|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 04/12/2005 : 12:16:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bloody_peasant
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.
Bizzleque starts with a random event, but the rest of the brain still has a chance to "correct" it if needed.
For example, I'm faced with three possible choices. On first analysis, choice (A) seems good, (B) seems really great and (C) just sucks. But the "high score" for (B) is only a result of bizzleque skewing the system temporarily, and upon further reflection, (B) only seems so-so. I finally pick (A).
For a different example, I'm faced with a problem with no clear answer. After some time of thinking about it, I find a couple of possible reasonable responses, but then bizzleque happens, and "re-activates" an old memory with some relevance to the problem. This suggests a new, and even better response.
Again, "snap judgements" which aren't subject to "mulling over" will be less affected by bizzleque. But the more time goes by, the more likely it is that bizzleque will affect any particular thought process. Strictly hypothetically speaking, this could explain why we often teach each other to "count to 10" before acting on impulse. It gives bizzleque a chance to function. |
- 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 : 12:44:59 [Permalink]
|
| Ok but don't you say that the "brain" is purely a deterministic entity in regards to how it makes those choices? What of the brain is correcting the random event? Is it a mix of deterministic traits combined with a history of random events? Or is it some other quality of the brain as of yet undefined that is beyond any biology we know today? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2005 : 12:57:14 [Permalink]
|
Whether consciously or not, many decisions are made by examining possibilities, as in "if I do this, then that is likely to happen." We judge the likelihood of each possibility based upon our experiences and knowledge. If the bizzleque screws up this process temporarily, thinking about it again (as we're starting to act upon our first incorrect assessments, perhaps), would allow the measurement of likelihood to be corrected.
Or, it's possible that other experiences and knowledge would reinforce the bizzleque. We can't know prior to the occurence of the bizzleque itself, as we've got no idea which way it'll skew things.
Again, the point with regard to "rewards and sanctions" is that the bizzleque is an internal event, wholly "owned" by the person whose brain it is, and it would mean that our actions are not simply the sum of all the crap that has happened to us to date. It's mostly that, but each person would bring along their very own - and unique - bizzleque circuits, as well. |
- 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 : 13:09:12 [Permalink]
|
Relevant Einstein quote:Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking, feeling, and acting are not free but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion. |
- 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 - 04/12/2005 : 14:33:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bloody_peasant
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.
Not to bust your hump here, but the point is that it's a quantum die. We can't predict that it will roll a three. All that we can predict is that it will be a number from one to six. To violate this prediction requires some number other than what was predicted to come up.
To me free will, as you defined it, clearly indicates the existence of the supernatural. If free will is strictly limited by the constraints of the natural universe, then I don't see the difference between Free Will and bizzleque. (this word may make you famous Dave  )
As to free will being in line with omnipotence that actually doesn't seem to far off. Free Will could be described as a severely limited form of omnipotence IMO. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2005 : 15:48:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
If free will is strictly limited by the constraints of the natural universe, then I don't see the difference between Free Will and bizzleque. (this word may make you famous Dave )
For the record, it's pronounced to rhyme with "fizzle-Q."quote:
As to free will being in line with omnipotence that actually doesn't seem to far off. Free Will could be described as a severely limited form of omnipotence IMO.
The question again becomes: why is that your opinion? To posit it as you have suggests that a person with your form of free will could choose things completely outside of human ability to choose. And I mean completely outside, in that when asked "you want fries with that," a hypothetical person with your form of free will instead of answering "yes," "no," "what are 'fries'?" "I need a sigmoidoscope," or "I'll kill you, you bastard" (or any of a number of other sane and insane responses), might "answer" by folding space-time around so that he has fries already. But nobody - not even religious fundamentalists - defines the term "free will" in such a manner. |
- 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 - 04/12/2005 : 16:01:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'll be glad to let bloody_peasant arbitrate,
Well since bloody_peasant doesn't appear to agree with me on this point, NO WAY!  quote:
...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).
With a deterministic (no truly random variables) die in a deterministic environment we can, in principle predict which face would come up, how could free will change that. If we add a random element, either to the die itself or to the environment, then it is that random element that makes the die unpredictable. How can we say that it is free will that makes the die unpredictable, unless free will is essentially nothing more than randomness.quote:
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.
Well if all humans have free will, then it is more like asserting that for humans to have free will they must be able to make choices that strict naturalism forbids.quote:
For example, when faced with a choice between Coke and diet Coke, our hypothetical person instead chooses to squeeze Pepsi out of a rock.
Well the choice to try and squeeze Pepsi out of a rock may be delusional, but it is not expressly forbidden by naturalism. Hope I didn't miss your point here.quote:
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.
I totally agree.quote:
Let's call it "bizzleque."
Very creative.  quote:
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.
I agree with most of this. Quantum randomness is (as far as we know) everywhere including with in the human brain. So in this sense some bizzleque does originate within the human brain. I guess I just don't see the huge moral difference between punishing a person for actions that were preordained, and punishing them for actions that were bizzleque ordained. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2005 : 16:57:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The question again becomes: why is that your opinion? To posit it as you have suggests that a person with your form of free will could choose things completely outside of human ability to choose. And I mean completely outside, in that when asked "you want fries with that," a hypothetical person with your form of free will instead of answering "yes," "no," "what are 'fries'?" "I need a sigmoidoscope," or "I'll kill you, you bastard" (or any of a number of other sane and insane responses), might "answer" by folding space-time around so that he has fries already. But nobody - not even religious fundamentalists - defines the term "free will" in such a manner.
Well as I said it would be a severly limited form of omnipotence. Basically to me free will indicates that we are able to make choices independently of any restrictions that naturalism may impose. Our actual actions however remain strictly governed by naturalism.
As to why that is my opinion, it is simply what I understand the definition of 'free will' to be. Which, since I am a strict naturalist, is why I don't believe free will exists. If the term free will is redefined to mean bizzleque, then I have no problem with it.
P.S. I should have found this earlier. It's worth reading. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2005 : 19:04:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
P.S. I should have found this earlier. It's worth reading.
Yeah, we all should have found that earlier. After reading it just once, I think I'm an indeterministic emergentist at heart.quote:
Basically to me free will indicates that we are able to make choices independently of any restrictions that naturalism may impose. Our actual actions however remain strictly governed by naturalism.
Well, that isn't what you said about your quantum die idea, in which you said that the only evidence of free will would be the ability to roll something other than the six numbers on the die (in other words, the ability to choose something outside nature).
(And you did miss my point about squeezing Pepsi from a rock - it wasn't that the person chose to try to do it, it's that he chose to actually squeeze Pepsi from a rock. An ability outside of nature, like rolling a 72.3 on a standard six-sided die - quantum or not.)
Having the ability to make choices independently of nature doesn't necessitate making supernatural choices, only independent ones. Perhaps just apparently independent choices. |
- 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 - 04/12/2005 : 19:36:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, that isn't what you said about your quantum die idea, in which you said that the only evidence of free will would be the ability to roll something other than the six numbers on the die (in other words, the ability to choose something outside nature).
The quantum die idea was meant to be an analogy for a physical process that could account for free will, I thought that that would be implicit, but I see now that I should have been specific.quote:
(And you did miss my point about squeezing Pepsi from a rock - it wasn't that the person chose to try to do it, it's that he chose to actually squeeze Pepsi from a rock. An ability outside of nature, like rolling a 72.3 on a standard six-sided die - quantum or not.)
Okay, but how is this a point in favor of free will? Since you're obviously not proposing that it is possible to squeeze pepsi out of a rock isn't this a point against free will?quote:
Having the ability to make choices independently of nature doesn't necessitate making supernatural choices, only independent ones.
Well, just how would you describe a choice that was independant of nature? If it's not natural then it must be supernatural.quote:
Perhaps just apparently independent choices.
I agree with you here though.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2005 : 20:04:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
The quantum die idea was meant to be an analogy for a physical process that could account for free will, I thought that that would be implicit, but I see now that I should have been specific.
...
Okay, but how is this a point in favor of free will? Since you're obviously not proposing that it is possible to squeeze pepsi out of a rock isn't this a point against free will?
Let me retry the analogy that bloody_peasant and I have been tossing around...
You've got a perfectly ordinary die, subject to all the natural forces that act upon it. No free will at all is analogous to throwing the die, having it come up a 3, then starting the "rewind time" bit, and always having the die come up 3, no matter how many times you repeat the process.
The existence of free will (of some sort) on the part of the die would suggest that some measurable percentage of the attempts, the die would roll a 1, 2, 4, 5 or 6. This would not be outside the range of natural possibilities, unless free will doesn't exist at all.
In your "quantum die" version of free will, the only way to pass the test is to have the die come up showing 72.3, or some other non-natural possibility (like squeezing Pepsi from a rock). I think this is a bit much to ask, since no free-will philosophizer seems to have ever seriously suggested any such thing.quote:
Well, just how would you describe a choice that was independant of nature? If it's not natural then it must be supernatural.
Let me rephrase: a choice made within a system (like a brain) which is independent (or largely so) of the events outside the system. Obviously, the system and the environment interact, but does that necessarily mean that the system is driven by the environment? If the system has "internal randomizers," then things independent of the environment can occur within it.quote:
quote:
Perhaps just apparently independent choices.
I agree with you here though.
Hmmm... Would you agree that the appearance of independence might be quite thorough, as is the appearance of randomness in radioactive decay? |
- 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 - 04/12/2005 : 20:49:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You've got a perfectly ordinary die, subject to all the natural forces that act upon it. No free will at all is analogous to throwing the die, having it come up a 3, then starting the "rewind time" bit, and always having the die come up 3, no matter how many times you repeat the process.
The existence of free will (of some sort) on the part of the die would suggest that some measurable percentage of the attempts, the die would roll a 1, 2, 4, 5 or 6. This would not be outside the range of natural possibilities, unless free will doesn't exist at all.
It would not be outside the range of natural possibilities at all unless we are talking about a truly deterministic universe. Are we? Assuming we are, then it is just as impossible to roll anything other than a three on the ordinary die (through your rewind experiment) as it is to roll a 72.3 on the quantum die. If it is not a deterministic universe then the the experiment proves nothing since random variables, internal or external to the die, can affect the result. So something like the quantum die experiment, as unsatisfactory as it is, is all that we are left with.quote:
Let me rephrase: a choice made within a system (like a brain) which is independent (or largely so) of the events outside the system. Obviously, the system and the environment interact, but does that necessarily mean that the system is driven by the environment? If the system has "internal randomizers," then things independent of the environment can occur within it.
I'm not sure why you are drawing a distinction between the external and internal environment of the brain. I would acknowledge that brains are not completely 'driven' by the external environment. I would say that they are entirely driven by the total environment. (both internal and external)quote:
Hmmm... Would you agree that the appearance of independence might be quite thorough, as is the appearance of randomness in radioactive decay?
Absolutly. Although I somewhat doubt that it is totally thorough. As time goes on I believe that science will discover many (though perhaps not all) of the tricks that provide the illusion of free will. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2005 : 00:27:47 [Permalink]
|
I thought I'd take a moment to try and answer some questions that got short shrift in the flurry of posts.
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Is there a difference between choice and "Free Will?"
As I understand it "Free Will" is the ability to make free choices. So free will would be the general ability to freely choose. And a choice would be an individual instance of choosing.
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
I was wondering, in my blissful ignorance - in what, then, to purely practical purposes, does a 100% deterministic brain differ from any other sort of destiny? Certainly, there would not be the gloss of religion and the supernatural and therefore, not predictable by tarot cards or whatever you may -- but, all in all, wouldn't it be the same?
I tend to agree with you that for all practical purposes it would be the same. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2005 : 02:46:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
'Is there a difference between choice and "Free Will?"'
As I understand it "Free Will" is the ability to make free choices. So free will would be the general ability to freely choose. And a choice would be an individual instance of choosing.
Thanks dv8, I asked because I saw a discussion between determinists, and one said to the other that the word "choice" should remain in their "lexicon."
I can almost grasp this. Again, I think the idea has to come from the knowledge that we need to stop blaming people and start looking for solutions. Society needs to take responsibility for their part in crime, just for one example. I don't think one needs to take scrap the idea of individual responsibility to do that.
So, the only question that remains is do we have the illusion of choice or not. I'm not sure we know, and I don't think it matters. The point is that we know that society can begin to take responsibility for what we can do as a group, and that has nothing to do with adding more punishment and blame to the mix.
Thanks again all for the interesting discussion.
|
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
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 04/13/2005 02:48:43 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2005 : 11:04:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Thanks dv8, I asked because I saw a discussion between determinists, and one said to the other that the word "choice" should remain in their "lexicon."
Interestingly some determinists believe in the concept of free will. The justification goes something like this.
'Since the mind is able to choose to do whatever it wants it is free regardless of the fact that what it wants is absolutely predetermined.'
I think free will must also be able to choose what it wants in order to be truly free. Otherwise it is merely an illusion of free will, rather like the car salesman who says, "You can get any color you want so long as it's black."
quote:
I can almost grasp this. Again, I think the idea has to come from the knowledge that we need to stop blaming people and start looking for solutions. Society needs to take responsibility for their part in crime, just for one example. I don't think one needs to take scrap the idea of individual responsibility to do that.
I agree that society must take responsibility for the misfits it produces.
I'm not sure that we can remove the concept of blame from society. If you take away the moral implications of blame you are left with a synonym for responsibility. In practice I don't think there is a difference between personal responsibility and blame.
quote:
So, the only question that remains is do we have the illusion of choice or not. I'm not sure we know, and I don't think it matters.
Well I think that we clearly have at least the illusion of choice. We certainly act as if we have free will.quote:
The point is that we know that society can begin to take responsibility for what we can do as a group, and that has nothing to do with adding more punishment and blame to the mix.
Although I agree that we tend to focus to much on blame and punishment in our society I wouldn't advocate removing punishment entirely.
quote:
Thanks again all for the interesting discussion.
Well thanks for getting it going. It's been a ball.  |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
