Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Magic Mushrooms Zamnesia
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]
Re: No Free Will [Re: 4896744] * 1
    #15855315 -

I want him and frock to celebrity deathmatch it. One of their heads will explode or I want a refund.


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No Free Will [Re: Kickle]
    #15856433 -

Kickle said:
I want him and frock to celebrity deathmatch it. One of their heads will explode or I want a refund.


:lol:


--------------------
Live your Life! :heart:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No Free Will [Re: DieCommie]
    #15856438 -

DieCommie said:
Quote:
I would suggest that the only two things that can possibly go into decision making are your brain structure and past experiences.


But those are really the same thing right?  Past experiences are imprinted by configuring the brain structure.


Sorry, I missed this response. And yes, I agree with you. I find constructing an argument without any ambiguity in my language is pretty tough with this subject.


--------------------
Live your Life! :heart:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No Free Will [Re: 4896744] * 1
    #15856605 -

i stand by my statement that the brain and experience are the two sole causes of actions. Do you think the atoms making up a brain are no longer part of the brain because of quantum fluctuations?

I think the atoms of the brain are part of the brain, yes, but I don't think the indeterminacy is necessarily part of the brain. Nobody knows where it comes from and it may not be possible to know, not even in principle. It might be intrinsic to the atom (part of the brain), or it might be extrinsic (not part of the brain), or it might appear as a consequence of something inconceivable to human intuition (all bets are off). Nobody knows and so arbitrarily assigning it as an intrinsic property of the brain seems, well, arbitrary.

For example, a brain's decisions are a function of the inspired oxygen partial pressure and the temperature. If the oxygen concentration in the room you're in suddenly drops one percentage point, your decisions will be affected. Is the oxygen concentration part of your brain? I don't think it is any more than the indeterminacy is. Both are a third parameter that affects your brain. There are countless others too. I suppose you could call the PO2 a part of your experience, but I think that's reaching. It's a part of your environment. A 1% drop in the O2 fraction (or a 0.1 degree change in temperature) will not even be noticeable and so it's not a part of your experience. What you don't notice you don't experience even if it's actually affecting you.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No Free Will [Re: Diploid]
    #15856884 -

Diploid said:
I think the atoms of the brain are part of the brain, yes, but I don't think the indeterminacy is necessarily part of the brain. Nobody knows where it comes from and it may not be possible to know, not even in principle. It might be intrinsic to the atom (part of the brain), or it might be extrinsic (not part of the brain), or it might appear as a consequence of something inconceivable to human intuition (all bets are off). Nobody knows and so arbitrarily assigning it as an intrinsic property of the brain seems, well, arbitrary.

For example, a brain's decisions are a function of the inspired oxygen partial pressure and the temperature. If the oxygen concentration in the room you're in suddenly drops one percentage point, your decisions will be affected. Is the oxygen concentration part of your brain? I don't think it is any more than the indeterminacy is. Both are a third parameter that affects your brain. There are countless others too. I suppose you could call the PO2 a part of your experience, but I think that's reaching. It's a part of your environment. A 1% drop in the O2 fraction (or a 0.1 degree change in temperature) will not even be noticeable and so it's not a part of your experience. What you don't notice you don't experience even if it's actually affecting you.




Would quantum indeterminacy really have an effect on how neural networks function?

I mean in the way they do not have an effect on things at certain levels. Like a circuit, QI doesnt really affect the normal operation of switching a kettle on. Am I off the mark with this?

Also could it be said that if something is determined by randomness, it was still determined. It just means we can not predict things with 100% accuracy.

I think the free will debate is a waste of time because it begs the question; "How can you make decisions if your decisions are the product of deterministic (or even random) events"

But then, you are a product of those events. A decision is the processes in your brain. So it follows that you make decisions.

It all comes back to people thinking they are something other than what they are.

There is no proverbial ghost in the machine, you are the machine.


PS, I love this record.


--------------------
Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha
Tat Savitur Varenyam
Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi
Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No Free Will [Re: 4896744]
    #15857167 -

I will read all comments later, but as I see it, the brain offers structures and hormones to build an 'alternative' view of the world.
At least with puberty (hormones), one will try out to get away from common programming as from parents and society.
The frontal neo cortex also seems to play a large role in 'reflecting' our reality and so make it accessible for alternative alteration.
To become aware of alternate realities and possibilities, mainly offered through the structure of our brain, in evolution and individually, seems the beginning of free will, at least as far as I see.
Sorry if I repeated something already said.

edit:
Hehe, I see the discussion went another way.
I would add that there are many parts which form the whole. In our case the whole is our consciousness of our self.
Now there are two ways to approach 'randomness'. Either through randomization of the 'parts', yes maybe through quantum uncertainty things too, or through the complexity of a system with many influences itself. See like the weather and its predictability.
So with an enough complex system, the randomness seems just to be an outcome from the interaction of many interconnected subsystems.


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'

Edited by BlueCoyote (02/24/12 02:54 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No Free Will [Re: Desert Elf]
    #15857472 -

Would quantum indeterminacy really have an effect on how neural networks function?

I mean in the way they do not have an effect on things at certain levels. Like a circuit, QI doesnt really affect the normal operation of switching a kettle on.

It could. If you flip the switch enough times, eventually indeterminacy will cause it to do something unexpected, like turn the kettle into a pink elephant. Of course, it might take a trillion years of flipping the switch before such an extremely unlikely event will happen. But it COULD happen in principle. Ever hear of the Infinite Improbability Drive invented by Douglas Adams? :wink:

The only reason you don't see unexpected things happening in ordinary human experience is because the huge conglomeration of atoms involved all contribute a little push toward a very high probability that the switch will do what you expect it to. But the smaller the system you're considering becomes, the more prominent indeterminacy becomes. This is why quantum effects are generally only seen around the scale of an atom.

Getting back to the brain, the neural activity that constitutes a thought isn't a single event. It's a huge cascade of events, each one dependent on all the ones that came before. There's a butterfly effect kind of thing going on. The tiniest difference in the first event can cause a huge difference in the eventual outcome of the cascade.

Practically speaking, if I ask you to give me all your money, the odds are very high that you will refuse and the odds that QI will make you agree are extremely tiny. But if the decision is whether to have the fish or the chicken for lunch, I conjecture that "on-the-fence" decisions like those ARE influenced by QI because the butterfly effect amplifies any QI-mediated changes in the first instances of the neural cascade that leads ultimately to your decision to order fish for lunch.

Note that this is all conjecture. I may be full of shit. On the other hand, when it comes to determining if free-will exists or not, we're all full of shit, eh? :grin:

In case you're not aware of what the butterfly effect is, consider a frictionless billiard table such that when the first ball is struck, the collisions continue forever. Since every subsequent collision accumulates the effects of each previous collision, the tiniest error in your aim will cause a tiny error in the first collision. Then that tiny error causes a slightly larger error in the next collision, and so on. This amplification continues such that the tiny initial error causes a COMPLETELY different arrangement of the balls several collision generations later. The name Butterfly Effect comes from the idea that a butterfly flapping its wings in Africa will set into motion a billiard ball effect in the collision of air molecules and lead a year later to a catastrophic hurricane in Florida.

The butterfly effect is not hypothetical, BTW. It is why it's not possible (and probably never will be possible) to forecast the weather more than a week or so in advance. Weather forecasts are made by feeding a mathematical weather model the current state of the atmosphere as read by a bunch of weather stations. Then a computer crunches the numbers according to the model and turns out a result.

The initial input necessarily has inaccuracies because descrete weather stations can't acquire the state of every single molecule of air in order to feed it to the model. So in between stations there is a lot of atmosphere that is not being measured directly; it is interpolated instead. But any tiny difference between the atmospheric data fed to the model and the actual atmosphere gets amplified a-la butterfly effect. By the time the number crunching reaches a point a week or so into the future, the tiny initial errors have been amplified to the point of rendering the forecast useless. Edward Lorenz, the discoverer of the Lorenz Attractor of Chaos Theory was a meteorologist.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No Free Will [Re: Diploid]
    #15858191 -

Diploid said:
i stand by my statement that the brain and experience are the two sole causes of actions. Do you think the atoms making up a brain are no longer part of the brain because of quantum fluctuations?

I think the atoms of the brain are part of the brain, yes, but I don't think the indeterminacy is necessarily part of the brain. Nobody knows where it comes from and it may not be possible to know, not even in principle. It might be intrinsic to the atom (part of the brain), or it might be extrinsic (not part of the brain), or it might appear as a consequence of something inconceivable to human intuition (all bets are off). Nobody knows and so arbitrarily assigning it as an intrinsic property of the brain seems, well, arbitrary.

For example, a brain's decisions are a function of the inspired oxygen partial pressure and the temperature. If the oxygen concentration in the room you're in suddenly drops one percentage point, your decisions will be affected. Is the oxygen concentration part of your brain? I don't think it is any more than the indeterminacy is. Both are a third parameter that affects your brain. There are countless others too. I suppose you could call the PO2 a part of your experience, but I think that's reaching. It's a part of your environment. A 1% drop in the O2 fraction (or a 0.1 degree change in temperature) will not even be noticeable and so it's not a part of your experience. What you don't notice you don't experience even if it's actually affecting you.


I concede you point. I really have nowhere near the scientific knowledge that you, Johnm, DieCommie and some others have.

This being said, all of the things you mentioned are out of our control, so I think it still fits into my case even though my wording may be poor.


--------------------
Live your Life! :heart:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No Free Will [Re: Desert Elf]
    #15858239 -

Quote:
I think the free will debate is a waste of time because it begs the question; "How can you make decisions if your decisions are the product of deterministic (or even random) events"

But then, you are a product of those events. A decision is the processes in your brain. So it follows that you make decisions.


I agree, except that I believe the "free" in "free will" is misleading. It seems to me that calling it "will" is more accurate, for what is free about our will? Our will is just as fully chained to the universe as any other animal's. It seems to be the common thought that humans have free will, thus we are held responsible for our actions, but animals are excused because they "don't know any better" or don't have the capacity for "free will".


--------------------
Live your Life! :heart:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No Free Will [Re: 4896744] * 1
    #15858831 -

It could refer to the fact that we can make a decision based on knowledge about how things works. Or that our 'will' is free to be shaped into various personalities, sort of like we are free to adapt.

Obviously though, the conditions under which we adapt or form knowledge, is determined by forces we cannot control. Particularly when you include human error into the equation.

But such is our arrogance to believe what is is what we believe it to be. For instance, we believe we are struggling to survive or whatever, turns out there is no struggle other than what we think 'struggle' is. Very tired I can't even tell if what I am saying is logical.


Aside from the 'technical' argument on free will, I would also state humans in general are less free of will than other animals, in a way. Although abstract thought allows us to conceive of myriad ways to spend our lives, it seems we cannot complete escape our inhibitions. Our mind is good at reminding us of percieved consequence. Which is why when you get that sudden urge to shout or dance in public, you finally conclude that it would somehow not be worth the effort. even though it would probably not lead to any serious consequence.

It is the same thing that prevents you from fulfilling most of your desires. Its no big deal, but some things can be done just for their own sake. Without pre-emptive attacks from the rational mind.

But then the rational mind has one agenda, the intuitive mind just wants to see some titty. Sorry, that is a crude metaphor.


--------------------
Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha
Tat Savitur Varenyam
Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi
Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No Free Will [Re: Desert Elf]
    #15859378 -

Desert Elf said:
It could refer to the fact that we can make a decision based on knowledge about how things works. Or that our 'will' is free to be shaped into various personalities, sort of like we are free to adapt.

Obviously though, the conditions under which we adapt or form knowledge, is determined by forces we cannot control. Particularly when you include human error into the equation.

But such is our arrogance to believe what is is what we believe it to be. For instance, we believe we are struggling to survive or whatever, turns out there is no struggle other than what we think 'struggle' is. Very tired I can't even tell if what I am saying is logical.


Aside from the 'technical' argument on free will, I would also state humans in general are less free of will than other animals, in a way. Although abstract thought allows us to conceive of myriad ways to spend our lives, it seems we cannot complete escape our inhibitions. Our mind is good at reminding us of percieved consequence. Which is why when you get that sudden urge to shout or dance in public, you finally conclude that it would somehow not be worth the effort. even though it would probably not lead to any serious consequence.

It is the same thing that prevents you from fulfilling most of your desires. Its no big deal, but some things can be done just for their own sake. Without pre-emptive attacks from the rational mind.

But then the rational mind has one agenda, the intuitive mind just wants to see some titty. Sorry, that is a crude metaphor.


That's a nice take on things. :thumbup:


--------------------
Live your Life! :heart:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No Free Will [Re: 4896744]
    #15859483 -

I don't think there is any contradiction between determinism and free will. Laws of nature are just descriptions of how we view the world to behave, and we are part of the world. It's not that it exerts control over us against our will; it's that the laws of nature would not be a correct description of the world if they didn't take into account how we behave.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No Free Will [Re: NetDiver]
    #15859540 -

Samurai Drifter said:
I don't think there is any contradiction between determinism and free will. Laws of nature are just descriptions of how we view the world to behave, and we are part of the world. It's not that it exerts control over us against our will; it's that the laws of nature would not be a correct description of the world if they didn't take into account how we behave.


Isn't determined behavior more properly labeled as will? I don't understand the free part. If we want to label humans as having free will, then we should extend that label to all creatures capable of decision making.


--------------------
Live your Life! :heart:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No Free Will [Re: 4896744]
    #15874354 -

Yeah, I don't disagree with that. Who said free will was something unique to humans?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No Free Will [Re: Diploid]
    #15874472 -

So Diploid, is there really such a thing as randomness, or is it that the systems involved are tremendously too complex to be accurately predicted?

For quantum probabilities... is it a probability for the fact that we can only measure in terms of 'likelyhood' or is there such a thing as physical randomness?

I was always under the impression there was no real randomness, that every event had a cause, and that it is only because of our inability to measure all the factors that we then have to resort to probabilities.

Sort of like: When the weather man says there is 30% chance of rain, and it does rain, in actual fact there was always a 100% chance of rain, we just couldnt account for all the factors.

I have never liked the butterfly story, simply because it suggests the butterfly causes the storm. Obviously it would be more accurate to say that a butterfly flapping its wings  is a contributing factor in a complex system of events which eventually lead to the storm.... that doesn't really have the same impact.  :smile:


--------------------
Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha
Tat Savitur Varenyam
Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi
Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No Free Will [Re: 4896744]
    #15874541 -

iThink said:
Samurai Drifter said:
I don't think there is any contradiction between determinism and free will. Laws of nature are just descriptions of how we view the world to behave, and we are part of the world. It's not that it exerts control over us against our will; it's that the laws of nature would not be a correct description of the world if they didn't take into account how we behave.


Isn't determined behavior more properly labeled as will? I don't understand the free part. If we want to label humans as having free will, then we should extend that label to all creatures capable of decision making.


Think about it like this.... The universe's will (take that with a pinch of salt) determines all that occurs. Through the natural laws that govern all events throughout time. It's will (or determination, if you like) has led to the creation of us. Our identities are constructed by our surroundings, as is our ability to remember, use abstract thinking, and scrutinise events as they occur.

This is where something strange happens... Lets say the 'personality' becomes an object of will. By this I mean, events that happen in the world are directly decided by the shape of the personality.

For example, a large rock is due to collapse under gravity, however, the event has been scrutinised by a personality, which has then made the decision to build supports under the rock to prevent it falling. In a way, the will of the personality construct trumps the will of the natural flow of events.

Of course, the personality is a construct of the 'greater' will, or rather, the same will that governs all things. As a result, the will of each individual is in fact, the will of the universe. But when we talk about 'our will' we refer to the fact that we identify with this particular construct as our own.

Back to the point about our will being 'free.'

To me it seems mostly to refer to our ability to use abstract thought. Simply because it 'feels' like we are drawing upon large sums of information when we make decision. Which we are, although it can be argued you only have what information you are 'constructed' with. Then go back to what I said earlier, we identify with that construct as ourselves. So in referring to ourselves we are simultaneously referring to one of the universe's constructs....

To sum up: Even though your personality, and various mental capabilities, are the product of your surroundings, no less do you identify with those constructs as 'yourself.'


--------------------
Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha
Tat Savitur Varenyam
Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi
Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No Free Will [Re: Desert Elf]
    #15874762 -

On this issue, you'll necessarily be in one of two camps...

If you believe a God, higher power, or metaphysical force of any kind in the universe, then you can at least have a framework for addressing the free will discussion.

However, if you're a materialist, and believe that everything that exists is material in nature, then the free will question isn't coherent in your belief system. For you, talking about a will is essentially just an antiquated term referring to what can essentially be reduced to some complex chemical reaction -- which can even further be reduced to atoms and how they behave according to the laws of physics.

So ultimately, when you're asking whether or not this chemical reaction that you're calling a "will" is "free"... what are you asking? free of what? free from the laws of nature? that doesn't make sense according to your belief structure. There are atoms, and there are the ways in which those atoms behave -- which we call laws of physics. Freedom doesn't enter the equation.

What I'm getting at is -- this is a religious debate, not a scientific one. Free will is only coherent in a theistic worldview. The word "will" refers to the human mind, which is metaphysically distinct from the human brain. If you're an atheist/materialist -- there's no such thing as a will, so talking about whether it's free or not is a moot point.

EDIT: this is a clip from Waking Life, one of my favorite clips from one of my favorite films. It's pertinent.

Edited by saintphotios (02/28/12 07:26 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No Free Will [Re: saintphotios]
    #15874830 -

Boy, where do I start..... that post was so fallacious.

False dichotomy to begin with. Then it just gets worse.


How does believing in god give you a 'framework' to address this discussion?

Oh yes, because if you don't understand something you can just say "god magic" and that makes it all better.

By definition, something is material in nature if it exists. Which is why god is not material in nature... go figure.

Will is will. Will is what ultimately will because it is the ultimate will. Which is why you cannot do anything you dont have the will to do.

This is not a religious debate, it isnt even a debate. It is a discussion.

The word "will" refers to the human mind, which is metaphysically distinct from the human brain. If you're an atheist/materialist -- there's no such thing as a will, so talking about whether it's free or not is a moot point

Oh really?

wait for it....


--------------------
Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha
Tat Savitur Varenyam
Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi
Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No Free Will [Re: Desert Elf]
    #15874862 -

Quote:
How does believing in god give you a 'framework' to address this discussion?


That question doesn't make sense. A framework isn't given. Either talking about a will is coherent according to your worldview or it isn't. If you're a materialist, atheist, or really belong to any school of thought that claims all existence is purely physical, then it isn't coherent within your worldview... in this case, the human "will" was a property what's known in metaphysics as the "mind"... if you're an atheist for instance, you don't believe in the mind, you believe the brain. Metaphysicists believe in both. You may still use the term in passing, but what you're really referring to is the brain.

Quote:
Oh yes, because if you don't understand something you can just say "god magic" and that makes it all better.


:facepalm:

Quote:
By definition, something is material in nature if it exists. Which is why god is not material in nature... go figure.


No, by definition, something is material if it's composed of matter. But in the context I used it (and as it's used in philosophy), that would include all things physical. But I would agree that God, by most definition, is not material.

Quote:
Will is will. Will is what ultimately will because it is the ultimate will. Which is why you cannot do anything you dont have the will to do.


I think you're missing my point. A will is an aspect of a mind. The mind is not physical. The mind is metaphysical. Brains don't have wills, they have atoms and chemical reactions. Theists are dualists, and historically believe in both brains and minds -- atheists do not. That was my point.

Quote:
This is not a religious debate, it isnt even a debate. It is a discussion.


I meant the overall ongoing free-will/determinism debate... not this particular thread.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No Free Will [Re: saintphotios]
    #15874902 -

saintphotios said:
if you're an atheist for instance, you don't believe in the mind, you believe the brain. Metaphysicists believe in both.


Incorrect. Just like everything else you just said.

Once more.. how does believing in god give you a framework to address this discussion? The word 'give' is used correctly in this sentence... but I will translate for you:

How is it that if you believe in god you have a framework for ...

What is this framework exactly?


--------------------
Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha
Tat Savitur Varenyam
Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi
Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* from a scientific materialist perspective, can life have real meaning? Deviate 1,481 18 09/06/05 10:32 AM
by crunchytoast
* How could atoms have not been designed?
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Psiledehysp 4,296 73 09/10/05 06:37 PM
by Diploid
* Closed Minded Materialists/Atheists pissing me off
( 1 2 3 all )		 Divided_Sky 3,977 49 09/24/05 04:22 PM
by Asante
* free PARANORMAL/AFTERLIFE ebook: Please Review AsanteM 1,736 7 04/08/08 08:12 PM
by lifemeaning93
* Free will is bullshit.
( 1 2 3 4 ... 19 20 )		 Phluck 36,413 380 01/16/07 06:57 PM
by Brugman
* Im Back!!! and still convinced free will is an illusion ;)
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )		 ZenGecko 17,413 148 04/23/07 12:22 AM
by PhanTomCat
* A Sound Argument for Free Will shroomydan 3,001 17 10/11/04 10:21 PM
by deff
* objectivism on free will Deviate 824 3 12/16/05 07:33 AM
by Seuss

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
4,746 topic views. 0 members, 3 guests and 22 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 16 queries.