and even sheer vindictive retribution), then, act directly on the person in question, and not towards attempting to raise some societal average of "goodness." They do so - within my |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2005 : 06:15:58 [Permalink]
|
Dude
quote:
I haven't? Amazing that you can tell. Maybe you should call up the JREF and apply for their prize.
I don't know if you have or not, but you did claim it was garbage without providing a shred of evidence (see below). I'm not sure what you are talking about however WRT JREF. Maybe you can point out where I have made a claim of a supernatural event. I don't recall making such a claim and I really doubt I have so I doubt I have anything to apply for the cool million from JREF with (not that I couldn't use the money). Please point out where I made such a claim? I think there is a misunderstanding.
My reference to a theistic argument was in with regard that you said determinism was garbage and your sole reasons given were that there would be no meaning to life and people could not be held accountable. Later on page two you give your everyday "anecdotal" experiences as evidence for Free Will. Again I could replace the words determinism with atheism and the words free will with god and your argument as so far presented could just as easily be used to argue for the existence of a god. In fact theist use these exact same arguments for god. Life would be meaningless without god or I see the evidence of god everyday I live, ad nauseam. I was just pointing out that your evidence for calling determinism garbage was poorly argued for as no evidence was provided.
For example your quote with my alterations:
Strict atheism 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 there was no higher authority on the matter.
My approach to the problem of God is from the opposite direction. My experience every day tells me that there is a god. God and any type of atheism are mutually exclusive. Atheism, therefore (based on everyday experience), is bunk.
quote:
And please... stop attempting to ascribe some philosophical meaning to the physics of quantum mechanics. The next thing you know you'll be trying to say that the proof of Bell's inequality means that the universe is all one piece and we are, like, ya know, all connected and stuff... pass that doobie man.
So, again, determinism (within the context of human consciousness) is garbage. Unless you have some evidence that says otherwise?
Let's see you claim in the existence of some sort of meta-physical human consciousness that is above and beyond the determinism of biology, chemistry, and physics and then accuse of me of devising meta-physical ideas. Hmm ironic indeed, but let's see if we can pursue this further by showing the evidence.
Here is the evidence for determinism:
1. Human behavior is controlled by our brains combined with the other aspects of the nervous system, hormones, etc.
2. These systems are all biological in nature.
3. All known biology is based in biochemistry, organic chemistry, chemistry, and physics.
4. These fields are all based on deterministic principles except with the possible random events attributed to quantum physics.
5. Thus it would follow that our behavior is controlled by these deterministic principles with the same possible randomness thrown in.
I'm hope its not necessary to teach a full class on advanced organic chemistry to show that chemistry is purely deterministic in its outcome based on the conditions going in to the reaction and the laws of physics (namely atomic forces and the laws of thermodynamics).
I also hope its not necessary to show that our nervous system is controlled by chemical reactions which produce electrical currents which are further processed by the neurons of the brain.
Maybe you can point out the flaw in my logic or some evidence I have overlooked that blows this out of the water and turns it into complete garbage as you claimed. At this point though it appears determinism is the null hypothesis, or the assumption a priori until evidence for some sort of entity that can exist outside of the deterministic world of physics & chemistry is provided. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2005 : 06:51:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bloody_peasant
At this point though it appears determinism is the null hypothesis, or the assumption a priori until evidence for some sort of entity that can exist outside of the deterministic world of physics & chemistry is provided.
Another thought experiment:
1) Create a whole bunch of C14.
2) Create a thin diamond rod out of it.
3) Attach one end of the rod from from a massive titanium frame.
4) Hang a five-kilo weight from the free end of the rod.
5) Place a trigger under the weight.
6) Attach the trigger to a huge pile of explosives.
7) Truck the whole aparatus to a downtown warehouse.
After following these steps, it becomes impossible for us to predict the future, even knowing the states of all elementary particles in the universe. Determinism fails, because even though we know that after umpty-ump thousand years, the diamond rod will fail due to a large percentage of it turning into nitrogren, we can't predict the exact moment of this event which may (or may not) wreak havoc on some society. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2005 : 07:09:04 [Permalink]
|
Dave W
quote:
That we have the ability to philosophize, I think (haha!), ...
Yes I kind of agree. Our ability for creative thought and possibly the invention of entirely new ideas may be evidence for free will. Although I could also see the deterministic argument that this type of thinking is a result of our evolutionary history and a result of becoming highly reliable upon our brains for survival. It even could be a mere side effect of the more critical elements needed for survival, in essence the ability to think abstractly.
I don't disagree that our biology is amazing and highly complex, I'm just not sure if there is any evidence for any emergent properties that releases us from the constraints of the determinism of chemistry & physics. I wonder as you later say, that the illusion of free will is just our inability to see the complexity of the mechanisms and the sheer number of factors involved in each behavioral decision, each action, or each choice.
quote:
I don't know about anyone else, but when I approach a serious decision,...
Wow Dave I think you need help, serious help soon. >:-D Just kidding. I still don't think these steps, even turning to a psuedo-random event such as a coin toss releases you from determinism.
I was thinking more on the whole issue of indecision and the brain having competing ideas and I came up with this analogy. I think this also applies to your idea of a biological calculator as you mention later. Instead of thinking of our brain as a pure digital state with each neuron acting as an independant on/off switch, I think its more useful to think that the brain as a system acts more like a whole bunch of digital signals that are passed through a digital to analog converter. Thus instead of crisp on/off peaks we end up with large analog sine waves. At anytime we may have a bunch of these sine waves in our brain related to a whole myriad of issues, some undoubtedly will be conflicting and contradictory thus leading to indecision.
This actually in some way mimics how artificial intelligence and fuzzy logic is developed. Fuzzy bell curves (aka analog sine waves) are devised for each decision. Now if you had multiple artificial brains (CPU's) generating these fuzzy bell curves simultaneously you would end up with occassional conflicting ideas which would lead to indecision. Now with computers we use a psuedo-random method for determining the fuzzy logic outcome and the real question boils down to, how does our brain determine its outcome. Is it tied to the determinism of biochemistry, chemistry, & physics or is there some other factor?
I would also add that these competing sine waves don't just disappear once we make a decision, the linger about. Thus even after making a decision we are still left with regrets or doubts of whether we made the right decision and later may decide to change our mind yet again as some new factor pumps up a sine wave that we previously disregarded. <-- Note this is an analogy so please be kind >:-D
I understand your point on the paradox now. Thanks for the clarification.
quote:
What I think you're missing is the fact that while ions, proteins and even neurons are incapable of anything approaching "thought," and certainly don't make "decisions," entire brains do accomplish those tricks.
I think that's actually the point I make above. So the question still boils down to is the whole greater than the sum of its parts and is it so great that it releases it from the pure determinism of chemistry and physics.
quote:
What I think you're missing is the fact that while ions, proteins and even neurons are incapable of anything approaching "thought," and certainly don't make "decisions," entire brains do accomplish those tricks.
Since I've rambled long enough for this post, I'll save this for a future post. Plus I won't to think on it more.
quote:
If there can be no test which allows us to tell them apart, then what's the point of this discussion?
Because its fun :>
quote:
More importantly, why would naturalism actively deny a free will in such a case?
Because we know that chemistry and physics are deterministic in nature and that biology is based upon chemistry & physics and our brains our biological. As I stated in my previous post, I see determinism as the null hypothesis with what we know now. To show otherwise requires evidence beyond what we have today.
BTW I have simplified my terminology and am using determinism at this point to also include any purely random quantum event as our discussion has moved more from are there any random events to is our mental decisions beyond the conditions leading up to the event. In other words I have combined determinism and indeterminism into one term as the differences between them are irrelevant to the discussion of a free will.
quote:
So let's take our handy-dandy Star Trek-style medical transporter...
As I stated above if we were somehow. If and its a big IF, we could know all of the conditions leading up to a decision, how decisions are determined based on the conditions, and the decision actually made by an individual we could perform this test after the decision was made. If for example we new the trillion or so odd conditions effecting a decision and we knew that if X(trillion) factors then Y is the decided outcome then if we saw that individual actually chose Z then determinism would be disproven. Your test would work also if there are no true random events and we could determine the conditions of radioactive decay.
I understand radiocarbon and protein form equals protein function and agree with your assessment if these events are truly random as well. |
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2005 : 07:25:26 [Permalink]
|
Dave W
quote:
After following these steps, it becomes impossible for us to predict the future, even knowing the states of all elementary particles in the universe.
The problem is we probably don't know all of the elementary particles yet nor of all the elementary forces involved. Since we have discovered new particles and new forces at an alarming rate in the last 50 years I don't think its committing the fallacy of Scientism to say we may well discover other particles and/or forces that allow us to predict radioactive decay.
I'll give another example of how the Scientism argument isn't always a fallacy. The premiss of ID is that there exist irreducible complex biological objects that cannot be explained by evolution. Often the biological response to this is we point out there is an explanation that already exist for the object in question, but that doesn't stop them from going on and repeating the claim. However upon occasion they do hit upon a biological object that has not been explained in terms of evolution yet. Then the response turns to, "just because we don't have an explanation yet, doesn't mean there isn't one."
In essence the biologist has proposed a Scientism argument against the ID'er's claim of irreducible complexity however in my opinion it is not a fallacy. In this case there are plenty of examples of similar objects being explained via evolution, research is continuing, and the subject is quite difficult and in some cases the evidence may have been destroyed or hidden very well with the passage of time. Plus it all fits into the well tested and accepted evolutionary theory. Thus this argument of Scientism is not a fallacy at this point, its just a weaker argument then providing an evolutionary explanation
The same is true when talking about radioactive decay being a purely random event. In this case we know of nothing that allows us to determine it so it appears random, but we have discovered a lot of new things that have allowed us to predict a lot of other similar events that we no longer determine random. The material being studied is quite difficult to study, very small particles and nearly instantaneous events. However new discoveries are quite rampant in the area of sub atomic physics and the idea of non-randomness decay fits well into the well accepted physics of determinism which applies to just about all other physical events.
Now here I admit my knowledge of quantum theory is limited and maybe there is something there that makes the randomness of radioactive decay the more parsimonious explanation. I would love if someone could elaborate on such details. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2005 : 07:46:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bloody_peasant
I'll give another example of how the Scientism argument isn't always a fallacy. The premiss of ID is that there exist irreducible complex biological objects that cannot be explained by evolution. Often the biological response to this is we point out there is an explanation that already exist for the object in question, but that doesn't stop them from going on and repeating the claim. However upon occasion they do hit upon a biological object that has not been explained in terms of evolution yet. Then the response turns to, "just because we don't have an explanation yet, doesn't mean there isn't one."
In essence the biologist has proposed a Scientism argument against the ID'er's claim of irreducible complexity however in my opinion it is not a fallacy...
The real biologists arguing against ID often go on to simply state that the actual fallacy is that just because we don't know the explanation - and may never know the explanation down to the chronological order of nucleotide mutation - it doesn't automatically make the "designer did it" argument correct (the IDists propose a false dilemma). The biologists routinely acknowledge that there exist limits to our knowledge, and that scientism is not the way to go. This doesn't weaken the science at all.
Beyond that, the argument that "we might know in the future" is uncompelling to the ID folks, as are the explanations we do have, all of which are more-or-less "here is how we think it happened." The ID crowd simply says, "but you don't know that for sure, so that's not science." (But that's all beside the point, really.)quote:
Now here I admit my knowledge of quantum theory is limited and maybe there is something there that makes the randomness of radioactive decay the more parsimonious explanation.
Is there even a shred of evidence that it might be non-random? I'm no quantum mechanic, either, but we've got a big pile of evidence on the one side saying "we can't predict these events" (nobody's yet been able to determine any pattern other than half-lives, and it's not for lack of trying), and absolutely nothing on the other side saying that we can predict them other than wishful thinking (which is what scientism is, really). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2005 : 10:13:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Suppose we roll a quantum die. This is exactly like a regular six sided die except that it is truly random. We can roll a number from one to six on this die. In order to satisfy bloody_peasant's definition, free will must be able to cause a number other than one to six to be the result of rolling the die.
I'll be glad to let bloody_peasant arbitrate, but I got this ideas from his words: the result of a die roll (non-quantum) is the culmination of all the events (in the universe) that led up to it. So we should be able to back up in time, record the positions of all particles, run them through a simulation, and predict what face will be up after the roll. "Free Will" would stipulate that - at least in some percentage of "do-overs," it isn't 3 (for example).
Because, to stipulate that to show Free Will, a die must be able to show something other than 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 is to analogously assert that for a human being to display Free Will, he/she must be able to do something which no human is capable of doing. For example, when faced with a choice between Coke and diet Coke, our hypothetical person instead chooses to squeeze Pepsi out of a rock.quote:
Okay, if this is all that free will is then we have a definition of free will that is not contradicted by naturalism.
It will be hard for me to get used to the idea that this is all that is meant by the term 'free will' though.
I'm no philosopher, either, but I'm certainly not getting a grasp on any other definition of "Free Will" which doesn't imply something which is non-natural. In other words, it's the only naturalistic definition I can think of - all others I've recently seen imply a "something else" which is either completely unevidenced or otherwise outside the bounds of science.
quote:
No, no, in this case free will is not likely an illusion, but I think that calling it "free will" is inappropriate. I would suggest calling it "the accumulation of random events over time."
Let's call it "bizzleque."quote:
I think I pretty much agree with what you're saying here, except that I don't see determinism as being a stumbling block to holding this point of view.
To be clear, I'm not in favor of determinism, but if at some point the evidence did show that determinism was correct then I would still see no reason to abandon the above point of view.
My point is that absolute and complete determinism means that each individual is nothing more than the sum of all the things which have happened to him. Anything which looks like "original thought" is actually just a reaction to something external. Nothing originates within any particular brain: all ideas, actions and emotions are the result of uncountable interactions between brains and the environment.
With such a view of life, holding a person responsible for his actions seems to me to be utterly stupid. At least with bizzleque, something does originate internally. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2005 : 11:06:12 [Permalink]
|
Well, I've gotta say that I agree with the majority of what bloody_peasant and dv82matt are saying - which is why I've not responded to much of it. But...quote:
Originally posted by bloody_peasant
BTW I have simplified my terminology and am using determinism at this point to also include any purely random quantum event as our discussion has moved more from are there any random events to is our mental decisions beyond the conditions leading up to the event. In other words I have combined determinism and indeterminism into one term as the differences between them are irrelevant to the discussion of a free will.
Hey, if I had to coin a new word for a new concept, I think you should do the same, rather than re-use an old word like that. quote:
As I stated above if we were somehow. If and its a big IF, we could know all of the conditions leading up to a decision...
Well, due to indeterminancy as we now understand it, we cannot know these things precisely enough to recreate them - ever. This is why the "medical transporter" thing was simply an exercise to see if I understood your definition of "Free Will." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2005 : 11:37:15 [Permalink]
|
Dave W
quote:
I'll be glad to let bloody_peasant arbitrate, ...
Yes that is pretty much how I define Free Will. (<- Note the caps >:-D) What dv82matt described is be more in line with omnipotence. Even if my definition of Free Will existed then it would still be limited by the constraints of the natural universe. The difference being that if all of the physical forces would predict the quantum die would roll 3, the human could pick another number between 1 & 6 irrespective of the forces involved.
quote:
With such a view of life, holding a person responsible for his actions seems to me to be utterly stupid. At least with bizzleque, something does originate internally.
Yes but with bizzleque (mmm eating barbecue right now tasty, sorry bizzleque kinda threw me off there)
Ok back to topic, bizzleque says that thing that originates internally is just a random quantum event if I'm not correct? So how does a person who is "victim" of a random quantum event share more of the blame then someone whose behavior was completely determined by the events leading up to the behavior. I must say that I can't see any difference here as far as a system of morality goes.
quote:
Hey, if I had to coin a new word for a new concept, I think you should do the same, rather than re-use an old word like that.
Probalism? Barbequism? hey I'm game >:-D
quote:
Well, due to indeterminancy as we now understand it, we cannot know these things precisely enough to recreate them...
Understood.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
