Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Well, exactly. I appologize if I was being overly simplistic. Ya can't always know from what background someone is coming from, so I find it best to start with the most common experiences.Thomas said:
Well, I do am a self-educated 3D-animator, not pixar studios level, but still a 3D animator. So, I'm quite well aware of 3D properties at least, but how could you know
Yea well, I see you may have underestimated my knowledge of basic trigonometry and geometry, and perhaps math in general.
[fquote]I'll try to explain again. What I'm saying is that math is synthetic, a product of us only being able to think in patterns.[/fquote]I might agree, and I guess I do, since language of mathematics is human invention. Anyway, I would agree with the entirety of your sentiment that mathematics is an artificial pattern recognition except that mathematics has successfully predicted previously unobserved phenomenon. Merely describe phenomenon is one thing, but prediction of new phenomenon, especially of a kind previously undreamt indicates something else.
[fquote]If you take away the patterns all that is left is infinity.[/fquote]I don't understand. Without the context of dimension, what does "infinity" mean? Infinite what?
[fquote]To seperate it up in dimensions is indeed practical and the only thing we can do when we wanna navigate in space(time), but it is synthetic. Artificial if you like.[/fquote]Artificial, perhaps, but definitely reflective of reality since mathematics was shaped by reality. I think it would be incorrect to say that mathematics is a purely human creation. The form may be artificial, but the structure is real.
[fquote]In my perversion an infinite number of possibilities takes place at all moments in time.[/fquote]This is, ultimately, Many Worlds. And while there may be infinite possibilites, there cannot be just any possibility. Electrons always have a different charge than protons. Matter/energy always warps spacetime.
[fquote]However, being human, we need to use math in order to make anything practical, but it ceases to be practical the minute it crashes with infinity, and theres nothing we can do about it - unless Kirkegaard was right, and we ultimately end up as a part of eternity - now that would be a real kick wouldn't it? [/fQUOTE]If infinity exists in any meaningful sense beyond the conceptual, which I don't think it does. Even spacetime has boundries.
.....no, wait. I don't know that infinity doesn't exist in a meaningful sense beyond the conceptual. that's just a hunch.
Upchurch,
Enough of my perversion of spacetime.. They go at 5 for a $1 these days, just ask Hawkins and his poor mailbox. This was about determinism wasn't it?
The thing I really wanted you to judge, was if you think there's any merit in my idea of infinity having impact on our deterministic system through these "leaks", and thereby generating (synthetic, but) truly randomness (perhaps only on a sub-atomic level, but none the less).
Enough of my perversion of spacetime.. They go at 5 for a $1 these days, just ask Hawkins and his poor mailbox. This was about determinism wasn't it?
The thing I really wanted you to judge, was if you think there's any merit in my idea of infinity having impact on our deterministic system through these "leaks", and thereby generating (synthetic, but) truly randomness (perhaps only on a sub-atomic level, but none the less).
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
That's a very tough question to answer. Your theory/philosophy/whatever starts with a premise that is best addressed with science, abandons the structure of science (moving it to realm of philosophy), and then tries to answer a question of science.Thomas said:
I'm not sure I even have the conceptual structure to address your question, let alone judge it's validity. From a purely philosophical view, I'd have to say it has possibilities, but the concept of infinity needs to be defined within this context. I also have to go back and try to understand the connection between infinity, these "leaks", and randomness. Right now, I don't see it, but I'm also not focusing on it (damn work/life).
Upchurch said:
No need to apologize, I tend to do the same. I've been a moderator on an actionscript IRC channel back in the old days, and you have to do what you did unless you wanna use all your time on finding out how much people know and don't know. No offense taken.
By the use of logic I hope, and that was what I called "processing".
It is pattern processing again.
I can't understand infinity either without the use of dimensions, or actually I get a 100% black mental image when I think of infinity. But I guess that's individual. None the less can neither you or I understand infinity. It's beyond patterns, and therefore beyond us. I may have to elaborate on this, just say if.
Let me put it another way, the structure is most likely real alright, let's not feed the Lifegazer monkey, but our way of processing them is ad hoc for this universe. I like to call it monkey logic to emphase how grand it is.
I may need to read up on something there. What do you mean by "always"?
I will do something very non-philosophical here, and guarantee you that infinity never will exist for you or me in a meaningful sense. Assuming Kirkegaard is wrong that is. Again, it's beyond patterns and therefore beyond us.
Defining infinity in a meaningful sense is exactly the problem, and had we been able to do that, then I think we would have solved anything from the Riemann hypothesis to all known borders in math.Upchurch said:
When I say "leaks", then think of it holes in a closed Newtonian system (universe) where infinity is coming into the system and interrupts the determinism - heck, it could be black holes for all I know, but then again, it could also be something we haven't found as of yet on a sub-atomic level.
But you may be right, that this has to be tested in a lab if it has any merit at all, and the key would be to look for extreme randomness in various phenomena.
But you gotta admit that spacetime and causality beats work?
Anytime..JAK said:
It come as close as possible to adding meaning to a meaningless phenomenon as I think we can - if we are allowed to use near-poetic terms. But I might add "endless" (featureless void) to the definition, because otherwise it tells nothing about the fact that it ends nowhere, and that is quite essential for me.
We better just hope that infinity isn't full of steak sauce, small furry animals and green peppers, because then it's not really a void. If you get my drift. Nor featureless.
Where have I heard that term before btw? It isn't Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy is it?
Thomas said:This was about determinism wasn't it?
It was about randomness (or lack thereof) and Iacchus (mis)using determinism to prove the existance of God, and then moved into a discussion of free will somewhere along the way.
Your post might actually be the most on-topic since the original post. Come to think of it, your post might be more on-topic than the original post.
-Bri
jan said:
I found a very nice article on the subject at the following URL:
[url]http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/
[/URL]
You might also check out this one, which links to the above one but isn't as relevent to the conversation.
[url]http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/
[/URL]
Essentially, according to the article, it seems to boil down to two different definitions (models) of free will.
The "Garden of Forking Paths Model" (so named because the illustration of this model is walking through a garden which starts with a single path which splits and being able to make a true choice as to which path to take at each split) asserts that in order to have free will, you must be able to choose between more than one outcome.
The "Source Model" of free will asserts that in order to have free will, you have to be the "ultimate source" of your actions, which means some condition necessary for your action originates within yourself.
Each model has a corresponding argument which asserts that the free will cannot exist if determinism is true. The "Classical Incombatibilist Argument" is based on the Garden of Forking Paths Model and looks something like this:
1. If we act of our own free will, then we could have done otherwise.
2. If determinism is true, no one can do otherwise than one actually does.
3. Therefore, if determinism is true, no one acts of their own free will.
The "Source Incompatibilist Argument" based on the Source Model looks like this:
1. We act of our own free will only if we are its ultimate source of our actions.
2. If determinism is true, no one is the ultimate source of their actions.
3. Therefore, if determinism is true, no one acts of their own free will.
I think my definitions were mostly based on the Garden of Forking Paths Model of free will, but both are certainly valid when talking about the common notion of free will.
There is something called the Consequence Argument which shows that if determinism is true, it appears that no person has any power to alter how his/her own future will unfold. This argument strongly supports the incompatibilist argument that if determinism is true, no one can do otherwise than one actually does.
There are moral and ethical questions raised concerning these models as they pertain to free will and determinism. Compatibilist theories (theories which hold that free will can exist alongside determinism) have attempted to address some of the questions posed by these models and the Consequence Argument and those moral/ethical problems using various approaches.
Yes, but not really. You can use the terminology that a computer is "making choices" but that would be technically incorrect (I, as a computer scientist, would not use that terminology). More importantly, a computer is not making choices according to either of the models of free will. It cannot have done anything other than what it did (in this case, exactly what its programming tells it to do). Also, the "ultimate source" of the computer's actions are not within itself (no condition necessary for the action of the computer originates entirely within the computer). That a computer doesn't have free will is true whether we have free will or not.
Let's take a survey, starting with you. Do you feel that you are free to decide between the Big Mac and the Quarter Pounder or do you feel that your decision was already determined millions of years before you were born?
To each his own, I suppose. I would rather be in control of my actions, and know that others are responsible for theirs.
What I meant here was that if someone wrongs you in some way, the natural reaction is to get angry at them, but if they truly have no choice but to do exactly as they did, is that reaction irrational?
This argument sounds like a slippery slope to me. You're arguing that you want them punished because it changes their behavior, not because they deserve it. Using that logic, you might argue that killing everyone who commits any crime would better reduce crime. However, our justice system as it stands states that the punishment has to fit the crime. Ethics also tells us that the ends don't justify the means.
I bet he'd stop if the punishment was death!
The justice system absolutely believes that free will exists. I don't personally know if it exists. Someone who believes that it definitely doesn't exist could probably justify doing whatever they wanted as long as they didn't get caught (after all, they don't have a choice, it was determined that they would do it long before they were born).
I'm not Bible scholar, but I believe that according to the old testimate, when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, they and their descendants were given free will.
It's only determinism if it follows the laws of determinism. If it followed randomness, it would be random. If it followed some other rules (on Tuesdays and Fridays it will be random, but on all other days it will be deterministic) it would be something else. Presumably with free will, some force that is currently unknown to us actually allows us to make our own choices that originate within ourselves.
Can you name a crime for which you would be guilty, but only partly responsible? Or do you mean that a chimpanzee (or a computer!) that commits murder would get a lighter sentence than a human?
Are you also saying that you think that free will exists, and if so would you consider yourself a compatibilist then (i.e. do you also believe in determinism or quantum theory)?
-Bri
Iacchus said:
It happened as I was standing at the entrance to a blast furnace, that an Iacchus came dancing up to me. "What are you doing?" he giggled. I told him that I was standing here to intimidate the flames themselves. He giggled once more, and said "You are a fool!"... As I pushed him in, I said "You are fuel". Thus, I win.
(With apologies to Simon Munnery)
And that condition is held within the hypothalamus. We are "wired" to keep it in a "balanced" state (homeostasis). When its balance is disturbed, it enacts behavior to return to its balanced state. This is the hallmark of a "control system" (see William T. Powers' Perceptual Control Theory).Bri said:
I vote for #3.Bri said:
However, due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP), no action can be foretold (predicted). The HUP creates a "random" variable which alters the flow (and decision-making) of human behavior. Not only are others prevented from predicting your future behavior, even YOU are prevented from predicting your future behavior.
Yup. You are a victim of who you are.Bri said:
Neither. Though deterministic, the human brain is dynamic - including our value system of wants and desires. Our choices are adjusted by our life experiences. 20 years ago, I may have chosen the Quarter Pounder. Today, I never eat McDonald's hamburgers (though I eat their breakfast meals every now and again).Bri said:
Given the state of a human organism at any point in time, the multitude of switch settings and weighting (something only inherent in neural networks or other gaussian computer systems), will set a neural strength favoring the Big Mac or the Quarter Pounder (or neither, as in my case). This weighted preference is dynamic and may change by the next "opportunuity for choosing" due to changes in the neural weighting (Hebb's law and other factors).
B.F.Skinner noted that all behaviors are acts of control.Bri said:
If there is nothing sound - robust and systematic - underneath our being, then no one is reliable nor responsible because there is no basis for control. Random, unsystematic processes cannot enact control.
You are introducing a much more difficult and complex issue. Most errors which impact others are born of ignorance and a will for self-expression.Bri said:
I disagree. The justice system (at least in the U.S.) believes that you are responsible for your actions. The only exception is a plea of insanity (inability to control one's behavior).Bri said:
I believe the difficulty is in your having "determinism" and "random" as being mutually exclusive.Bri said:
"Determinism" is a human invention to describe a concept. The concept may or may not be found elsewhere in nature. Nature, however, is the undeniable truth regardless of our understanding or misunderstanding of it. Nature rules, whether we like it or not, or whether we accept it or not.
If determinism is defined as the ability to "perfectly predict" human behavior, than determinism is false due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as well as Chaos Theory which notes that chaotic systems are sensitive to initial conditions (for which we are uncertain).
Meanwhile, random refers to "unpredictablity." The pertinent issue is whether or not anything we denote as "random" is truly random. If we meet a friend by accident at a post office, is it random? If we had access to all of our friend's thoughts, actions, and plans for the day, would our "chance" meeting be more predictable? If you answered "yes" to these 2 questions, then it implies that the less we know, the more random an event becomes. The more we know, the more predictable an event and the more deterministic it becomes.
Given the above, "determinism" and "random" may not truly relate to laws of nature or natural occurrences. Instead, these may relate more to our relative knowledge about the world around us as well as our need to make predictions - a fundamental need of the human mind in order to satisfy the needs of survival. The more information we have, the better our ability to predict (determine) what will happen. The less information we have, the more "random" we describe it. Yet, in describing it as random, we are merely saying, "There was no way for us to predict these events."
I suggest that "determinism" and "randomness" are not necessarily facts of nature. They may just be terms which we use to describe our relative knowledge (or lack thereof) about nature.
Just two small things leap out at me...
Your own example here specifies that the hypothalamus is reacting to a disturbance of its balance. This disturbance is environmental, and so this does not pass the sniff test for an internal "ultimate source". A thermostat could do the same thing.JAK said:
"Responsible for your actions" does, at least tacitly, assume that these actions are freely chosen. (also, there are other exceptions, extenuating circumstances which might lead to "involuntary manslaughter" rather than "murder" charges, for instance.)
JAK said:
If you haven't already, read over the reference on compatibilism in my previous post. It describes in much more detail what is meant by being the "ultimate source" (as opposed to just the "source") of your actions. The gist of it is that although external circumstances can influence your choice, they cannot determine it entirely in order for that choice to be the result of free will.
With determinism, the state of your brain (whatever it is) is entirely determined by prior events that occurred before your birth (or, more precisely by events that were determined by other events [that were determined by other events...] that occurred before your birth). Therefore, there is nothing within you or your brain that qualifies as the ultimate source of your actions.
Even if you could somehow prove that you are the ultimate source of your actions in a deterministic world, you would also have to prove that there is the possibility of more than one outcome in order to successfully prove that free will can exist in a deterministic world.
I can't tell if you're joking here, but just in case you're not, the three are taken together as an argument that free will cannot exist in a deterministic world. Quick recap: Jan was arguing that it can, I was arguing that it probably cannot, and you were (I think) agreeing with Jan.
Here you're changing the rules slightly, but that's OK because the same basic principles that prevent free will from existing in a deterministic world also prevent free will from existing in a random world. In this case, substitute the term "determinism" with "randomness" and you have the same basic argument. It has nothing to do with predictability, really. It has to do with being able to choose your own actions from more than one possible action, and being the source of that choice. Randomness still wouldn't allow you to choose (your choice would still be made for you, and you wouldn't have been able to choose otherwise). Cause/effect is simply replaced with cause/randomness/effect which still doesn't allow for free will.
And "who you are" (in a deterministic world) is completely out of your control (it was decided before you were born). Which is precisely why you have no free will.
My question here was very simple, and required only a simple answer ("yes" or "no" in fact). Do you feel that you are in control of your decisions? I'm not asking about what you think or know intellectually, or how your choice might differ today than yesterday because of complex changes in your brain chemistry. I'm asking about your subjective experience. Do you feel that you have a choice when you make a decision, or do you feel that your decision has already been made for you millions of years ago, long before you were born? For that matter, do you feel as though you could change your mind at the last minute, or do you feel that the decision to change your mind was also made millions of years before you were born?
You are using the same argument as Jan here. People who believe in free will don't consider it to be random or determined. Yet they don't consider people to be unreliable, irresponsible, or out of control either. They simply consider their behavior to be under their own control.
Not at all! A quick example: (A) You are driving in your car and accidentally run over someone killing them. (B) You are driving in your car and purposely run over someone killing them. The same action in both cases has produced the same result in both cases. Are you guilty of the same crime in both cases? Should your punishment be the same?
They describe the two most widely accepted scientific theories of reality. They are mutually exclusive by definition. Determinism means that a certain cause will always produce the same predictable effect. Randomness means that the result cannot be predictable. Randomness in terms of quantum theory (which is actually the scientific theory in question, which happens to include randomness as a component that makes it different than determinism) means that a certain cause has a certain chance of producing a certain effect. These two theories are indeed mutually exclusive, whether or not either accurately reflects nature. The question is whether or not free will can exist if either theory is correct or whether free will would require a separate theory of its own.
I have been arguing that I think that it probably would require a separate theory, but there are folks (known as compatibilists) who would attempt to argue otherwise.
-Bri
The hypothalamus monitors both internal and external environmental interactions. Ultimately, it is designed to maintain an optimum internal state (homeostasis) despite disturbances. If the disturbance is from an internal source, the Internal Control System (parasympathetic nervous system) is called into service. If the disturbance is external, the External Control System (sympathetic nervous system) is called into service. With extreme disturbances, one or the other system is virtually shut down. For instance, if the internal state is terribly disturbed, the sympathetic nervous system is predominantly shutdown (including consciousness), and we enter into a coma. If the external environment exposes a potential severe disturbance (a lion is chasing us), the parasympathetic nervous system is quelled and the sympathetic nervous system (including the conscious mind) is "turbo-charged" (fight or flight).Mercutio said:
The hypothalamus is the "ultimate source" for decisions by mammals. The thalamic bulbs are bi-directionally connected to the hypothalamus, and research indicates that decisions are made by competing ideas within the outer shells of the thalamic bulbs - the nucleus Reticularis Thalami - James Newman, Univ. of Colorado (deceased).
Body temperature is one of the states controlled by the hypothalmus. Thus, the hypothalamus is a "thermostat" among other things.
JAK said:
Name an example of an internal disturbance that isn't the effect of an external cause in a deterministic world.
The state of the hypothalamus (and all other parts of our body) are entirely determined by external causes.
Yes, and like a thermostat, it has no free will of its own if determinism is true.
-Bri