 |
| |
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Park Avenue
That sounds strictly deterministic, a notion that quantum experiments have thrown in the bin. |
Actually no. Steven Hawking has been quoted that he believes in determinism. Not because the future has already been decided, but because humans, when you put them in exactly the same position, will do exactly the same thing. Sure, it's chaotic, so a tiny difference in position could mean any size of difference in consequence, but in exactly the same position there would be no difference. If you knew the exact location and velocity of every particle, then you would be able to predict the movement of everything. Sure, it's impossible to know that, due to uncertainty principle, but the fact that if you were to know it, you could predict the future, means the future cannot change. Therefore, while the future is determined, in that we cannot alter it, as what we will choose in every situation will be what we choose, and we won't deviate from that, it is impossible to know the future. While it's deterministic, we can never know what it is that is determined, so in reality it has no practical use.
Also, you may want to read something on complexity theory. Bits of that suggest determinism, because as things can be chaotic on one level (such as the behavior of an individual human) they can be predictable on a higher level (such as the behaviour of humanity, as a whole). Just because quantum experiments are chaotic (which does not rule out determinism, just the ability to predict) does not mean that their effects on a larger scale are not predictable. They can be - "order for free".
Last edited by Drogue on 27-01-2004 at 18:32
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Park Avenue
|
 |
Liberal and defender of freedoms for the people
Oct 1999
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
If you knew the exact location and velocity of every particle, then you would be able to predict the movement of everything. Sure, it's impossible to know that, due to uncertainty principle, but the fact that if you were to know it, you could predict the future, means the future cannot change. |
Even if you did have all the information of every particle, you still couldn't predict the future.
At the very small level, outcomes are probabilistic.
A good few years back, I remember following the determinism theory. Now I don't because of this probabilistic nature and the following;
quote:
Newtonian physics introduced the idea that the universe was made up of a mass of individual particles obeying fixed laws which absolutely determined the motion of each one. In principle, once the state of the universe was known at any one instant, then its state at all other times could be determined. At face value, there seemed no room for novelty, free will, or creativity. The aim of Newtonian Dynamics was to predict exactly what would happen, in numerical terms. The systems regarded as typical of the nature of the universe were those where explicit mathematical prediction was possible, such as the pendulum and the system consisting of a single planet in orbit round a star.
Two things changed this: quantum theory and dynamical systems theory .Quantum theory revealed that, at least on the very small scale, things did not happen predictably. Imagine, for instance, the case of a beam of light passing through the lens of a pair of polaroid sunglasses. On a large scale, it seems as though the beam of light is predictably dimmed. On a small scale, however, the light is found to be made up of particles (called photons) each of which either goes through the lens unchanged, or does not get through at all, at random.
In this particular case, random behaviour on a small scale averages out to deterministic behaviour on a large scale. But it need not be like that. Imagine a stream of water flowing over a weir. The slightest change in the water at the top of the weir gets magnified more and more and the water goes down, becoming a large change when it reaches the bottom. A dynamical system with this property is called dynamically unstable. People sometimes talk about the butterfly effect, in which a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a hurricane over India in two weeks time. If now one combines quantum theory with an unstable dynamical system, the random behaviour at a very small scale gets magnified to give a random behaviour of the whole system. Since most dynamical systems are in places unstable, this means that most of the universe is unpredictable.
An unpredictable universe is open to new things breaking in at every moment. Creativity and the action of free will now become possible. |
http://www.greenspirit.org.uk/resou...oryandChaos.htm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Enigma_Nova
|
|
The Self is illusory ergo self-direction (i.e. free will) is illusory.
Choices exist in the realm of beliefs and opinions, not in reality.
Disjoint as I see these worlds to be, one can have a completely predetermined reality yet still have 'choice' since it is a belief, not a reality.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Park Avenue
At the very small level, outcomes are probabilistic.
Yes, on a small scale. On a large scale, they are not. Sure, you'd need an adaptive system to do it, but a probabalistic nature on a very small level can lead to a definate effect on a higher level. |
quote:
random behaviour on a small scale averages out to deterministic behaviour on a large scale. |
However that article will soon be superceeded. The things is says are not random, they are chaotic. Sure, that has much the same effect: they are completely unpredictable, but that is because of uncertainty principle. We can never know down to an exact enough level to predict chaotic things, because any change at all makes them react completely differently. However if there is no change at all, then they will act the same. Now, since life only happens one, since this moment in time will not happen again, it is exactly the same as itself. Therefore it will happen exactly the same as itself. If something, going from this position in time, happens the same as itself, then that is the only way it can happen. If this exact moment were to happen again, at this point in time, say as a paralell universe, exactly the same thing would happen. For something to be different, even if it's chaotic, there needs to be some change. If there isn't, it will happen the same way, the only way it can happen. Hence, while we cannot predict it, we cannot change the future.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
Because the concept of the self, the idea that we, as humans, have some special conciousness beyond our simple chemical states seems laughable, to me. We think because of chemicals and neurons in the brain. Any romantic idea of free will seems wrong to me. It's just my opinion, as what Enigma posted was just his, but IMHO it is the only way it can be.
I don't usually argue about free will, because I find it very hard to explain what I mean. However I consider determinism as true to me as evolution is. Sure, it is just a theory, but I consider it as fact, due to the fact it is the only thing that seems logically consistant and plausable.
I really would recommend you to read about Complexity Theory (Complexity by Roger Lewin is good, IMHO) because it explains far better some of the ideas, and it makes you realise a few things, how things fit together. Eye opening IMHO 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Park Avenue
|
|
Liberal and defender of freedoms for the people
Oct 1999
time: 05:33
|
|
"We think because of chemicals and neurons in the brain."
I disagree. You need to expand on this point.
"Because the concept of the self, the idea that we, as humans, have some special conciousness beyond our simple chemical states seems laughable, to me. "
Look around you. Look at the different colours. Explain those colours in an objective way. You can't. It's impossible - you need to consider subjectivity, the privacy of information (ie, colours). Only "you" know what you are seeing and feeling - the universe outside does not have this information.
I really dislike the way science based on Descartes and then Newton still holds in aspects of brain and sense theory. There have been some advancements recognising the importance of observers in this universe, yet we're still clinging to outdated theories of the brain as a simple accumulation of chemicals and electrical pulses.
It seems to me like the scientist's version of faith: clinging to an idea of matter-above-all, merely because there isn't a decent, plausible alternative.
Sorry for the pun, but I'll keep an open mind. All I can say is that I strongly disagree with the way your theory of the brain really doesn't do justice to the amazing thing that is consciousness.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
I agree completely on the subjectivity. We are subjective because of the way our brains interpret the world around us.
The brain is how we think, and the brain is a physical entity. That is where my chemical and neuron statement came from. I don't think there is a soul, or any non-coporeal part of a human. It's not just their isn't a plausable alternative, it's that this works, it is logical, consistant and plausable. Only we know what we are seeing, because inly we interpret the world the way that we see it.
Faith is clinging to something without evidence, which is what you seem to be doing. You seem to be convinced that their is a non-coporeal part of a human.
Conciousness is nothing special. It is just us, it has no meaning, no purpose, it just is, like everything else. Sure, it's quite amazing the chemicals and probabilities involved, but nature's had millions of years to do it.
We are concious, we do interpret things, we are subjective. I never tried to explain them in an objecive way. But that doesn't stop us being physical and chemical states. I don't think life has a purpose, or a reason, I think it just is a chemical reaction that has grown over millions of years. It's complex, but I wouldn't call it special. It just is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Actually no. Steven Harking has been quoted that he believes in determinism. Not because the future has already been decided, but because humans, when you put them in exactly the same position, will do exactly the same thing. Sure, it's chaotic, so a tiny difference in position could mean any size of difference in consequence, but in exactly the same position there would be no difference.
|
 Absolutely correct.
Quantum effects only play a role when we are dealing with very big numbers. In other words, given the same situation, it is highly probably that we would do the same thing. Given that same universe (same history), there is a slight chance, as good as infinitesimal chance that it will be different.
Of course that chance will result in that universe diverging as per sum over histories.
Let me put the issue of determinism this way. My past has conspired to create me. The events, no matter how improbably, have created me, and will continue to define my future. That is my view of the past and a god's eye view of my life (just the view, I don't believe in god). As far as I know, my own subjective view, the future is something that I determine by my own choices and those of others, and other confounding variables. That does not change the "objective" fact that my life is deterministic. That's just the relativist view on this matter.
In other words, the notion of free will comes from our own subjectivity. That does not change the fact that our current choices are influenced by our past and the present.
Put it this way, for all intents and purposes, we can ignore quantum physics in relation to human determinism. That only comes in when we deal with issues of time travel and superlumial velocities.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
Traditional approach? Complexity was written in 2002. Most of the essays I've read, on free will, bounded rationality, complexity, and the idea of conciousness, are 2003 papers (many from the Santa Fe institute, but a few written by Princeton and Oxford post-grads/lecturers). I can't remember when Universality (another book based on fractals, and how their patterns mirror things in life, such as brainwaves) was written, but I haven't finished that yet anyway.
So no, this is not traditional stuff. Sure, it agrees with Sartre, but it also agrees with much of common thought on it. As I said, the determinism happens to be Steven Hawking's opinion too, that it the future cannot change.
Last edited by Drogue on 27-01-2004 at 18:32
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Park Avenue
Another point I couldn't find the right words for earlier. You are still using objective, third-person accounts to describe (subjective) brain activity, ie talking of neurons etc.
What is it in your materialist view of consciousness that provides "qualia" such as colours, feelings, etc. |
It isnt objective, as I've said. Sure, I'm explaining it in terms of objective physical measures, but as I said, since everyone's brain interprets the world differently, we are all subjective. That is where colours come from. They exist, as an objective, in the physical world, but everyone interprets them themselves, hence the subjective.
Brain activity is electrical impulses, chemicals, neurons, the physical brain itself. That is physical, but due to the way it works, the fact that it is all interpreting the world, it is subjective. What possibly evidence, even an inclination or a theory, have you got that there is a seperate 'soul'. A non-coporeal part of us that makes us concious? WHere do your arguments come from?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
With that reasoning, I would conclude that I am the only conscious individual since I can't possibly know if anyone else is.
|
No, that would be a literal interpretation of Platonic idealism (which is a bad idea). Brain in vats etc.
quote:
I think we're coming from wildly different backgrounds - I've read a lot about the newer views on this, and you seem to be coming from the more traditional approach.
|
I'll stick with plain old postmodernism thankyou very much. Quite simple consciousness is such a flawed term, since it is merely an amalgamation of certain senses, which causes qualia. Our perception of that is the field, and I dare say, the holy grail of neuroscience rather than philosophy, and I am not qualified to go into that further. However, since it is reduced to a notion of biological computer science (to which we are subject which is why we think we are), we can safely eliminate any absolute "soul" that would seem a precurser to free will in any but the limit situations I have described it.
However, since it is I, the subject of biological computer science, we are faced with a dillemma. THe biology talking or "me". I say the sum of my parts. Therefore, the old axiom holds: "There are only thoughts", is the furthest we can reduce philosophy.
You would be well off to read this article on Ektopos (a philosophy site I am a member of (BenElijah)). http://www.ektopos.com/modules.php?...rticle&sid=1011
Note that there are many areas where I disagree with Colin McGinn.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-01-2004 13:03
|