|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 04/09/2005 : 19:54:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Ah, but if your experience of free will is an illusion, then the bunking of determinism is an illusion also.
Yep. But if there is no way to percieve beyond the "illusion", then for all practical purposes the "illusion" of free will is no different than actual free will.
quote:
Well the supernatural is not testable, so pretty much anything goes.
If something is testable, then yes, it can be said to fall within the natural realm. The concept of "supernatural" then, is a meaningless word, most often used to describe things not well observed or understood.
But, if there were actually an omnipotent being, then it would not be "supernatural". How could it?
And, if there is, in fact, an omnipotent being, then free will is not possible.
quote:
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.
In what way is quantum mechanics bunk, based on everyday experience? You are confusing two issues, and making the mistake of trying to compare the realm of newtonian physics to the subatomic. The quantum realm is counterintuitive, meaning only that we did not (originally) predict the behavior of subatomic particles with accuracy, and that subatomic particles do not behave the same way that larger chunks of matter do. Now, after many observations and years of study, we can make better predictions.
|
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 |
|
 |
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2005 : 21:33:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Yep. But if there is no way to percieve beyond the "illusion", then for all practical purposes the "illusion" of free will is no different than actual free will.
Well the difference between an illusion and reality is that one is real, and the other is not. Your lack of perception does not change that fact. You appear to imply that, in the case of determinism, we can NEVER know the truth. If I could believe that, then I could agree with your line of reasoning. But just because we are too ignorant to know now, does not mean we won't know someday. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2005 : 00:08:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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.
People make all kinds of choices, both conforming to and rebelling against societal norms, this is not the point. The question is whether or not their choices are truly free. There is no empirical evidence that they are, nor has anyone ever come up with a plausable naturalistic theory that can accomodate a truly free will.quote:
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.
I don't think I have misunderstood chaos theory but here's a link to the Wikipedia article.
I realize that you were nessessarily brief in your synopsis of chaos theory but I think it is important to note that chaotic equations are generally run over many iterations with the answer in one iteration being fed back into the equation as input for the next iteration, thus the result would be an endless series of pseudorandom numbers for as long as the equation was allowed to run.
You are correct about identical imputs giving identical results but 'do overs' are hard to do with a human brain. Suppose that we set up a situation were Dr. Mabuse has to choose between Coke or Diet Coke with the idea that we will observe his choice and then run the experiment again to see whether he is able to make a different choice the second time. The problem is that there is no concievable way to reset a human to the exact same condition that they were in at the start of the experiment.
Another problem is that computers are designed to be insensitive to most imputs. They only respond to specific imput devices and it is easy to limit unwanted sources of interference. Not so with the human brain. It recieves imput from a bewildering array of variables. Heat, light, sound, social interactions, hunger and embarassment, and that's obviously just the tip of the iceberg. Not only that but we can't turn them off (at least not without rendering the brain insensitive to all imputs).
So basically there are no 'do overs', and without 'do overs' we cannot discriminate between true randomness and chaos.quote:
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.
No, but the point is that chaos theory demonstrates that in principle there is no need for the brain to quickly settle into a static state.quote:
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?
Since we know that both chaotic and random processes occur in the brain, neither should be trimmed.quote:
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.
To me this means that free will is an illusion. You would, I think agree that neither determinism nor randomness can account for free will on their own, so what makes you think that in combination they would account for it?quote:
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.
I agree with this.quote:
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?
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.
To put it another way. If free will is completely explained by naturalistic processes then how can it be free? Whatever the explanation for free will is, it must explain every aspect of free will. There is simply no room in naturalism for the "free" part of free will.
quote:
If I'm trying to decide between walking to work or dr |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2005 : 00:18:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
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.
In what way is quantum mechanics bunk, based on everyday experience? You are confusing two issues, and making the mistake of trying to compare the realm of newtonian physics to the subatomic. The quantum realm is counterintuitive, meaning only that we did not (originally) predict the behavior of subatomic particles with accuracy, and that subatomic particles do not behave the same way that larger chunks of matter do. Now, after many observations and years of study, we can make better predictions.
As you said its counter intuitive. Determinism is also counter intuitive. My point is that, just because it's counterintuitive that doesn't make it false.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying determinism is true. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2005 : 08:43:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
To put it another way. If free will is completely explained by naturalistic processes then how can it be free? Whatever the explanation for free will is, it must explain every aspect of free will. There is simply no room in naturalism for the "free" part of free will.
Not enough time right now for a full reply, but why is it that you think that randomness denies freedom?
Also, given everything we now know, we cannot predict the decay of a single radioactive atom. That's how I know that at this moment, determinism does not match what we observe as reality. Yes, it may be the case that sometime in the future, we'll be able to predict any decay event we want to, but until such a time, determinism fails to describe reality. So even if it were a theory (which it's not - determinism doesn't predict planetary orbits, the laws of physics do), it's a false theory.
Beyond that, given zillions of radioactive atoms in a lump, each individual one decaying unpredictably, we can still know that after so-many years, only half of the original material will be left. This is an example of deterministic behaviour of a group emerging from the completely random behaviour of the group's constituents.
Is there anything about free will which says it cannot be an emergent property of billions of neurons? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2005 : 10:48:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Yes, it may be the case that sometime in the future, we'll be able to predict any decay event we want to, but until such a time, determinism fails to describe reality. So even if it were a theory (which it's not - determinism doesn't predict planetary orbits, the laws of physics do), it's a false theory.
Indeed... I have always thought of determinism as a philosophy rather than anything else. It's not like it is a theory, and our current understanding of quantum mechanics (and the rules of the weak force) does not support determinism.
Since the randomness of nuclear decay is beyound the scope of current scientiffic inquery absolute determinism will remain a philosophy.
quote:
Beyond that, given zillions of radioactive atoms in a lump, each individual one decaying unpredictably, we can still know that after so-many years, only half of the original material will be left. This is an example of deterministic behaviour of a group emerging from the completely random behaviour of the group's constituents.
Is there anything about free will which says it cannot be an emergent property of billions of neurons?
I like to think so. |
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 - 04/10/2005 : 11:02:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Not enough time right now for a full reply, but why is it that you think that randomness denies freedom?
If all that is meant by free will is that a choice was made but in theory a different choice could have been made, then that's fine. But we would then have to ascribe free will to radioactive decay and any other truly random processes.
It seems like you are suggesting that some combination of randomness and determinism, perhaps with some lower limit of complexity, could account for a truly free will. To me this seems like wishful thinking. I suspect that we will have to agree to disagree on this point.quote:
Also, given everything we now know, we cannot predict the decay of a single radioactive atom. That's how I know that at this moment, determinism does not match what we observe as reality. Yes, it may be the case that sometime in the future, we'll be able to predict any decay event we want to, but until such a time, determinism fails to describe reality. So even if it were a theory (which it's not - determinism doesn't predict planetary orbits, the laws of physics do), it's a false theory.
Perhaps I erred in calling determinism a theory (I'm not sure on this point) but regardless it is a theoretical framework under which almost every successful scientific theory can operate. Quantum mechanics is the only exception to this that we know of.
Every process above the quantum level is well suited to a deterministic explanation so it's not completely illogical to assume that this pattern of determinism continues at the quantum level despite our inability to percieve it or calculate it in a deterministic way. The only problem with this approach is that it is not useful. It is more useful to take a probabilistic approach to problems at the quantum level.
I agree that, barring some unforseen discovery, this makes determinism unsuited to making predictions at the quantum level and therefore not likely to be a completely accurate picture of reality.
Another point is that quantum theory (as of this moment) cannot account for gravity and therefore it is not a completely accurate picture of reality either.
This failure does not make quantum theory invalid. In fact quantum theory is perhaps the most successful theory ever. It does mean that it needs to be refined.
Relativity is a completely deterministic theory which does explain gravity, but, as we know it cannot account for the other fundamental forces of nature.
To sum up, strict determinism is probably not a totally accurate picture of reality and it is certainly less useful for making predictions at the quantum level, but to say determinism is proved false because it cannot account for quantum theory is like saying quantum theory is proved false because it cannot account for gravity. The fact is that our understanding of reality is not complete but any expalnation is likely to contain both deterministic and probabilistic elements.quote:
Beyond that, given zillions of radioactive atoms in a lump, each individual one decaying unpredictably, we can still know that after so-many years, only half of the original material will be left. This is an example of deterministic behaviour of a group emerging from the completely random behaviour of the group's constituents.
Right but it goes both ways. There are completely deterministic equations which result in pseudorandom behavior. (Again, without 'do overs' we can't tell the difference between pseudorandom and a process that is truly random.)quote:
Is there anything about free will which says it cannot be an emergent property of billions of neurons?
Yes, the word 'free.'
I'm not saying that will or conciousness are illusions, (at least I'm not convinced that they are) because they are not contradicted by naturalism, but 'free' in the sense it is meant in the term 'free will' does run directly counter to naturalism. It defies a naturalistic explanation. If there were a naturalistic explanation for "free will" it would inevitably change the meaning of "free will" to "random will" or "deterministic will" or "random deterministic will".
Therefore free will can only be free if it is unexplainable in naturalistic terms. As we learn more and more about how the brain works we inevitably wind up with a scenario similar to the "God of the gaps" fallacy. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2005 : 19:09:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
If all that is meant by free will is that a choice was made but in theory a different choice could have been made, then that's fine. But we would then have to ascribe free will to radioactive decay and any other truly random processes.
I haven't suggested ascribing free will to any non-natural process, though. I simply think that with determinism safely rejected, we are able to have free choices. The web page in question asserts that naturalism and determinism eliminate free will entirely - that if we could rewind our lives we'd make precisely the same choices we did the first time around. I only believe that to be false due to determinism being false; I'm not trying to claim that we get free will from something outside of nature (like the millions who ascribe free will to God do).
You do realize that even if we could prefectly rewind time back to the formation of Earth, the evolution of life itself wouldn't have followed the same paths that it has, right? Mutations are largely due to quantum events (the interactions of subatomic particles), and so it's highly unlikely that what we know of as human beings would exist after a second 4.5 billion years go by.
If we could perfectly rewind time just four million years - to just after the split between our ancestors and the ancestors of chimps - do you think it likely that our world would have the same socio-political issues facing it at this point in the "do over" (to the point where all the countries would have the same names as they do now)? If we could rewind just 1,000 years, do you think it likely that "Dave W." would be born at the exact same moment, in the exact same place, the second time around? If we could rewind time just 10 years, do you think it likely that I (or you) would stumble across the SFN again? Would the SFN even exist to be stumbled upon?
Determinism claims that the do-over would be precisely the same as the first go-round. I don't think that's possible.quote:
It seems like you are suggesting that some combination of randomness and determinism, perhaps with some lower limit of complexity, could account for a truly free will. To me this seems like wishful thinking. I suspect that we will have to agree to disagree on this point.
That would be a shame. What are your feelings about consciousness in general? Is it an illusion, or is it a real phenomenon which is an emergent property of billions of neurons acting together? (I didn't read fully before starting this reply - see below.)quote:
Perhaps I erred in calling determinism a theory (I'm not sure on this point)...
A scientific theory is an explanation of the way things work, which also makes successful predictions about that which we are not now aware. Heck, the philosophy of science itself is not a theory.quote:
...but regardless it is a theoretical framework under which almost every successful scientific theory can operate.
Sure, and lots of non-scientific "theories" depend on determinism, also. The idea that if I say a few magic words and burn some incense, I can harm my enemies from the comfort of my own living room is deterministic. Of course, it isn't natural.quote:
Every process above the quantum level is well suited to a deterministic explanation so it's not completely illogical to assume that this pattern of determinism continues at the quantum level despite our inability to percieve it or calculate it in a deterministic way.
The same was, at one point it time, thought of classical physics. Quantum mechanics demonstrated that the idea that Newtonian equations held for the very small was false.quote:
The only problem with this approach is that it is not useful. It is more useful to take a probabilistic approach to problems at the quantum level.
No, at the quantum level the problem is not that determinism is less useful than probability, it's that determinism doesn't function when you can't know both a particle's momentum and position to the same signficant degree of accuracy. Probability is the only way to work the equations, which annoyed the hell out of Einstein.quote:
To sum up, strict determinism is probably not a totally accurate picture of reality and it is certainly less useful for making predictions at the quantum level, but to say determinism is proved false because it cannot account for quantum theory is like saying quantum theory is proved false because it cannot account for gravity. The fact is that our understanding of reality is not complete but any expalnation is likely to contain both deterministic and probabilistic elements.
Determinism - as an overall philosophy - is demonstrated to be false by these real issues. This is not to say that it doesn't have its utility (I'm pretty sure these words will appear on the SFN forums, and not RaptureReady), but we're talking about determinism eliminating the idea of free will. To do so, we must ignore the fact that the brain is affected by numerous quantum events each and every second.quote:
quote:
Is there anything about free will which says it cannot be an emergent property of billions of neurons?
Yes, the word 'free.'
I'm not saying that will or conciousness are illusions, (at least I'm not convinced that they are) because they are not contradicted by naturalism, but 'free' in the sense it is meant in the term 'free will' does run directly counter to naturalism. It defies a naturalistic explanation.
So, at the moment, does the root cause of consciousness itself. There is no "theory of consciousness" which predicts, for example, how many neurons (or equivalent) of which type must be brought together before the group of them becomes "aware."quote:
If there were a naturalistic explanation for "free will" it would inevitably change the meaning of "f |
- 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
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2005 : 20:26:18 [Permalink]
|
Responding to some stuff from before:quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Another problem is that computers are designed to be insensitive to most imputs. They only respond to specific imput devices and it is easy to limit unwanted sources of interference. Not so with the human brain. It recieves imput from a bewildering array of variables. Heat, light, sound, social interactions, hunger and embarassment, and that's obviously just the tip of the iceberg. Not only that but we can't turn them off (at least not without rendering the brain insensitive to all imputs).
Hence the "brain in a box" thought experiments - in which we can precisely control the inputs.quote:
No, but the point is that chaos theory demonstrates that in principle there is no need for the brain to quickly settle into a static state.
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).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.
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..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.
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.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.
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.quote:
Sure we can, but so what. That doesn't make evolution itself moral or immoral. Come to that, we could base an inconsistent and detestable morality on evolution, or a consistent and useful morality on the Bible. When science starts making moral statements it ceases to be science. The usefulness of science is in describing what is, not what ought to be.
So you're saying that if we (for example) use what knowledge we've gained from science to predict that the continued pollution of our environment will reduce the chances of our species' survival, it is unscientific if we then look at willing producers of unnecessary pollution as "bad" and attempt to change their methods of doing business?!? Break out the fluorocarbons, boys - it wasn't scientific to have banned 'em.quote:
Determinism doesn't address morality, so all that it can offer are pragmatic reasons. If your car won't run, fix or replace the broken part and it will run. If so and so is a mass murderer put him in a cell and he will murder no more. Personally I would tend to go with this kind of practical morality but determinism and naturalism don't speak on the subject so the choice is really left up to the individual.
Quite the opposite: determinism says that people have no choice.quote:
quote:
Determinism says that people cannot choose to do good deeds, so why in hell should they be rewarded for doing them? The web page says that they should be rewarded.
- 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 - 04/10/2005 : 22:01:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I haven't suggested ascribing free will to any non-natural process, though. I simply think that with determinism safely rejected, we are able to have free choices. The web page in question asserts that naturalism and determinism eliminate free will entirely - that if we could rewind our lives we'd make precisely the same choices we did the first time around. I only believe that to be false due to determinism being false; I'm not trying to claim that we get free will from something outside of nature (like the millions who ascribe free will to God do).
The main thrust of my arguement isn't just that determinism makes free will impossible, it's that any kind of naturalism makes free will impossible, so whether determinism is false or not is largely irrelevant to the arguement I've been advancing.
On a side note, I am of course aware that you are not advocating a supernatural explanation for free will, but I am confused by why you bring that up here. I am concerned that I may be missing your point.quote:
You do realize that even if we could prefectly rewind time back to the formation of Earth, the evolution of life itself wouldn't have followed the same paths that it has, right? Mutations are largely due to quantum events (the interactions of subatomic particles), and so it's highly unlikely that what we know of as human beings would exist after a second 4.5 billion years go by.
If we could perfectly rewind time just four million years - to just after the split between our ancestors and the ancestors of chimps - do you think it likely that our world would have the same socio-political issues facing it at this point in the "do over" (to the point where all the countries would have the same names as they do now)? If we could rewind just 1,000 years, do you think it likely that "Dave W." would be born at the exact same moment, in the exact same place, the second time around? If we could rewind time just 10 years, do you think it likely that I (or you) would stumble across the SFN again? Would the SFN even exist to be stumbled upon?
I don't ascribe to strict determinism, so no, I don't believe that it would be the same the second time around.quote:
Determinism claims that the do-over would be precisely the same as the first go-round. I don't think that's possible.
Well if you and I are both wrong and determinism is correct then that is exactly what would happen. quote:
Sure, and lots of non-scientific "theories" depend on determinism, also. The idea that if I say a few magic words and burn some incense, I can harm my enemies from the comfort of my own living room is deterministic. Of course, it isn't natural.
Perhaps I should have specified that I was talking about naturalistic determinism.quote:
quote:
Every process above the quantum level is well suited to a deterministic explanation so it's not completely illogical to assume that this pattern of determinism continues at the quantum level despite our inability to percieve it or calculate it in a deterministic way.
The same was, at one point it time, thought of classical physics. Quantum mechanics demonstrated that the idea that Newtonian equations held for the very small was false.
We seem to be going in circles here. I think we may be using different interpretations of quantum theory, but that's far to big a subject to get into here, and it's not really central to the argument so I'll concede the point for now.quote:
quote:
The only problem with this approach is that it is not useful. It is more useful to take a probabilistic approach to problems at the quantum level.
No, at the quantum level the problem is not that determinism is less useful than probability, it's that determinism doesn't function when you can't know both a particle's momentum and position to the same signficant degree of accuracy. Probability is the only way to work the equations, which annoyed the hell out of Einstein.
I should have said determinism is less not useful for making predictions at a quantum level.quote:
<snip>...but we're talking about determinism eliminating the idea of free will.
I'm talking about naturalism eliminating the idea of free will.quote:
quote:
I'm not saying that will or conciousness are illusions, (at least I'm not convinced that they are) because they are not contradicted by naturalism, but 'free' in the sense it is meant in the term 'free will' does run directly counter to naturalism. It defies a naturalistic explanation.
So, at the moment, does the root cause of consciousness itself. There is no "theory of consciousness" which predicts, for example, how many neurons (or equivalent) of which type must be brought together before the group of them becomes "aware."
The problem isn't merely that there is currently no theory of free will. It's that a naturalistic theory of free will is impossible.quote:
quote:
If there were a naturalistic explanation for "free will" it would inevitably change the meaning of "free will" to "random will" or "deterministic will" or "random deterministic will".
Well, since "free will" isn't a rigidly defined scientific term, so what?
"Free will" may not have a rigidly defined scie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2005 : 04:10:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
If that is really all you are saying then I wholeheartedly agree, but in this case I must point out that what we call "free will" is not what most people mean when they say "free will".
Most people assume "free will" to be God-given and non-natural, so what most people mean when they use the term is utterly irrelevant to this discussion.
And "free fall" isn't really "free," either, but sky divers understand what it means.
So I'm left to ask: what do you mean by "free" will? I've been talking about the ability to actually make a choice, one way or another, and all things being equal possibly making a different choice. And so, I am still completely confused by your insistence that "a naturalistic theory of free will is impossible." I've posited nothing non-natural. |
- 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 - 04/11/2005 : 08:06:53 [Permalink]
|
Sorry little late on this cool discussion, but let me throw my $0.02 in.
Dude
quote:
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.
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.
Dave W
quote:
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 I see a connection here with relation to the deterministic argument (although I'm not sure where I lie yet). Their saying people's actions are determined by their environment and their internal factors as well (e.g. their internal environment). Their saying that this system of awards and punishments (i.e. laws) is one major factor of the person's environment that determines their behavior.
and
quote:
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.
I don't see how determinism undercuts the value of learning. If my behavior is determined by a mixture of my physical make-up, my past, my current environment, etc. then learning is one of those past events that determines my current behavior.
Going back to the coke/diet coke example most human behavior probably does not come down to such a 50/50 decision where a single C14 atom decaying (random or not) effects the outcome. Even if this was your first time trying either product, a long chain of events may have formed an opinion upon you as to which product to pick. It may come down to you liking the word "diet" because of its positive connotations, or maybe not because you don't think you need a diet you pick coke instead. In essence the things I learned in the past has shaped my decision in choosing coke or diet coke.
quote:
Determinism goes farther, though, and tells us it's also not the fault of the pilot, th |
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2005 : 08:17:35 [Permalink]
|
Dave W
quote:
So I'm left to ask: what do you mean by "free" will? I've been talking about the ability to actually make a choice, one way or another, and all things being equal possibly making a different choice. And so, I am still completely confused by your insistence that "a naturalistic theory of free will is impossible." I've posited nothing non-natural.
My question is what is making that "choice". Is it the biological brain, a collection of firing neurons and a mix of electrical and chemical signals or is it some other entity. The purely biological brain seems incapable of this form of "free will" you are talking about, although there could aspects of the brain we are unaware of. This is true even if the choice is effected by purely random events or not.
In either case we are slaves either to the deterministic outcomes or a lot of deterministic outcomes plus a mix of some random quantum events. To postulate otherwise imposes something that exists beyond our biological brains (or something yet identified) making choices. As far as I know there is no "evidence" for this Free Will and I'm not sure how one at this time could even go about making a testable hypothesis for it, which makes it just as philosophical as pure determinism. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2005 : 08:26:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bloody_peasant
I think I see a connection here with relation to the deterministic argument (although I'm not sure where I lie yet). Their saying people's actions are determined by their environment and their internal factors as well (e.g. their internal environment). Their saying that this system of awards and punishments (i.e. laws) is one major factor of the person's environment that determines their behavior.
This might make sense except for the fact that determinism says that if a person "forgets" to abide by the laws - say, in a moment of passion - it's not their fault. This would imply that the only "sanction" one should receive is training and education, for any crime, since jail time and/or fines will only accomplish the opposite of that desired: an overall increase in the "lawful environment." But if that's the case, then what would an appropriate reward for good behaviour be?quote:
I am still unsure if we "know" this or not. Is it simply because we cannot yet see the factors leading to the supposed random event? I would like to see how we know this and how we have proven there is no deterministic process involved.
We know it as well as we know that relativity is a functional theory, or that evolution has occured. In other words, very well, indeed. Given no known method through which we can predict radioactive decay, at this moment we know it to be random.
Things might change on that point in the future, but until they do, saying "decay might be deterministic" is nothing other than unevidenced speculation. There is little difference between such a statement and "humans might have been intelligently designed."quote:
Or is it some other "entity" that wills your brain to make a choice outside of these deterministic and/or random elements.
That, it seems to me, would be unnaturalistic - it is at least unevidenced. |
- 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 - 04/11/2005 : 09:06:36 [Permalink]
|
Dave W
quote:
This might make sense except for the fact that determinism says that if a person "forgets" to abide by the laws - say, in a moment of passion - it's not their fault. This would imply that the only "sanction" one should receive is training and education, for any crime, since jail time and/or fines will only accomplish the opposite of that desired: an overall increase in the "lawful environment." But if that's the case, then what would an appropriate reward for good behaviour be?
I'm assuming this is a purely philosophical argument as you are arguing for what "should" be based on some set of conditions (in this case pure determinism). I'm happy to take the side of pure determinism (although I think there might be pure random events) to further this discussion.
WRT to taking blame, so does "randomism" say it's not their fault. Whether the events and conditions leading up to a person breaking a law are determined "a priori" or a mix of random and determined events and thus unpredictable, still the person is not truly responsible for their actions. For a person to be responsible there has to be the philosophical argument that they have a Free Will making decisions above and beyond what we know now of our biological brains. The other argument to justify placing blame, and this is true if you fall under determinism or randomism, but not Free Will, is that placing blame, applying punishments, giving rewards, etc. sets up conditions that favor positive determined events (whether there is a random factor or not).
As far as training and education are concerned I would agree. Our system of punishments for crimes often does just the opposite in breeding more criminals. A system that promoted education and training to effect the person's behavior would be better. However there are probably limitations based on our current abilities. There might be people whose biological conditions or even the environmental factors leading up to their present condition who might be far beyond anything we can do for them today. Sadly for those individuals locking them up appears to be our only safe bet at the moment. However having said that, I think some forms of punishment can have a positive influence on the individual and help them "learn" from their mistake. Again under any system of determinism or randomism these are environmental factors that effect the outcome.
As far as rewards for good behavior, every society has such rewards built in to them (although not perfectly implemented by any means). These include materialistic rewards and social rewards. I hope you are not implying that a reward for good behavior is not being punished. I think the reward should be something tangible and positive.
quote:
We know it as well as we know that relativity is a functional theory, or that evolution has occurred. In other words, very well, indeed. Given no known method through which we can predict radioactive decay, at this moment we know it to be random.
Things might change on that point in the future, but until they do, saying "decay might be deterministic" is nothing other than unevidenced speculation. There is little difference between such a statement and "humans might have been intelligently designed."
Agreed to a point and I know the argument is thin and a common fallacy. However common fallacies are not always fallacies especially when talking about philosophical possibilities. One can go back barely 100 years and would have found the majority if not all of science saying it was impossible for life to originate on its own and no evidence existed that it could. Now quite a bit of literature exists on the subject and the evidence is getting stronger and stronger that abiogenesis is a possible way life originated.
When studying something that is even today extremely hard to study and still truly is in its infancy, I think its better to say, according to all evidence we have at hand, these events are truly random, but other factors might be discovered that cause them to be a deterministic process. However I will cede the point mainly because purely random events does not change the argument at all as to whether blame can truly be applied to an individual and that individuals have true Free Will as opposed to being subject to the conditions and events that effect them (random or not).
quote:
That, it seems to me, would be unnaturalistic - it is at least unevidenced.
Agreed. That's why I am asking and trying to find out from those who are proponents of humans with Free Will. Where does this Free Will come from and how does it make decisions outside of the limitations of the human brain.
Note that I capitalize Free Will to differentiate it as the ability to make choices outside of our biological brains not the apparent free will you get because of random events. I'm no more personally responsible in choosing diet coke over coke if the choice was caused by deterministic causes or by the C14 atom randomly decaying and effecting my decision.
If people really are responsible for their decisions then this Free Will must exist for them to make choices beyond those determined by the events that effect them (random or not). |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
