Thread: Purgatory: Ted Peters On Genetic Determinism & Free Will Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001094
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
I went to a lecture last night on Genetic Determinism and Free Will given by Ted Peters. I agreed with his central thesis that it makes sense to break down human behavior as being caused or "determined" by three factors:


He was questioned closely afterwards by his definition of "self" and he said that he preferred not to define it but simply to say that his observation of people freely interacting with one another is that they seem to do so on the basis of their own choices and decisions. Didn't we all agree?

I observed that centuries ago the presumption was that all of human behavior was completely under free control of a "soul" and that even in his current picture the soul has shrunk to a self that is constrained by two significant factors: genes and environment. What of subconscious motivations, I asked? Is it not possible that as knowledge increases the "self" and with it the "soul" will shrink? It was such a Ship-like moment.

He responded that he firmly believed that with time the self will grow and expand because people do not want to be constrained; they want to be free, and they see that science is too quickly dismissing the free self. I will confess that the rest of what he said came across as "yadda, yadda, yadda." I think his argument is a tautology introduced by his implicit definition of self: everyone knows that everyone has a free self so everyone is free.

I prefer to be up front and say that as humans we perceive each other to have "Selfs" that are choice-making entities. As humans, we really can't interact with each other except to assume we have choicemaking ability. Even if we are fully determined, at this point in time we do not know exactly how the determination works. I suppose if you demonstrate full knowledge of every determinant of human behavior by building a human being, giving them a physical and social environment, correctly predicting their every move and every word, perhaps we would have serious rethinking to do. Until then, it seems that we must accept that our perception of freedom is real. My real question is this: isn't that day coming? Have we not already started on that path, by recognizing at least two very major restraints on our freedom, namely genes and environment? Who is to say that at some future time it will not be known exactly how it is that human behavior emerges from genes building a brain that interacts with its physical environment to build a mind interacting with a social and cultural environment that build a network of selves that interact with one another in predictable ways? Certainly Mr. Peters' statement that it will not happen because people don't want it to happen seems false to me.

[ 07. December 2003, 19:23: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 
Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
quote:
Thus pontificated JimT:
I went to a lecture last night on Genetic Determinism and Free Will given by Ted Peters. blah blah blah
Takes up hostly Bible and brandishes it

Who cares what Ted Peters says? The new Purgatory rule, which I made up, says we proclaim what The Bible Says™.

JimT, you will use the magic Biblical™ words or be burnt at the stake.... Or, even worse, be declared a Liberal™. [Snigger]

Puts down hostly Bible
 
Posted by markporter (# 4276) on :
 
quote:
My real question is this: isn't that day coming? Have we not already started on that path, by recognizing at least two very major restraints on our freedom, namely genes and environment?
no, I don't think that day is ever going to come, we have always recognised influences on what people do, but nevertheless an influence is not fully determining.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally babbled by JimT:
He responded that he firmly believed that with time the self will grow and expand
If by self he means "everything other than genes and environment" then I think in many cases he's right. As we mature I would expect most people to take control of their environment and learn to control their genetic disposition (or alternatively consciously decide to let parts of those impulses take control ... which is, I'd say, equally an act of self).
 
Posted by Timothy (# 292) on :
 
Well, I'd say that from a pragmatic point of view determinism is a trivial hypothesis, since it has no implications for action. I can accept that your behavior is all determined, and maybe be more tolerant of your obnoxiousness as a result, but it's subjectively impossible for me to regard my own behvior as determined.

If I did decide that all my actions (including the act of believing in determinism) were fully determined by my heredity and environment, what would I do about it? I still have to decide what to have for breakfast...or whether to get out of bed at all, probably not a good idea in a deterministic universe...not that I have anything to say about it....

Timothy
 
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
I observed that centuries ago the presumption was that all of human behavior was completely under free control of a "soul"
Isn't that simplifying things a bit?
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Even if we are fully determined, at this point in time we do not know exactly how the determination works. I suppose if you demonstrate full knowledge of every determinant of human behavior by building a human being, giving them a physical and social environment, correctly predicting their every move and every word, perhaps we would have serious rethinking to do. Until then, it seems that we must accept that our perception of freedom is real.
There are non-linear systems, for which identical inputs will yield different outputs. Such systems are best described probabilistically. I'm not sure that means an electron, for example, has freedom, however.
What do you mean by "fully determined"?
 
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
Guys, I thought I should warn you that the hosts are closings threads at random that they deem boring. Just an FYI.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
Recognizing that The Bible Says™ "His eye is on the sparrow..." and ignoring it for the purpose of continued discussion,

To address the easy points first, yes Ley Druid my picture of the soul as "free" in the past is simplistic. What I meant was that Ted said he was proposing "three part determinism" with the three parts being genes, environment, and self. I only meant to say that if he were a theologian of many centuries ago he would likely have proposed something closer to "one part determinism": the soul. To be sure, the ancients knew about other influences of "blood" that we might call genes, and had some notion of circumstance controlling or influencing behavior as well. But I think their picture of how free we are was larger than we now have. For instance, I think they thought that anyone who tried hard enough could become a scholar and great thinker.

For Alan, I think that Ted was clearly saying that cultural views of the self would expand in the future, not that individuals tend to see their own self expanding as they age. His view is that most people have bought into the myth that genes are a blueprint that control everything. He talked a lot about court cases where someone was found innocent of a crime because they have a genetic disorder that predisposes them to violence. He equated this with the courts saying that "the genes committed the crime and not the person." So I heard him saying to me that the pendulum would swing back. Curiously, he made no mention of racism or anti-racism when he said that people have bought into the myth of genetic determinism.

For Timothy, I understand what you are saying about humans being by their very nature choice-makers, but there are implications for guilt, shame, and punishment for wrongdoing that should be addressed. For example, children were once beaten for doing poorly in school in the hope that the punishment would make them try harder and succeed. We now think of different kinds of intelligence and different limits for intelligence, but we only encourage children to do their best we don't beat them when they fall short of standards.

Ley Druid, what I meant by "fully determined" is 100% predictable, in the way that instinctive insect behavior looks like to us. We can predict exactly how many times they will spin and turn as they make webs and nests, how they wiggle and waggle to communicate distance and direction to food, etc. They do not appear to be making choices, but behaving ritualistically. If you could get to the point where you always knew what I was going to say and do under any circumstance, from your perspective my behavior is "fully determined" in the way that I say insect behavior appears to be "fully determined." I think in the future there will be greater ability to predict individuals' behavior and a greater ability to make people aware of how their own choice-making works. Still, I see them as "free" in the sense of "not under compulsion of civil law or physical threat" and responsible for their actions.
 
Posted by golden key (# 1468) on :
 
(crusading)

Tags JimT for the Dances of Universal Peace!
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :
 
quote:
Originally babbled by golden key:
(crusading)

Tags JimT for the Dances of Universal Peace!
Lifts Hostly Wig from wigstand
You forgot to thank God for lawyers. No reference to the Bible either.

Down you go to the Infernal Regions, in accordance with m'learned friend Tortuf's first edict, where I decree that you must insult Darth Sine Nomine or better still, Darth tomb.
Returns Hostly Wig to wigstand
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally babbled by JimT:
For Alan, I think that Ted was clearly saying that cultural views of the self would expand in the future, not that individuals tend to see their own self expanding as they age. His view is that most people have bought into the myth that genes are a blueprint that control everything.
I see what you, or Ted, are saying. I certainly think that the self is culturally neglected in the sense that he suggests. Everyone has heard of nature/nuture questions, often addressed in movies (which, after all, are among the most significant cultural indicators in western countries). For example, I was recently watching Star Trek Nemesis in which Picard encounters a clone of his younger self, the story revolves around (genetic) similarities and (environmental) differences between the two but there is no real consideration of either of them being able to do anything other than what their genes & upbringing directed them to do. Maybe the self exerting itself against nature and nurture doesn't make good movies, but it seems to be rare in such cultural media.

Though, I would say that the signs of the pendulum swinging the other way are there. Quite a lot of New Age spirituality seems to be related to the self over nature or nurture - possibly coming from counter cultural movements of the recent past. Maybe Ted is optomistic in saying that the self is becoming more recognised culturally, but I hope so.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally babbled by Alt Wally:
Guys, I thought I should warn you that the hosts are closings threads at random that they deem boring. Just an FYI.
Well, then this interesting little thread should be safe then. I'm not sure how anyone could consider it boring.
 
Posted by markporter (# 4276) on :
 
quote:
Originally babbled by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally babbled by Alt Wally:
Guys, I thought I should warn you that the hosts are closings threads at random that they deem boring. Just an FYI.
Well, then this interesting little thread should be safe then. I'm not sure how anyone could consider it boring.
I don't know....some of these hosts seem to have very strange ideas at the moment.
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :
 
quote:
Originally babbled by markporter:
quote:
Originally babbled by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally babbled by Alt Wally:
Guys, I thought I should warn you that the hosts are closings threads at random that they deem boring. Just an FYI.
Well, then this interesting little thread should be safe then. I'm not sure how anyone could consider it boring.
I don't know....some of these hosts seem to have very strange ideas at the moment.
Hostly echo...
I heard that.
Hostly echo fades into middle distance
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally babbled by JimT:
To be sure, the ancients knew about other influences of "blood" that we might call genes, and had some notion of circumstance controlling or influencing behavior as well. But I think their picture of how free we are was larger than we now have. For instance, I think they thought that anyone who tried hard enough could become a scholar and great thinker.
Depends who you mean by "ancients", but in the main thrust of classical (Greek, Roman) and early mediaeval literature this is exactly wrong.

People were seen as playing out their innate character in the circumstances in which they found themelves - conceptually identical to the "genetic determinism" so popular nowadays among those who don't understand genetics.

It's a cliche (and of course an oversimplification) that ancient literature character was revealed in action, in modern literature it is supposedly developed by action.

Of course this makes Augustine's Confessions the first major work of modern European literature - which I'm happy to go along with [Smile]

quote:

His view is that most people have bought into the myth that genes are a blueprint that control everything. He talked a lot about court cases where someone was found innocent of a crime because they have a genetic disorder that predisposes them to violence. He equated this with the courts saying that "the genes committed the crime and not the person."
Well some ignorant people go for that. But I hope it isn't the prevailing view. Because of course it is completely the opposite of what we learn form genetics.

quote:

Curiously, he made no mention of racism or anti-racism when he said that people have bought into the myth of genetic determinism.
Why curious? What have races got to do with genes?

quote:

Ley Druid, what I meant by "fully determined" is 100% predictable, in the way that instinctive insect behavior looks like to us. We can predict exactly how many times they will spin and turn as they make webs and nests, how they wiggle and waggle to communicate distance and direction to food, etc.
We now know mammals don't work like that - once upon a time we hoped it, now we know it.

Our brain wiring is not determined by genes, there is no "blueprint" hiding in the genome. If you use one bit of your brain more, it grows more connections.

Of course this "genetic determinism" is a completely different use fo the word "determinism" from the old clockwork universe idea, the notion that if someone (God?) could know the full state of the universe at any point in time then they could in principle calculate what happens next.
That became untenable sometime between Maxwell and Heisenberg (with a nod to Godel).

Genetics amplifies inherent indeterminacy - it is a way in which microscopic molecular events have macroscopic consequences.

The universe described by recent science (i.e. since about 1900) is one in which Netownian mechanical determinacy cannot work.

(So take that! O Philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment!)

Of course that is a different meaning of "determined" yet again from the cosmic one we'd be using when we say that the course of events is known to God and predestine by God. Which is of course the only sensible position for a Bible-believing Christian - because the Bible says that God has written our names in the book of life and knew us from before creation.

The eternal and almighty creator God, outside and logicaly prior to the frame of reference of the universe in which we live, can know the entiure of history, and predestine whatever he likes, without any suggestion of physical or chemical or mechanical determinism, or any reduction in the free will of the creature - in fact creatures only have free will in that they are delegated it by the creator, our free will consists entirely in respect paid to our wishes by omnipotent God, out of his love for us.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally babbled by ken:
The eternal and almighty creator God, outside and logicaly prior to the frame of reference of the universe in which we live, can know the entiure of history, and predestine whatever he likes, without any suggestion of physical or chemical or mechanical determinism, or any reduction in the free will of the creature - in fact creatures only have free will in that they are delegated it by the creator, our free will consists entirely in respect paid to our wishes by omnipotent God, out of his love for us.
Is there not a sense in which a controlling predestining God such as that portrayed in charicatures of Calvinist belief is, with the "genes, environment, self" division in Jims OP effectively part of the environment (and, possibly, genes if you think he might tinker with genetic evolution) - I'm not sure it matters whether such involvement is discernable or not.

Of course, the ancients (also to an extent a charicature) seemed to be able to say that certain actions were controlled by the gods in a manner that would possibly be in the environmental compartment.
 
Posted by markporter (# 4276) on :
 
quote:
Originally babbled by Duo Seraphim:
quote:
Originally babbled by markporter:
quote:
Originally babbled by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally babbled by Alt Wally:
Guys, I thought I should warn you that the hosts are closings threads at random that they deem boring. Just an FYI.
Well, then this interesting little thread should be safe then. I'm not sure how anyone could consider it boring.
I don't know....some of these hosts seem to have very strange ideas at the moment.
Hostly echo...
I heard that.
Hostly echo fades into middle distance
eek....grovels before the immense presence of hostliness....please don't do anything nasty to me.
 
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
quote:
Originally babbled by ken:
The universe described by recent science (i.e. since about 1900) is one in which Netownian mechanical determinacy cannot work.
I agree, but it is curious that others, scientists included, seem to argue otherwise.
I think this has to do with the underdeterminedness of any theory, which brings me back to the theory of free-will and choice and all that.
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy:
Well, I'd say that from a pragmatic point of view determinism is a trivial hypothesis, since it has no implications for action.
Though forcefully written, this appears to be predicated on the false dichotomy of action/innaction. If I define determinism in a probabilitisc way, I think I could quite easily and consistently anticipate and explain people's actions without invoking concepts like free will or choice, and at the same time I wouldn't have to claim to be God and know exactly what people were going to do next, only make educated guesses as to the probability of a certain action.
 
Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
wakes up from hostly snoring

O.K. I'm bored. Plus there's not enough Bible in here. [Mad] Let's see if a trip to Hell livens this thread up. [Snigger]

BOOT!
 
Posted by markporter (# 4276) on :
 
quote:
The universe described by recent science (i.e. since about 1900) is one in which Netownian mechanical determinacy cannot work
well perhaps, but we can't rule determinism out altogether, it is still possible that the universe is deterministic Bohmian Mechanics would be one example of how scientist try to find deterministic interpretations of the world
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally babbled by markporter:
Bohmian Mechanics would be one example of how scientist try to find deterministic interpretations of the world
The trouble with the Bohmian interpretation is that there are only about six people who understand it and we keep them in our attic.

(That last bit is in fact true - David Bohm used to work at Birkbeck College where I am now & when the Physics department closed for various reasons what was left of his research group carried on, in offices on the floor above the highest floor the lift goes to!)
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The other problem with the Bohmian interpretation is experimental investigation of it - the predicted effects of this interpretation are indistinguishable from the Copenhagen interpretation or the experiment required impossible to do with current technology. By not requiring any hidden variables the Copenhagen interpretation is more complete, and is highly successful ... it just happens to be probalistic rather than deterministic which still presents philosophical problems for those who believe "God does not play dice".
 
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
quote:
Originally babbled by Alan Cresswell:
...it just happens to be probalistic rather than deterministic which still presents philosophical problems for those who believe "God does not play dice".
Who believes that?
Uncle Al has been dead for a long time and those words, in context, we're hardly his most inspired or inspiring.

[ 23. October 2003, 17:37: Message edited by: Ley Druid ]
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
quote:
Originally babbled by MarkthePunk:
wakes up from hostly snoring

O.K. I'm bored. Plus there's not enough Bible in here. [Mad] Let's see if a trip to Hell livens this thread up. [Snigger]

BOOT!
Gee, thanks a lot.

Nope, still pretty boring. Of course I just scanned the posts since there's no chance I would understand them. I never understand anything Dr. Cresswell says.

But you may all rest assured that the highly educated regular host, Dr. RooK is reading every word.
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally babbled by MarkthePunk:
Who cares what Ted Peters says? The new Purgatory rule, which I made up, says we proclaim what The Bible Says™.

JimT, you will use the magic Biblical™ words or be burnt at the stake.... Or, even worse, be declared a Liberal™. [Snigger]

Puts down hostly Bible
Mark, Mark, Mark. I see they have neglected to teach you something in Temptor--sorry, I mean--Fundamentalist School. If you truly, truly have a love for mankind, you will stop using the brand Liberal™ and start lighting those faggots? Can't you just see the eternal joy as the sinner's arse is licked?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
quote:
Originally babbled by Alan Cresswell:
...it just happens to be probalistic rather than deterministic which still presents philosophical problems for those who believe "God does not play dice".
Who believes that?
Uncle Al has been dead for a long time and those words, in context, we're hardly his most inspired or inspiring.
Well, anyone who accepts Bohmian mechanics, or other hidden variable approaches to quantum mechanics, are saying that a quantum event is fully determined by the initial state and the mathematics of the propogation of the wave function. That is, that the probalistic nature of quantum events in the Copenhagen interpretation is an apparent indeterminancy, the event is determined but with a component that is hidden from our ability to determine (hence "hidden variable" as the generic name for such interpretations). Which is precisely what Einstein meant when he made his famous statement. I personally know of no living physicists who hold anything other than the Copenhagen Interpretation, though I don't deny there are some in the attic of kens place.

For classical physicists (of which Einstein was probably the last great example of - even though he was, ironically, one of the founders of quantum theory) the concept of an indeterminate universe was philosophically unappealing, and even now students coming up from a background of Newtonian mechanics still struggle with the implications of quantum mechanical indeterminancy. However, for philosophers the breaking of the constraints of the Newtonian clockwork universe actually liberated the possibility of free will being actually genuinely free rather than merely apparent. Perhaps it was such a move that heralded the cultural re-emergence of the self that Ted Peters has suggested.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Additional unrelated comment. I'm wondering whether these fly-by-night so-called hosts got the priority email from Erin regarding the moving of threads. Several threads perfectly at home in Purgatory seem to have been arbitarily moved which is going to keep someone busy putting everything back where they belong.
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
Zzzzzz......

Sorry, back atcha, Mr. Punk.

Hold on as we fly through time and space with Uncle Al...
 
Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
Heyyyyyyy!

Sine, you back-stabbing bastard! [Mad]
 
Posted by Mr Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by JimT:

quote:
To address the easy points first, yes Ley Druid my picture of the soul as "free" in the past is simplistic. What I meant was that Ted said he was proposing "three part determinism" with the three parts being genes, environment, and self. I only meant to say that if he were a theologian of many centuries ago he would likely have proposed something closer to "one part determinism": the soul. To be sure, the ancients knew about other influences of "blood" that we might call genes, and had some notion of circumstance controlling or influencing behavior as well. But I think their picture of how free we are was larger than we now have. For instance, I think they thought that anyone who tried hard enough could become a scholar and great thinker.
Really? Depends of course, who you define as 'the ancients' but Dante's Divine Comedy is replete with discussions as to the extent of the influence of the stars and of fate upon people and frequently counterpoints members of the same family among the damned and the saved, in order to elaborate the fact that stars and fate were elaborated by the freewill of the individuals concerned. We'd probably now replace the ideas of 'stars' and 'fate' with 'genes' and 'environment' but the idea that this kind of thing was only discovered with the Enlightenment underestimates, at any event, the thinkers of the Middle Ages who were by no means stupid or unsophisticated.

Oh, and y'all need to know that Dante quotes the Bible on a number of occasions in accordance with the prophecy (which was passed on to Dante by a number of the inhabitants of the afterlife).
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally babbled by MarkthePunk:
Heyyyyyyy!

Sine, you back-stabbing bastard! [Mad]
Mark the Punk. Do your duty. Put us out of our misery.

Please.
 
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
quote:
Originally babbled by Alan Cresswell:
... for philosophers the breaking of the constraints of the Newtonian clockwork universe actually liberated the possibility of free will being actually genuinely free rather than merely apparent. Perhaps it was such a move that heralded the cultural re-emergence of the self that Ted Peters has suggested.
Doesn't indeterminancy mean that you don't have to have cruches like "choice" or "free will" or "self" to explain the possibility of diverse outcomes -- they just happen. Isn't Ted Peters just out to violate Occam's Razor?
 
Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
quote:
Originally babbled by The Bede's American Successor:
Mark the Punk. Do your duty. Put us out of our misery.

Please.
beats self over the head with hostly Bible

The problem is, other than dreadful God-awful boredom, the participants in this thread have given me no reason to close it -- they aren't breaking any rules . . . even today! Like I said, borrrriiing.

But still I'm watching for any excuse to close it.

knocks self out with hostly Bible
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
In accordance with the prophecy, y'all have interested me in What The Bible Says™ but I'm more interested in what other biologists, chemists, and physicists have to say although I thank God for lawyers. I hope that touches most of the bases. It is getting impossible to touch all. I enjoyed Alan's irritation as much as some of the posts.

Ken is very correct that there have been pendulum swings in the distant past toward complete determinism. I was ignoring them and did reflect after my last post that there may well have been debates and discussions like this long ago. Perhaps there's just a bit more math and chemistry to go alongside a bit more metaphysics these days.

It seems that we've got consensus that even at the physical level, in a post-Newtonian Universe we don't really have "wind up the watch" kind of determinism. We do have predictability, however, even if the prediction can only be stated as an accurate and measurable probability. Do we have consensus that we may well have behavioral predictability in the same way? Do we have consensus that behavioral predictability may improve in the future?

For example, in the future if my genome and a detailed description of my family members, teachers, community, education, and whatever else might be pertinent in my environment up to age 21 or so, would it be possible to predict my job, hobbies, personality, and religious views or lack of them? If such a thing does become possible, in what sense could I be described as "free?" Perhaps the contrasting word I am looking for is "closely constrained" and not "determined."

I've been thinking that even if the "option space" within which I live might shrink, as long as I can create new options and alternatives I retain as much freedom as I can generate. I am not "free" to walk across the ceiling upside down. But it does not mean I live in a prison cell.
 
Posted by welsh dragon (# 3249) on :
 
Poor Alan!

While we might all want to MAKE ERIN DAYAN ANNUAL EVENT, we need also to placate the tired brows of hard working Purg hosts...

...according to the Prophecy...

donate some McCHOCOLATE today!
 
Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
quote:
Originally babbled by JimT:
In accordance with the prophecy, y'all have interested me in What The Bible Says™ but I'm more interested in what other biologists, chemists, and physicists have to say although I thank God for lawyers. I hope that touches most of the bases. <and then lots of boring stuff>
Dang. He's too good. He just won't give me an excuse to close the thread. [brick wall]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally babbled by Ley Druid:
Doesn't indeterminancy mean that you don't have to have cruches like "choice" or "free will" or "self" to explain the possibility of diverse outcomes -- they just happen.
OK, sorry, I've been using determinancy in a technical sense relating to the ability to predict outcomes of events. In the classical world things are deterministic - as an example if I know the precise position of every ball on a pool table and the precise speed, direction and spin on the cue ball it is possible to calculate exactly which pocket a given ball will go down. In the quantum world, under the Copenhagen interpretation that is almost universally accepted by physicists, things are indeterminate - if you fire an electron at a metal plate with two holes in it then even if you know the precise speed and direction of that electron (you can't because of Heisenberg uncertainty) you can't say in advance which hole the electron will go through, the best you can do is give a probability of it going through one particular hole.
 
Posted by welsh dragon (# 3249) on :
 
But we could predict another ERIN DAY™ next year with reasonable accuracy...and we could gvie the man some chocolate...
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
A couple more quick thoughts. First, it occurred to me that Ted might be paying "homage" to the molecular biologists and scientists who surround him at Berkeley and The Human Genome Project by retaining "determinism" in his description of human freedom. His third "determinant" is a free Self that can do whatever it wants! Apparently, he thought that would be more palatable than, "human behavior is indeterminate no matter what the scientists say" or something like that.

Second, I forgot to add that a Chaos Theory Mathematician suggested that he add a fourth determinant, namely "Context." This was seconded by a feminist who said that she considers the source of all evil to be social influences outside of the Self. I'm not kidding. Y'all should have some fun with that.

BTW, thanks to Mr. Callan, Ken, and others for pointing out that determinism actually ruled in the past. I was just wrong about that--probably because of my background as a 14th generation New England Puritan who was pretty much told that I could and should drive my self to exhaustion with self improvement. What a job I've done, eh?
 
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
quote:
Originally babbled by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally babbled by Ley Druid:
Doesn't indeterminancy mean that you don't have to have cruches like "choice" or "free will" or "self" to explain the possibility of diverse outcomes -- they just happen.
OK, sorry, I've been using determinancy in a technical sense relating to the ability to predict outcomes of events. In the classical world things are deterministic - as an example if I know the precise position of every ball on a pool table and the precise speed, direction and spin on the cue ball it is possible to calculate exactly which pocket a given ball will go down. In the quantum world, under the Copenhagen interpretation that is almost universally accepted by physicists, things are indeterminate - if you fire an electron at a metal plate with two holes in it then even if you know the precise speed and direction of that electron (you can't because of Heisenberg uncertainty) you can't say in advance which hole the electron will go through, the best you can do is give a probability of it going through one particular hole.
I don't like the dichotomy of "the classical world" and "the quantum world" -- there's only one world. I understand that different approximations are acceptable when studying micrsocopic and macroscopic systems. Even "macroscopic systems" can display reletavistic effects in the CONTEXT of a nearby black whole. No?

Why is "free will" any more useful in describing human indeterminancy than "hidden variables" in describing quantum mechanics?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally babbled by Ley Druid:
I don't like the dichotomy of "the classical world" and "the quantum world" -- there's only one world.
You're right, it is the same world ... I was just using a shorthand to describe the mathematics applicable to each.

quote:
Even "macroscopic systems" can display reletavistic effects in the CONTEXT of a nearby black whole. No?
Yes, but General Relativity is, in many ways, the pinnacle of classical physics - it is still as deterministic as Newtonian physics. Quantum mechanics is a radically different way of viewing the world.

quote:
Why is "free will" any more useful in describing human indeterminancy than "hidden variables" in describing quantum mechanics?
"Hidden variable" approaches to quantum theory say that if we knew everything (including the hidden variable) we could predict the outcome of a quantum event. It says there is something, admittedly unknown and unknowable, that gives a complete determination of any event.

To translate this to the OP, the hidden variable could be considered the genetic component and the other data (speed, direction, spin, location etc of particles) the environment. Sub atomic particles have no "self" to make choices. Which, basically means that actually this whole discussion on determinancy or otherwise for quantum systems is largely irrelevant to the OP (it's been fun though).
 
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
My point is this:
JimT suggested that if you can't predict human behavior the "we must accept that our perception of freedom is real".
If we can't predict electronic behavior, does that mean electrons have "free will" too?
If you assume humans have free will and electrons don't, that's great; I'm just curious as to why you have made that assumption, because it doesn't seem based on predictability.
 
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
PS I'm not talking about an electron in a hydrogen atom either, I'm talking multi-body problem, relativistic, heavy metal electrons.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally babbled by Ley Druid:
If we can't predict electronic behavior, does that mean electrons have "free will" too?
If you assume humans have free will and electrons don't, that's great; I'm just curious as to why you have made that assumption, because it doesn't seem based on predictability.
It isn't based on predictability. I assume we have free will, therefore we are ultimately unpredictable. That's different from saying "we're unpredictable therefore we must have free will".

[though, as an aside, I've always found something attractive about an idea expressed by John Polkinghorne. He uses the phrase "free process" to describe physical systems ... an analogy to free will, in which God while still sustaining the universe allows it to explore through processes in a manner in which he isn't fully in control - so, for example, evolution takes organisms up evolutionary dead ends]
 
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
quote:
Originally babbled by Alan Cresswell:
I assume we have free will, therefore we are ultimately unpredictable. That's different from saying "we're unpredictable therefore we must have free will".
Thank you Dr. Cresswell.
Similarly, if I assumed we didn't have free will, that would not make us ultimately predictable, as unpalatable as the assumption might be.
Have a good night.
 
Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
How this thread survived the past three days I will never know. [brick wall]

[Biased]
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
How this thread survived the past three days I will never know. [brick wall]

[Biased]
It proves that bad things can happen to good people.
 
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
Can this be made Ted Danson On Genetic Determinism & Free Will?
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
But the entire tangent of predictability is essentially a dead end. One of the important lessons of chaos theory is that even with individual components that can be understood a system can quickly grow to being unpredictable with a finite number of interactions.

Poignantly, with more sophisticated analytical methods, more complex predictions can be made. What was once "unknowable" gradually enters the realm of the "knowable". This fallaciously suggests that all that separates the predictable from the unpredictable is adequate mathematical models.

This is, of course, the ideal time to remind JimT of my crackpot theory about human brains:
I think that the "self" is merely an evolved construct for problem-solving. The primary difficulty of the self is in reconciling what it imperfectly perceives with the foggy suggestions from the heuristic subconsious and instincts. I think that "self" is an illusion in that it is not some static entity. It's a continual process, which means there is no "real you" - merely a "typical problem-solving system".

It seems to me that the unpredictability of this problem-solving self is partially due to the vast number of components that must be involved. I also suspect that there is likely some elements of randomness, as described by quantum theory.

So, there you go, my own bastard combination of a classical deterministic model with a post-modern quantum supermodel.
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
I bet you are all a scream at cocktail parties.
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
But the entire tangent of predictability is essentially a dead end. One of the important lessons of chaos theory is that even with individual components that can be understood a system can quickly grow to being unpredictable with a finite number of interactions.
...
So, there you go, my own bastard combination of a classical deterministic model with a post-modern quantum supermodel.
You have an engineering degree, don't you?

The reason why I say that is that I could generally follow what you were saying. It would be an engineering construct to say we are what we are trying to solve in our life, although we see things unclearly. It is a view from science of the shadows on the cave wall approach, or seeing through the glass dimly.

People generally think scientists and engineers are not people of faith. Balderdash. I have faith every time I turn on a light switch that the field effect in the conductors are going to work as promised (unless Ohio brings the power grid down again).

When taking "Atomic and Nuclear Physics" in college--what we jokingly called "A Bomb" (Physics majors took a different course called "H Bomb")--I had a professor point out that if we could get our molecules vibrating at the right rate, we could go right through that wall over there. He said this around "Low Sunday" in the Church Year--the one where Jesus "appears" out of nowhere in the midst of the Apostles after the Ressurection. It is amazing how some Liberal Arts majors wearing a Dog Collar try to discount miracles on Sunday morning, and my Physics professor explained one during the week. (By the way, the professor was a practicing Episcopalian. Go figure.)

C. S. Lewis was probably right when he gave an explanation for miracles that said that natural law wasn't being broken, but that we didn't yet understand all of natural law.

Then I read the ramblings above on this post, trying to reconcile determinism versus choice using Physics. Give me a break! Take the Uncertainty Princible with a glass of water, go to bed, and all will be right in the morning.
 
Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I bet you are all a scream at cocktail parties.
[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
Rook, I am very intrigued by the notion of “brain as problem solving tool” with “self as unintended by-product.” Let us say for the sake of argument that the brain did evolve strictly as a tool to solve problems. The problem solving would have to lead to greater survivability, no? If you can solve problems but can’t leave progeny you will only last a generation. Now then, the essential problems that would lead to greater survivability are: procurement of food, clothing, shelter, mate(s), and children that survive to have children. If you have children that die or don’t reproduce, again you are dead. How can such things as awe, wonder, art, cynicism, irony, child abuse, South Park, scorn, and sarcasm in the Self come about as a by-product of problem-solving?

Bede. Come on. No one can vibrate their individual atoms at some kind of optimal frequency to achieve a transcendental physical state, although many young lads try very hard.

Sine. We already know of your lassitude for developing “depth” and the deep satisfaction you take in light conversation. I can agree that shallowness has great benefits and will see what I can to do move this thread in that direction. In the meantime, I’ll grab a cocktail and work on my sense of humor.

Mark. Y’all keep on readin’ and preachin’ what The Bible Says™. And don’t laugh at jokes about cocktail parties, pardner. Really really good Fundamentalists don’t tolerate wine, which is a mocker, and strong drink, which is raging, for he that is deceived thereby is Not Wise™ (Proverbs 20:1 I think). They also cultivate rather than shun boredom. You have my permission to call me a Liberal™, which of course guarantees that you will not.

[ 24. October 2003, 04:11: Message edited by: JimT ]
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
JimT: I think I'm moderately well educated but this is all so totally over my head, I can't tell if you smart guys are really talking at each other or just bullshitting to impress the peons.

And even more impressive, in my mind, is that you thought "I wanna go to a lecture on Genetic Determinism and Free Will tonight. What fun."

I have trouble even getting my ass out of the house for community theatre musicals.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I think it's a fascinating conversation, Sine, and even I understood most of it (having been a physics major for a brief but enjoyable time doesn't hurt).

quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
For example, in the future if my genome and a detailed description of my family members, teachers, community, education, and whatever else might be pertinent in my environment up to age 21 or so, would it be possible to predict my job, hobbies, personality, and religious views or lack of them? If such a thing does become possible, in what sense could I be described as "free?" Perhaps the contrasting word I am looking for is "closely constrained" and not "determined."
The research done on identical twins separated at birth may be relevant here, JimT. Some end up driving the same kind of car, wearing the same clothes, and marrying women with the same first name; others much less so. Nature? Nurture? Freewill? Who can say?
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Bede. Come on. No one can vibrate their individual atoms at some kind of optimal frequency to achieve a transcendental physical state, although many young lads try very hard.
No more or less than any of us can actually answer this question you are trying to answer about determinism.

Maybe you misunderstood what was said by my professor. IF you could get to the right vibration, THEN you could go through the wall. And, this was said in class right about the time some of us where hearing about Jesus going through walls as a gospel lesson, something I have heard people with Social Science degrees discount.

I really don't think the good professor actually had something hiding in his office that could accomplish the feat, nor was he expecting to build anything in his lifetime. The possiblility still existed, though.

Faith is the evidence of things not seen. (Right, Mr. Punk?)

At what point do you say "I'm a person of faith" and get on with life? Does it make any ultimate difference if we are under determinism (a Calvanist point of view), or not? We are going to live our lives as if we have decisions to make. Maybe we'll know the right answer to the question one day, but we cannot know with certainty today. Why waste the energy on a question that is the equivalent of determining the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin? Spend the energy on exploring beauty, service, or spirituality. Spend the energy on peace, love, and joy.

Having a science education that included:
has made it possible for me to accept a much more conservative Christianity than pure Liberal Arts people tend to accept.
 
Posted by markporter (# 4276) on :
 
Going back to the Bohmian mechanics thing....although perhaps it is not a particularly intuitive or nice theory, what it does show is that there is some stuff that we're never going to be able to know. Determinism/Indeterminacy with current models there's no way we're going to be able to say for certain that it's one and not the other.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
I really am having some fun here and my flippant replies are in the spirit of all this "host and admin free for all nonsense." There is simply one fact about me that makes this topic abnormally interesting: I am a Preacher's Kid™ who was always fascinated by Genesis, which my father took as a newspaper article on clay tablets. Having acquired the means to turn this abnormality into a profession, I have returned to Molecular Biology after leaving it for quite some time. I would not say that I lose sleep over the topic. I am comfortable with a dim picture of who we really are and where we really come from. But contemplation of our complete evolution, which is to say physical, emotional, cultural, and spiritual is a delight to me equal to the delight some get from pondering the unknowable mind of God. And Sine, as irresistable as an opportunity to hear a Theologian talk about Molecular Biology is, I might have blown off the lecture had it not been for my wife's insistence that we go. We are a curious set of bookends.

I want to acknowledge Mousethief's comment about twins, which came up in the lecture, and it is a fascination that different environments can produce trivial similarities and more significant differences. That is all we can say at this point.

But if I can interest anyone enough, I would like to hear speculations along the lines of RooK's, which touch on the origin of "Self." Did it originate in humans? If I understand him, RooK sees "Self" as an unintentional by-product of "Problem Solving Tool Called Brain." I do not see it quite that way. I see the brain as originating in order to speed response to the environment. Most primitively, to move instinctively to the right physical environment. Later, to flee from predators and fight with competitors. Much later, emotions to underscore and heighten these responses, along with emotions appropriate for extended care of young and cooperative effort with others. In parallel, I can see manipulation of mental images and memory serving to help solve physical problems and then being used to solve relationship problems with kin and kind. At some point, knowledge of mortality arises and in that context a need for meaning. It is very curious to me that the seemingly most trivial part of biological existence, meaning, is the most important aspect of existence to many of us. If it motivates us to keep on going, perhaps that is its biological value.

Perhaps I should dig up Carl Sagan's Broca's Brain. I read it a long time ago. He was interested in the same thing I am, really: if God didn't blow the human spirit into Adam's nostrils, where did it come from?
 
Posted by markporter (# 4276) on :
 
quote:
if God didn't blow the human spirit into Adam's nostrils, where did it come from?
ho hum, tend to think that God did.....I'm rather a dualist in that sense.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
JimT, old buddy, I think your explanation jivves quite nicely with my admittedly crackpot theory.

To respond to your earlier question, one of the big problem-solving features of our bulbous brains is pattern-recognition. So much so that we are looking for patterns in everything, and it gives us a fundamental joy when we discover such a pattern. Likewise, experience teaches us - perhaps even at an evolutionary level - a crude version of Occam's Razor that causes us to appreciate simplicity. From these two combined, I think, can be derived the highly complex aesthetic sense that allows such visceral interaction manifesting as awe, wonder, art, cynicism, irony, and so forth. My very limited understanding of psychology suggests that many behavioural issues likewise are rooted in some twisted sense of problem solving or pattern recognition (to awkwardly nod at "child abuse").

True to my cynical nature, I feel compelled to point out the obvious. I am a mechanical engineer, and I have considerable training with autonomous robotics. Much of my speculation about "self" is clearly a by-product of my own considerations about "how I would do it" if I were a creator of a sentient-seeming being.

Don't listen to Sine Nomine - that'll drive him just nuts enough to stay and try harder to get our attention.
 
Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
I see from JimT's and TBAS's efforts to quote some Bible that I've had a positive influence on this board. [Big Grin] [Biased]
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
RooK laddie, I'm with you in terms of the intellect delighting in patterns. But there are great depths of raw emotion beneath the intellect that I would say simply cannot be explained with pattern recognition.

It might not occur to you to build autonomous robots whose primary purpose is simply to replicate, nor to imbue them with a power and desire to murder other robots for their diodes, or rip their batteries out after a distracting, "Get a load of them sprockets over there!" but Somebody or Something or Somewhatever did. Are you sure you wouldn't toss in a little Original Sin just to give Free Will a jumpstart and watch the fun begin?

On a slightly more serious but hopefully entertaining note, I'm not sure if I mentioned my favorite Twilight Zone episode. A man is working in his garage and slips using a power tool, laying the skin on his arm wide open. Just before he passes out, he looks down and sees that the interior of his arm is all wires and diodes and transistors. In the hospital, the doctors are deeply concerned about what he has seen and tell him that any "strange visions" he's seen are probably the result of shock. His wife tells him that "everyone knows that you see things when you get a bad cut." Finally, a minister asks him if he needs any "help with his recovery from this terrible thing." It was right up my alley. Staring at what are now called "microbial wiring diagrams" and attending seminars on neurobiology, I can't help but think of that episode and ask, "What if..."
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
I loved that episode, JimT.

In terms of "depth of raw emotion", surely I don't have to point out to you the horrible studies where animals were wired up to the pleasure center of their brain and given two buttons. One gave food and water, the other gave pleasure... and without fail they all starved to death. The systemic implications of this I think are quite poignant. It doesn't take much dopamine to create deep, raw emotions.

With regard to mechanical analogues of behaviour development beyond the obvious, I can well imagine building autonomous robots whose primary purpose is simply to replicate. Actually, John von Neumann thought of it before me. He's the "father of Game Theory", and he was quite explicit about the mathematical reasonability about deriving complex competitive behaviour - like defeating rivals, using them for resources, and means to contemplate this. It also has diddly-squat to do with "Original Sin" or "Free Will".

I know - from the mouth of a heathen...
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
I see from JimT's and TBAS's efforts to quote some Bible that I've had a positive influence on this board. [Big Grin] [Biased]
Do you really think you had anything to do with that in my case? I would suggest that you don't break your arm patting your back. Me thinks thou dost protest too much.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
It doesn't take much dopamine to create deep, raw emotions.
It is true that a tiny molecule can profoundly influence behavior. My favorite example is alcohol: nine atoms and you are a slobbering drunk. It was one of my mental replies to Ted Peters scoffing that a mere gene making a mere protein could have much of anything to do with causing or modifying behavior.
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
John von Neumann...was quite explicit about the mathematical reasonability about deriving complex competitive behaviour - like defeating rivals, using them for resources, and means to contemplate this. It also has diddly-squat to do with "Original Sin" or "Free Will".
True, but how about tackling something really tough like the creation of a choice-making automaton that constantly asks, "What should I do next? What would be right? Fair? Loving? Charitable?" One that would bask in the knowledge that others are asking the same questions and working together to create a community of like minds striving to discern the best way to live not as physical entities, but as metaphysical, sentient Beings? I am not talking about simple altruism but a Community of Minds bound together by metaphysical principles and dedicated to metaphysical ends. What kind of Math could make this from Matter? Whether it be Math or Mind, should it not be sought, and if found, followed or at least known? Since the Math and Molecular Biology seem beyond us, does it not make sense to search for it the way it has been done in the past, by introspection and intuition?

As one heathen to another...[but feeling the tarnish beginning to form on my heathen credentials [Ultra confused] ].
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
It is true that a tiny molecule can profoundly influence behavior. My favorite example is alcohol: nine atoms and you are a slobbering drunk.
Surely it takes more than one molecule of ethyl alcohol to make someone a slobbering drunk? How would you administer a single alcohol molecule?

(more general musing) -- Does the fact that we are biochemical beings mean that we are not also spiritual beings? Surely this is a form of docetism -- a hatred of the physical world and an implicit denial of the incarnation?
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
Mousethief, of course you need a few million molecules of ethanol to get drunk; my point is that an exceptionally simple compound can have a profound effect. You don't need a complex set of complex molecules to get someone singing with a lampshade on their head. Somehow, I find that thought provoking.

With respect to biochemistry and Being, our perception of Self is certainly non-physical: we experience our Selves through Thought, I think. [Smile] All we can say is that Thought can lead to the Sublime and perhaps the Divine, but it is also influenced by, and can influence the physical. One could ask the rhetorical question, "In the face of the effect of alcohol on behavior, doesn't the notion of a spiritual basis for behavior call God a liar?" Or something like that. I meant neither to deny the spiritual nor to hate the physical. But I don't believe in a unique incarnation of God in the person of Jesus (see Marcus Borg thread). In that sense you are free to call me a doceti...whatever. Sorry, never heard of it. I'm still learning the names of all my heresies. [Heathen credentials back in place.]
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
But I don't believe in a unique incarnation of God in the person of Jesus (see Marcus Borg thread).
Oh, well, then we may be coming at it from completely different angles. For me, the Incarnation gives a position from which to analyze such things as the relationship between the physical (biochemical) and spiritual, and acts as a preventive from going too far toward materialism on the one hand, and idealism (a la George Berkeley or some forms of Hinduism) on the other.

I don't follow your logic on making God a liar. Can you unpack that, please?
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:

I don't follow your logic on making God a liar.
Someone said here that young earth creationists "call God a liar" by distorting the physical evidence against a Global Flood. If I understood him, God "tells the truth" of no Global Flood in the physical evidence. Therefore to assert a Global Flood, one is "calling God a liar." I was saying that God "tells the truth" that the physical can impact the metaphysical (choice making) via alcohol. To posit that our spiritual selves are beyond our physical selves would be to deny this.

To tell you the truth, I had no idea where you came up with "hating the physical" from the earlier discussion, so I gave you "calling God a liar" as a demonstration of how your musing came out of nowhere to me. In other words, it was a Martin PC Not kind of moment. No offense.

For what it's worth I would never really say that you or anyone would "call God a liar" because no one really would.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
I was saying that God "tells the truth" that the physical can impact the metaphysical (choice making) via alcohol. To posit that our spiritual selves are beyond our physical selves would be to deny this.
Gotcha.

quote:
To tell you the truth, I had no idea where you came up with "hating the physical" from the earlier discussion
But you yourself just talked about "posit[ing] that our spiritual selves are beyond our physical selves" -- surely this isn't a huge leap from the contents of the thread so far?

quote:
In other words, it was a Martin PC Not kind of moment. No offense.
No offense taken -- just disagree.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
But you yourself just talked about "posit[ing] that our spiritual selves are beyond our physical selves" -- surely this isn't a huge leap from the contents of the thread so far?
Yes, a leap or tangent but not one toward hatred. I mean that the spiritual seems to arise from the physical in a way we do not understand, and our experience of the spiritual ultimately transcends the physical. But not that such a view or experience leads to or is based upon hatred of the physical.
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
All I just want to say about the original post, is that in the world of genetics, people are becoming rather skeptical about the idea that it's "all in the genes".

It seems that probably far less of our makeup is due to our genetics than people at one time thought would prove to be the case.

Of course, different people have different opinions, but the general swing of opinion in the scientific world is away from the idea that it's "All in the genes".

The most likely outcome for most things seems to be that there is a genetic pre-disposition, but that has to be triggered into action by environmental factors for most things.

matt
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
True, but how about tackling something really tough like the creation of a choice-making automaton that constantly asks, "What should I do next? What would be right? Fair? Loving? Charitable?"
[rolls up sleeves]
OK. Please pardon the omitted "what ifs" and "I think maybes", and assume that there are lots of them.

Consider that one of the environmental factors that is generally present for all forms of life is various kinds of competition. So, the development of brains originally was meant to more effectively solve simple problems like "find the food" and "don't get eaten", and the like. As the complexity of the competition increased, the behaviour of groups became important problem-solving strategies. Families, packs, and eventually societies have evolved that are far more significant than any single creature. It seems to me that our (usually) innate pro-social senses like "fairness" and "compassion" quite likely were developed to help create more-competitive societies. Just look at the world around us and see how easily people neglect these ideals by the simple act of considering someone or something "other" - not part of their "pack", the villainous "them".

All bundled up in my too-neat little package. I think I need to lie down now.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
It seems to me that our (usually) innate pro-social senses like "fairness" and "compassion" quite likely were developed to help create more-competitive societies. Just look at the world around us and see how easily people neglect these ideals by the simple act of considering someone or something "other" - not part of their "pack", the villainous "them".
Excellent! The group can accomplish more than the individual. Pure logic. The group functions optimally when it is bound together by exceptionally strong emotional ties. Further, it is energized by negative emotional repulsion of outsiders. Further yet, in a physical struggle between two groups charged with burning love inside and seething hatred outside, the best organized and most tightly controlled group will win. Thus, we have the religious/military chief like Joshua in the Old Testament screaming, "We are the people of God! This land is ours! Let us deliver it from the enemies of God and smite the Amalakites!" Fast forward to WWII and the atom bomb. Why should we ignore the force of nature? Why don't we assemble our armies and may the best society win? Why should there be global yearning for peace and brotherhood? Is it not against our very nature? What would drive us to make one group of all of humanity?

On the other hand...check out this article on "neuromarketing" where advertising firms scan your brain to find out how to get your brain to appeal to their brand. I can't believe I'm reading this.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
And even more impressive, in my mind, is that you thought "I wanna go to a lecture on Genetic Determinism and Free Will tonight. What fun."
I intend to go to a lecture on calculus tonight [Eek!]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Does the fact that we are biochemical beings mean that we are not also spiritual beings?
Of course not. How could it?

quote:

Surely this is a form of docetism -- a hatred of the physical world and an implicit denial of the incarnation?
Indeed it is. Which is why excuses for bad behaviour along the lines of "my hormones made me do it" or "my genes made me do it" or even "my brain made me do it" are philosophically dangerous.

It is of course true that we are more than hormones, genes, brains - but we certainly are those things.

You hormones or your genes are not mysterious others that have nasty effects on the otherwise free spiritual Inner You. They are you.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:

I don't follow your logic on making God a liar.
Someone said here that young earth creationists "call God a liar" by distorting the physical evidence against a Global Flood. If I understood him, God "tells the truth" of no Global Flood in the physical evidence. Therefore to assert a Global Flood, one is "calling God a liar.
I think that was probably me.

Would you disagree?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
All I just want to say about the original post, is that in the world of genetics, people are becoming rather skeptical about the idea that it's "all in the genes".
I'm not sure many actual geneticists or evolutionary biologists ever thought that. Even people who get blasted for their supposed genetic determinism, like Dawkins or Wilson in fact had a pretty balanced view of things.

Though (especially in the USA, sorry to start a PW) some doctors and politicians and drug company booseters seem to have.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
we don't really have "wind up the watch" kind of determinism. We do have predictability, however, even if the prediction can only be stated as an accurate and measurable probability. Do we have consensus that we may well have behavioral predictability in the same way? Do we have consensus that behavioral predictability may improve in the future?
That's not determinism at all! It's the opposite of determinism. Once it gets probability involved you are in the wonderful world of contingency, stochastic processes, and population thinking.

The world truly is as the natural historians have always described it, and not the natural philosophers [Smile]

Of course it also makes trouble for those who hold to an unneccessary and unbiblical Gnosticising anti-Christian anti-Incarnational distinction between the spirit, soul, and body. If our spirits really are "ghosts in the machine" (or if our souls are - people who think like this conflate the two notions) sort of semi-divine wishy-washy essences, at best operating the body as one might drive a car or, at worst, trapped in brute flesh; if that is an accurate description, then the stochastic indeterminate statistical world we now seem to see is one that is impossible to control merely by pushing a few levers here and there.

What use is the free will of the disembodiable soul if it can only drive the body though statistical controls, turning circles with a flexible steeing wheel, changing gears with variable number of teeth?

The same problem exists for those who hold that God is in time, or that God is not omnipotent and omniscient. They are stranded with a notion of an ancient creator God pushing and pulling at the bendy levers of a soft universe.

From that point of view the Incarnation becomes a stageshow; sin a matter of inaccuratly executed desires; and the providence of God a combination of guesswork and cosmic dexterity.

All very different from the orthodox view of an eternal creator God, distinct from the universe yet touching it and sustaining it at all points in time and space; and a true incarnation in which the Beloved becomes true flesh. Jesus Christ, God and man, while on earth was made of meat. Just like the rest of us.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
Ken, I agree that ever-improving predictability is not determinism. I was wondering if others agree that ever-improving predictability of human behavior will occur. Do you have a guess? What would you think are its ultimeate limits?

Yes, you were the "God is a liar" guy and yes I disagree. If someone says that fossil evidence supports the Biblical tablet theory, I think they are saying something more like "I declare God to be above science" rather than "I declare God to be a liar." I would agree with you that they are wrong.

[ 27. October 2003, 17:17: Message edited by: JimT ]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Why should there be global yearning for peace and brotherhood? Is it not against our very nature? What would drive us to make one group of all of humanity?
In one sense only does your criticism seem to hold true, and there certainly exist enough xenophobes to corroborate that.

Ah, but our handy-dandy pattern-recognition problem-solving brains are sometimes capable of figuring out that bigger societies tend to prevail. So a globally-united society would then be best capable of problem solving all the other things challenging our existance - like the disturbing trend of our planet turning into a desert.

Patriotism is just an extrapolation of the "self" to include one's society. The real trick, in my not-so-humble estimation, is to start including life on Earth as a whole in our conceptions of "self".

Cynically speaking, I think that if humanity manages to form a single cohesive society, it is our competitive nature to have some group splinter off if they see some advantage in doing so.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
The real trick, in my not-so-humble estimation, is to start including life on Earth as a whole in our conceptions of "self".
What a beautiful metaphor. The entire biosphere is part of our "selves." All of creation groans for the Lord, does it not? One Body. (Landrew says we must all be "of the body," remember?) If "life" goes down to bacteria and viruses, should we not include the inorganic world as well?

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:

Cynically speaking, I think that if humanity manages to form a single cohesive society, it is our competitive nature to have some group splinter off if they see some advantage in doing so.
These are "bad" and "immoral" people, in your view, correct? The "good" and "moral" ones would join you in a global view of "self" to include all of life.

You have my vote for next Emperor/Pope. If you do a good job and get the whole thing properly organized, I hope I'm not tempted to assassinate you.
 
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
The real trick, in my not-so-humble estimation, is to start including life on Earth as a whole in our conceptions of "self".
What a beautiful metaphor. The entire biosphere is part of our "selves." All of creation groans for the Lord, does it not? One Body. (Landrew says we must all be "of the body," remember?) If "life" goes down to bacteria and viruses, should we not include the inorganic world as well?
quote:
Dr. Alan Cresswell has already told you:
Sub atomic particles have no "self"
Do you disagree?
 
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
RooK's view is rather reductionist: we are simply a collection of responses.

I would argue that we are more than that. Due to lots of evidence.

Studies of identical twins, sharing exactly the same genes, but different environments throw up interesting results. Studies of twins who are the same height and weight, who took the same degree and do the same job. So maybe it is all genetics?Then again, other studies have shown higher chances of schizophrenia in one twin, if t'other is schizophrenic, but the correlation isn't 100%. Or there's the fact that identical twins will have different iris patterns. And the pendulum swings to not all genetic.

Studies and theories of behaviour show that we can sorta predict how someone will behave, if we take really detailed measurements of their beliefs about the behaviour, and about what their SOs think, and about how much control they themselves have over the behaviour. We also have to measure how important each of these things are. But even then, the correlation between a prediction based on all these, and the person actually behaving like this is 0.7 at most. So there's still something more.

Which appears to be the pattern in everything we study and experiment on in humans. We can explain most of it, but nothing goes exactly according to plan. There is always a bit extra which we can't explain or predict or account for.

I'd guess that this is the self, the soul. It's the bit which turns the electrical signals which we can observe moving across the brain into memories, into feelings, into plans. It's the somehow spark of life which we cannot create - in PVS patients, even if we give electrical inputs, similar to those we can observe in 'normal' people, we cannot wake the PVS up, nor cause them to move/react the way a 'normal' person does when they receive the same electrical inputs.

Someone once said that "If the human brain were simple enough for us to understand, we'd be too simple to understand it."

Sarkycow
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
I'm quite with you Sarkycow, and Ley Druid, I don't consider inorganic objects part of my "self." Neither do I consider other animals part of my "self." Rather I consider my "self" integral with the rest of the universe.

Can't you see that I'm trying to "witness" to Rook via a Socratic approach? I think he's coming around, Sarky. If he keeps answering my questions he's going to at least get off the logical positivist/reductionist road to Hell and damnation and elevate himself all the way to Borgian/Spong non-theism. Not exactly "born again of the spirit" but at least swimming hard with a suspicion that the rumors of an egg cell dead ahead might be true. That's kind of where I am right now myself.

But shhh...mum's the word. I wouldn't want him to sniff out my plan.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
I'm quite with you Sarkycow, and Ley Druid, I don't consider inorganic objects part of my "self." Neither do I consider other animals part of my "self." Rather I consider my "self" integral with the rest of the universe.
That rest of the universe that contains no inorganic objects or other animals?

Huh?
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
To be perfectly honest, yes, I can imagine including the non-organic in my concept of "self". Whenever I venture back to Valhalla National Park in British Columbia, and feel the study granite beneath me, it feels like a spiritual part of me. To harm those mountains would profoundly affect my self.

Let's be clear. While my description of the brain as purely a problem-solving tool has been super-simplified, that doesn't make it any more deterministic. The trillions of strategically-arranged neurons are adequately complex to defy prediction without resorting to some arbitrary entity like "soul". If that were the case, you might as well ascribe some whimsical personality to the weather.

I'd also like to assert that I think the concept of "free will" has got to be the biggest red herring in the history of philosophical thought.
 
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:

I'd also like to assert that I think the concept of "free will" has got to be the biggest red herring in the history of philosophical thought.
What about consciousness, what is that? How would you know?
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Perhaps I'll try to answer that, Ley Druid, after I stop having to take decongestants and am fully, -er, conscious.

Oh, what the hell. Please bear with me if you've already read the much better description by von Neumann. Just let me take an extra shot of Tylenol Cold™, and I'll start rambling...

If you're going to apply any problem-solving tool, there must be some logical construct to orient measures of "helpful" or "unhelpful". That philosophical necessity is the concept of "self", and being able to apply it is "consciousness". Without the ability to connect an entity to its environment via its actions, then any action by that entity is probably going to be random an meaningless. Clearly, in terms of even the most basic problem-solving feats for survival, there needs to be a "self" that the problem-solver is "conscious" of.

Woo. How'd you like that one? I'm actually starting to like this little crackpot theory of mine. It's fun.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Clearly, in terms of even the most basic problem-solving feats for survival, there needs to be a "self" that the problem-solver is "conscious" of.
A plant solves the problem of needing light by building up auxin on the side of the stem away from the light. That stimulates growth on the non-lit side and bending toward the light. Problem solved, no Plant Self. Right?

And RooK, I can't let you sidestep the appearance of moral judgement in your statements that others should extend their Selves outward to the living and non-living world, as you do. I do not criticise this notion, I support it. It gets at the Christian notion of "stewardship." Regardless of whether that means anything to you, don't you have the basis for some kind of moral system? If so, what might a complete moral system with that foundation look like? Perhaps you've read or heard something?
 
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
If you're going to apply any problem-solving tool, there must be some logical construct to orient measures of "helpful" or "unhelpful". That philosophical necessity is the concept of "self", and being able to apply it is "consciousness". Without the ability to connect an entity to its environment via its actions, then any action by that entity is probably going to be random an meaningless. Clearly, in terms of even the most basic problem-solving feats for survival, there needs to be a "self" that the problem-solver is "conscious" of.
Surely you are not suggesting that in the act of problem solving any entity freely chooses between the "helpful" and the "unhelpful". The course of action chosen can't be dependent on free will because
quote:
the concept of "free will" has got to be the biggest red herring in the history of philosophical thought.
In the absence of free will, "problem solving" need not be predictable, but it also has no need of "self" or "consciousness" -- the solution is not arrived at by free choice.

Advocates of such a position will likely favor "rehabilitation" of criminals to improve their "problem solving skills" so disadvantaged by their life history.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
Ley Druid's observation on criminals reminds me of a pertinent story on "self extended to the environment." Richard L. Crow withdrew from his tribe and took up residence in a cave when the tribal elders decided to sell the mountains to the white man for minerals. He did it in the required ceremony available to all adult males who disagreed with tribal leadership, and as required told the tribe which small portion of tribal land he would occupy, also by legal right. He asked the leaders to inform the Federal officials that he would fight to the death if they attempted to set foot on the mountain. They did. A friend joined him.

Predictably, the FBI showed up, informed the two Indians that they would be forcibly removed if they did not surrender voluntarily and were told by the Indians that the Indians had a huge supply of ammunition and semi-automatic weapons. They also pointed out that they held a commanding view of the approach, which was the only way into the cave. The Indians strongly suggested that the FBI agents not sacrifice their lives to take something by force which they had no right to. The FBI advanced. According to Mr. Crow, his associate fired first and dropped an agent. A firestorm broke out and another agent fell, in addition to Mr. Crow's comrade. Several more agents were wounded in the melee. Mr. Crow was rushed during reloading, taken alive, and tried for double murder.

He said that his companion definitely shot the first agent, but could not say who shot the second. They were spraying the advancing line indiscriminately. As the Indian ballad goes,

The judge decided and the gavel fell,
He said, "Two times life in a federal cell."

Mr. Crow observed that the decision was perhaps fair but wondered if his tribe would be allowed to select an agent at random for the death of his associate. Of course his request was angrily declined. The agents shot in "self-defense." Mr. Crow vainly argued that he was only doing the same.

Was he then?

Doesn't extension of self lead to inevitable conflict like this? Unless of course private property is eliminated and we all become communists?

Just having fun. I love cowboy and Indian stories.
 
Posted by Timothy (# 292) on :
 
RooK--

Your "crackpot theory" is not so far from some of the current thinking in cognitive science. As Antonio Damasio puts it, a primary function of the brain is to monitor the environment, the body, and its own processes in order to coordinate relations between organism and environment. The "self" is essentially a function of this ongoing monitoring process, and is continually recreated, so smoothly that we don't notice the re-creation unless something goes wrong.

Damasio does see emotion as being critical to problem-solving, not an epiphenomenon or an extraneous disruptive force--emotion tells us what's important.

Timothy
(still trying to find a good signature quotation)
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Obviously, I don't mean to imply that a plant has a cognitive construct called "self". Nevertheless, there are reasons why certain behaviours out-compete others and flourish. The approximate measure of that relates to the organism and its environment. If you bother to develop a tool that works faster to solve problems than just evolution, it would need to be able to make judgement calls on that measure, n'est pas? Hence, it is necessary that the brain as an advantage-gaining problem-solving tool have a sense of self.

Conspicuously absent from my for-entertaint-purposes-only crackpot model, as mentioned earlier, is any need for a "soul" or any free-will-providing spark.

Ley Druid, it's possible that you may have misunderstood me. I said that free will was a philosophical red herring, not that nothing of the sort existed. What I meant to imply was that to give a name to something that is not understood nor really defined is fundamentally a waste of time...
...at least when arguing about my crackpot idea.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Well, hello Timothy.
Glad to hear you have some affinity for my argument. Now, pick up a rapier and help fend off these rascals!

Emotions are important heuristics tools, and I feel that we probably agree about that.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:

Conspicuously absent from my for-entertaint-purposes-only crackpot model, as mentioned earlier, is any need for a "soul" or any free-will-providing spark.
And conspicuously present is at least one moral imperative: to be a cRacKpoT RooKian Good Guy, one must extend one's Self outward and act in coordination with former "Others." cRacKpoT RooKian bad guys withdraw their Selves, re-establish the "Other" and exploit them for gain.

I am entertained. Please continue. At your leisure of course. I'm manic because I am studying for a super hard test tomorrow. This is the only way to take my mind off during breaks.
 
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I said that free will was a philosophical red herring, not that nothing of the sort existed. What I meant to imply was that to give a name to something that is not understood nor really defined is fundamentally a waste of time...
...at least when arguing about my crackpot idea.
It is fundamentally a waste of time, when arguing about your crackpot idea, to give a name to something that is not understood nor really defined.
Who (or what) is the arbiter of what is understood and really defined? You (or your problem solving system)?
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
JimT, you're a sly SOB.
I'd hesitate to call it a moral imperative, but I do see it as one possible solution to many of the world's problems. I'd also call it whimsical, foolish daydreaming - but then I've already admitted to being a cynic. It definitely has some merit as a philosophical model for contemplating various motivations and behaviours. That merit being mostly confined to teasing theological types.

Hope the test went well.

Ley Druid, perhaps instead of backing up into defensive questions you could lend me a hand. Without invoking anything from Christian doctrine, could you define what free will is? I've maligned free will in this thread because 1) I can't define it, and 2) I don't think I need it for my crackpot idea. After defining it for me, perhaps you could try to use it in a manner that relates to my crackpot idea. Just as a casual warning, citing unpredictability has already been done to death in this thread and has proven not to be fruitful.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
Rook, I'm convinced that I have a good idea where you are coming from. You made a whimsical statement and I jumped all over it in ways you didn't really intend. Hopefully I at least entertained you by dragging you a few more whimsical steps beyond your initial "pattern recognition" paradigm, which you hadn't dusted off and stretched in a while.

My test is tonight. Gotta tell you a hilarious true story: I was in the library studying this morning and when I was done I looked up at the shelf next to me. There was a mathematical, statistical book called "Self and Belief" written by Rod Christensen (?spelling). Each chapter had a deep and provocative metaphysical title and the text was all unbelievable mathmatics. I looked at the introduction and the author essentially said, "Most of this stuff is either wrong or so far from the way I think about things now that I can't even bear to read it. But since I spent so many years on it I thought I should publish it in case anyone thinks any of it is worth anything, especially the application of entropy minmax game theory, where belief in one outcome is taken into consideration and each round has signals and feedback."

You're welcome to it, Rook. [Biased]
 
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I've maligned free will in this thread because 1) I can't define it, and 2) I don't think I need it for my crackpot idea.
Therefore nothing that I might say need change this. You are free to malign as you will.

quote:
Originally posted by RooK
Without the ability to connect an entity to its environment via its actions, then any action by that entity is probably going to be random an meaningless.
You certainly don't need to, but if you asked, the "entity" might explain that free will gives them the ability to choose between possible actions. You would be free to malign this and suggest their action was random and meaningless.
 
Posted by Jerry Boam (# 4551) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
You certainly don't need to, but if you asked, the "entity" might explain that free will gives them the ability to choose between possible actions. You would be free to malign this and suggest their action was random and meaningless.
But can you imagine an explanation for how an organism or entity might make selections from a range of possible actions that isn't free will?

Or are you defining the ability to choose as free will (if so, RooK's problem-solving construct might be a description of "free will" but not one that is satisfying to many of those who use the term)?

I think Sarkycow's conception of RooK's system as overly reductionist is in itself overly reductionist. Just because RooK's system is based on small parts, as a system in complex interaction with the outer world, it might be breathtakingly complex and display extraordinary emergent properties...

In any case, thanks to all, especially JimT and RooK for a thoroughly enjoyable thread.

The image of RooK and JimT as conceptual spermatozoa dreaming of transcendental mitosis alone is worth the price of admission to this thread.
 
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry Boam:
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
You certainly don't need to, but if you asked, the "entity" might explain that free will gives them the ability to choose between possible actions. You would be free to malign this and suggest their action was random and meaningless.
But can you imagine an explanation for how an organism or entity might make selections from a range of possible actions that isn't free will?

Or are you defining the ability to choose as free will (if so, RooK's problem-solving construct might be a description of "free will" but not one that is satisfying to many of those who use the term)?
Many valid deterministic explanations might answer your first question: habbit, hormones, even random chance. A person might even lie and tell you it was free will when they actually thought it was one of the above.

As to your second question, I'll wait and see if RooK thinks his construct is a description of "free will".
 
Posted by Jerry Boam (# 4551) on :
 
If habbit, hormones, even random chance don't contribute to free will, then I'm pretty sure no human being has free will, however it is defined...

[ 30. October 2003, 01:23: Message edited by: Jerry Boam ]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
JimT, thanks for the book! I'll hunt it down... eventually. It's coincidences like your story that make me arch my eyebrow, Spock-wise, and think, "...fascinating". You have indeed helped me bash off some of the moss from my "tool-self", such that I think it'll be published on my web site soon. Thanks.

quote:
Originally responded by Ley Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I've maligned free will in this thread because 1) I can't define it, and 2) I don't think I need it for my crackpot idea.
Therefore nothing that I might say need change this.
I'm disappointed with the implied deduction of this statement, because:
1) You might be able to define it, and
2) You might be able to think of a reason why my crackpot idea would need it.

So, I don't know if my construct is a description of "free will" - that's why I asked. As best as I can guess (let me just emphasize - GUESS), free will is ascribed to a specific domain of the unknowable that lies within a greater realm of the unknown.

If we interpret your posts to assemble the possible meaning as "the ability to choose", then I think Jerry Boam might have flayed that idea already. My car has the "ability to choose" which key starts it, and even though I am extremely fond of my car I somehow doubt that it has much "free will".

[Winks at Jerry.]
Even though I find my crackpot theory quite amusing, I feel I should re-affirm that it represents only an entertaining contemplation, and that I'm 99.9999% certain that I have no idea what the truth is.
 
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally responded by Ley Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I've maligned free will in this thread because 1) I can't define it, and 2) I don't think I need it for my crackpot idea.
Therefore nothing that I might say need change this.
I'm disappointed with the implied deduction of this statement, because:
1) You might be able to define it, and
2) You might be able to think of a reason why my crackpot idea would need it.
People have been debating this issue for a long time; your position allows you dismiss free will as
quote:
the biggest red herring in the history of philosophical thought
I will acknowledge you are always free to reject it. People who advocate for free will are not unaware of this
quote:
Although the case for free will cannot be rigorously proven, those of us who believe in it need feel no threat from the findings of the Human Genome Initiative - Ted Peters pages
quote:
Originally posted by RooK
free will is ascribed to a specific domain of the unknowable that lies within a greater realm of the unknown.
This is really good.
Now, who (or what) does the ascribing? You (or your problem solving system)?

Hint: so far, when you (or your problem solving system) have made judgements about other "problem solvers" it has been difficult to differentiate between plants, cars and people.
quote:
Originally posted by RooK;
Much of my speculation about "self" is clearly a by-product of my own considerations about "how I would do it" if I were a creator of a sentient-seeming being.

 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
JimT...You have indeed helped me bash off
<strategic snip>
Hey, that's great.

I'll get a specific cite for that book. I've gotta take another look at it myself.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
And here I thought I was being subtle. I hardly think that the "strategic snip" was necessary, as I went on to use the term "tool".

Ley Druid, being free to reject something doesn't mean that they are uninterested in it. Professional wrestling and politics come to mind. Still, I can respect your preference to leave the definition of "free will" to others.

In terms of who (or what) I meant does the ascribing of "free will", I actually meant you and anyone else that wishes to believe/use the term. Please feel free to clarify if I am mistaken.

quote:
Originally mentioned by Ley Druid:
Hint: so far, when you (or your problem solving system) have made judgements about other "problem solvers" it has been difficult to differentiate between plants, cars and people.
This is an interesting point. Is it really that hard? There certainly is a connection between them in our discussion, as we mean to imply that "successful" versions of each are determined by how well they accomplish things that allow them to continue existing. The measure of success is therefore somewhat subjective, but can generally be agreed upon to a limited extent.

The differences should be quite poignant, however.
For plants/simple biological systems/politicians, the limit of their problem solving is a feedback loop were evolved traits help or hinder the being. The beings with the helpful traits proliferate, in classic animal husbandry and Dead Horse Darwinism. (Apologies, let's move on.) For designed mechanical entities, such as cars and accountants, they are made to accomplish specific tasks that are considered before they are made. There is a feedback loop for subsequent designs, but the important point is that the usual designed artifact is static in terms of capabilities (without intervention from helper monkeys). So specific changes in plants and cars usually address one solution to one problem. Period.

Lastly, you get to the beginning of the crackpot idea - yummy brains - such as in some people and critters. Instead of relying on some inhereted trait feedback system to deal with problems, the brain is used as a general and fast method for solving problems. In order for this tool to work, the problem-solver needs to have a goal or direction. That's where the "self" comes in, so that the brain can evaluate what to do in a way that would be "helpful".

So, I'm guessing that the confusion comes from the similarity of goals (help the "self"), and the multiplicity of possible solutions (outside change versus ability to contemplate the "self").
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
I took a moment to skim a few pages of Ronald Christensen's Belief and Behavior. It was not nearly as impenetrable as my first glance indicated. Directly bearing on RooK and Ley Druid's conversation, the book ends with "A Make Believe Physics of Belief." Christensen says that decision theory, which describes the behavior of entities with free will making choices on the basis of subjective probabilities and value matrices, can be exactly overlain on quantum mechanics, which describes the passive behavior of entities bound by physical law. Only the language of the description is different, he says. I did not know that decision theory had formal premises that start with free will and values, but that is what "decision" is all about. If there is no free will, there is no "decision." If there are no decision-making criteria, there can be no decision. The decision-making criteria are properly called "values" because when we choose we are seeking to maximize competing criteria: ease, delight, effectiveness, mercy, justice, etc. and values are shown by which criteria tend to "win" over the others when more than one value comes into play. The decision-making entity is naturally defined as the "self." It was kind of cool.

It reminded me of another book, Man is Moral Choice, by Albert Hobbs. We simply seem to perceive the operation of our Selves as in a constant state of making choices, striving to make the "best" choice, whatever that means to us. It seems to me that to remove this perception we have of choice making is to remove our humanity. It is somewhat like saying, "You must not dedicate your life to painting works of art, because there is no such thing as color. There are only different wavelengths of light, mixed with different intensities. Color and the emotions evoked by them are illusions of perception." We simply cannot rearrange our brains to see dispassionately see wavelengths and intensities when we see a sunset. So it is with trying to make best choices.
 
Posted by Freehand (# 144) on :
 
Rook, I do so like your pet theory. If I were to take your pet for a walk, I would wonder about the implications on identity and the dread of death. I would wander about the existential crisis of humanity.

It is exactly this problem of consciousness and self identity that leads to a personal crisis. We have the knowledge that we exists now and that someday we will no longer exist. I think that much of this dread stems from a very small view of ourselves as being bounded by our skin and a desperate desire to set ourselves apart from the rest of humanity. It is our ego that cannot tolerate the idea that we will not go on and the dread comes from losing our perspective as a meaningful part of the whole.

I like your idea of expanding our identity to include the world. Even if death is The End for our particular collection of cells, our life goes on in the ways we have touched the people around us, in the worms that eat our dead flesh, and in our children. One particular part dies but the whole of life goes on. Extending our identity to include the world is a way to put ourselves in perspective, not as insignificant specks in vast sea of humanity, but as meaningful interactive entities.

For the adventurous, there are some parallels here to Christianity. Christians aim to find their identity in a God that embraces the world. This integrates their identity with God and thereby they care for all people (that's the goal anyway). Putting it another way, it is by loving all people that we love God.

Is there really much difference?

Freehand [Smile]
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
Freehand! What took you so long to show up, buddy?

A welcome tangent. Once Identity is established, and internal communication begins with that Identity, establishing a Self, a curious fact emerges: Others, who are similar, die. The Self begins a countdown, not knowing which number is equal to the Reaper's Zero. Maddening. Possibly frightening.

Why frightening? Is Death not simply Sleep without awakening or dreams? Recall that the Greek god of Death, Thanatos, is the twin of Hypnus, god of Sleep. The twin. Forget the Styx and the Great White Throne; they are the products of minds that fear the unknown. Stop reading Hamlet's soliliquy at this line: "And by a sleep to say we end the heartaches and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation devoutly to be wished." The answer to "Who would bear the whips and scorns of time" is: "One who has found Meaning in living."

So where does Meaning come from? Believing that this pathetic world is a brief moment in time that will be shattered by a new world order with Christ as the King, Evil abolished, the Elect arising from their graves to eternal life in an unending, deathless state of ecstatic and perpetual union with the Power of All? Too much for me to swallow. Way more than I need to find Meaning in living.

Every now and then, touch another person in love. As often as possible, make the choice, make the effort, exert the Will of the Self, to touch other Minds in Love. Then lie down, and rest in peace. If you awake in Eternal Reward, what a nice surprise. If you awake in Eternal Punishment, well you're just going to have to feel sorry for the prick that did it to you.
 
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
quote:
Concerning other "problem-solvers" RooK said:
"successful" versions of each are DETERMINED by how well they accomplish things that allow them to continue existing.
...So specific changes in plants and cars usually address one solution to one problem. Period.
This is reductionist. The overwhelming majority of scientists would acknowledge that variation, that is, changes or "versions" as you put it, in genotype, phenotype and dramatype can occur randomly whith neither cause or effect vis-a-vis continued existence or problem solving.
But guess what? -- you are free to make this assumption if you want to. There will be consequences to your assumption, but if they don't bother you, then knock yourself out.

You are also free to assume that another person
quote:
needs to have a goal or direction.
Obviously if you make this assumption, there's no more free will; an action is chosen to obtain a goal or direction (or it's random).

Let me suggest what I see as an inevitable consequence of your assumption. If you study an electron going through two holes in a wall, hopefully you would realize, as Alan Cresswell said on this thread, that which hole the electron goes through is a random event. If you study me going through two holes in a wall you are likely to come to the same conclusion. Control all the variables you want, you will never find what determines which door I go through. Your crackpot theory will say that my behavior is "random and meaningless" or
quote:
a specific domain of the unknowable that lies within a greater realm of the unknown
The consequence of your theory is that you will be wrong, laughably wrong to me. All you had to do was ask. But how things appear to me is obviously no reason at all why you need to change your crackpot theory.

Likewise people who assume "free will", have to live with the consequences of that assumption. They can never prove "free will", because they have assumed it to be true (hence JimT's objections to a seeming tautology).

Personally, it always seemed arbitrary why humans should be special, but now I see that the fact that another person can tell you somehing, can have a large effect on what you know about them. The role of language in epistemology really should make this obvious.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Why frightening? Is Death not simply Sleep without awakening or dreams?
But isn't that the most frightening thing imaginable? Didn't it ever keep you up awake when you were a kid, scared to sleep in case it was the same as dying?
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Freehand finally showed up!
I think we discussed my contemplations of the "self" being imaginary on one of our Crawford rides. As you can see, it's gotten only slightly more rigorous.

I particularly liked the line,
quote:
I would wander about the existential crisis of humanity.
Even though I suspect it was just a typo, I legitimately wonder where you would "go".

Also, as you noticed, and JimT taunted, the cognitive and perceptual similarity between the "extended self" and the christian ideal is what makes the religion charming for me.

Ley Druid, you'll have to pardong the following comments and replies - because I really couldn't divine an actual point from your post.

quote:
The overwhelming majority of scientists would acknowledge that variation, that is, changes or "versions" as you put it, in genotype, phenotype and dramatype can occur randomly whith neither cause or effect vis-a-vis continued existence or problem solving.
Er, I disagree. While the actual changes might be random (and I certainly didn't deny that), there exists those few changes that accidentally solve a certain problem. These successful few, theoretically, are more successful than their randomly-different peers, thus propogating the "solution". The comment about "consequences to [my] assumption" completely whizzed over my problem-solving lobe. Sorry, no idea what you meant.

quote:
You are also free to assume that another person "needs to have a goal or direction". Obviously if you make this assumption, there's no more free will; an action is chosen to obtain a goal or direction (or it's random).
What little sense of this gibberish I can make seems incorrect. I made the distinction between intentional and unintentional, and you seem to be saying that those two exclude "free will"? Please tell me I missed something there.

quote:
Let me suggest what I see as an inevitable consequence of your assumption. If you study an electron going through two holes in a wall, hopefully you would realize, as Alan Cresswell said on this thread, that which hole the electron goes through is a random event. If you study me going through two holes in a wall you are likely to come to the same conclusion. Control all the variables you want, you will never find what determines which door I go through. Your crackpot theory will say that my behavior is "random and meaningless" <snip>

The consequence of your theory is that you will be wrong, laughably wrong to me. All you had to do was ask.
Why is this a consequence, much less an inevitable one? At no point are quantum effects or probabilities even relevant, much less dismissed. More importantly, the Crackpot Theory™ has nothing at all to do with experimentally determining people's motivations - so your whole analogy is pointless and inappropriate.

Quite honestly, this last post leads me to suspect that you have really no understanding of what we're talking about, and that you may just be reacting to my dismissing of "free will". If that is the case, I hope you will accept my apology and believe that no slight was intended. You really don't need to defend free will, per-se; it's not going to cease to exist because of this conversation.
 
Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
Crap! Is this thread still going?!? [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
It certainly looks like it's still going Mark [Big Grin]

And, it's still a mighty fine thread.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
If you study an electron going through two holes in a wall, hopefully you would realize, as Alan Cresswell said on this thread, that which hole the electron goes through is a random event. If you study me going through two holes in a wall you are likely to come to the same conclusion. Control all the variables you want, you will never find what determines which door I go through.
I thought that by the end of page 1 of this thread we'd come to the conclusion that quantum indeterminancy wasn't relevant to this discussion?
 
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Ley Druid, you'll have to pardong the following comments and replies - because I really couldn't divine an actual point from your post.
Perhaps if you were the creator and I was a sentinent-seeming being it would have been easier (that's a play on your use of "divine")

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
You are also free to assume that another person "needs to have a goal or direction". Obviously if you make this assumption, there's no more free will; an action is chosen to obtain a goal or direction (or it's random).
What little sense of this gibberish I can make seems incorrect. I made the distinction between intentional and unintentional ...
You made no mention of "intentional and unintentional". Interesting distinction.
You did call my post gibberish.


The mention of "free will" in the OP, may have something to do with its re-occurrence in my posts.
Is it your "crackpot theory about human brains" that
quote:
leads me to suspect that you have really no understanding of what we're talking about...
or is this the result of some other inspiration (that would be another play on your use of "divine").
 
Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It certainly looks like it's still going Mark [Big Grin]

And, it's still a mighty fine thread.
It's asbestos, too. It survived my booting it to Hell and all my other nefarious efforts during H&AD. [Waterworks]
 
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I thought that by the end of page 1 of this thread we'd come to the conclusion that quantum indeterminancy wasn't relevant to this discussion?
The quantum part is neither here nor there.
Many discussions about "free will" contrast determinancy with indeterminancy. If you can provide me with acceptable synonyms for "indeterminancy" I'll be happy to use them. Similarly if you don't want me to talk about determinancy, indeterminancy, or "free will" I would also be happy to oblige.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
The quantum part is neither here nor there.
Well, you introduced the quantum system of electrons going through holes. You refered to it as "random" where as it is indeterminate ... the best description is that the electron goes through both holes. Random is not synonymous with indeterminate.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Perhaps if you were the creator and I was a sentinent-seeming being it would have been easier
Perhaps? Now that's thinking I can appreciate. Question those silly preconceived notions about your religion.

quote:
You made no mention of "intentional and unintentional".
What do you think I meant by segregating the actions of entities with brains from entities without brains?

quote:
Interesting distinction.
Indeed. Welcome to the discussion... a page or so ago.

quote:
You did call my post gibberish.
It was unnecessary and presumptuous of me. Sorry. I should have clarified that it seemed to me like meaningless gibberish that could have been derived from randomly picking words from the various other posts, the appendix of a 1st-year college textbook, and a cereal box.

quote:
The mention of "free will" in the OP, may have something to do with its re-occurrence in my posts.
Fair enough. I suppose that if you post about it often enough, the laws of probability state that it should eventually have something to do with what we're actually talking about.

quote:
Is it your "crackpot theory about human brains" that leads [you] to suspect that [I] have really no understanding of what we're talking about... or is this the result of some other inspiration.
Mostly it comes my observation that your posts never seem to have any significant relevance to the discussion, that you seem mostly unwilling to directly answer any question I ask, and that your questions could be seen as puerile.

Whoa... hey. That could be just an inference from the pattern-recognition function of my problem-solving brain. It seems like there is dubious means for any quantitative determination of another's understanding (translation: I don't have faith in test scores?). Perhaps this is an arbitrary problem-solving attempt that is based on some pre-conceived template for what ignorance manifests itself as. I mean, a perfectly plausible alternate explanation is that I just don't understan what Ley Druid has been saying (or, have been mistaking it).
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Why frightening? Is Death not simply Sleep without awakening or dreams?
But isn't that the most frightening thing imaginable? Didn't it ever keep you up awake when you were a kid, scared to sleep in case it was the same as dying?
Ken, the absolute truth is that I never feared death. I only feared Hell. I find oblivion completely relaxing. I find the prospect of eternal life ultimately unappealing. Eternity in a single state, albeit perpetual enlightenment, with no future to look forward to, no struggles, no achievement, no babies watch grow, young people to assist, hurting people to help, is meaningless to me. Perpetual reincarnation where you retain full memory of your past life sounds like a more appealing fantasy, but I'll gladly settle for oblivion. I don't think people really think through the whole Eternal Life thing. When you press them, they back off to, "God will make it interesting; we can't imagine how wonderful it will be." But they sound like they are convincing themselves. What it seems to me they crave is not the full vision of Eternal Life; they simply do not want Death. Eternal Life must be good if you don't have to die. Maybe it's better to die.

Robert Heinlein wrote a book about a guy who just wants to die after living thousands of years after Man achieves immortality. I think it's called Time Enough for Love.

And Mark, what did you think it was like when Unitarians witness to agnostics? It's not like you can just pull out John 3:16 and get them on their knees begging for Eternal Life. You Fundamentalists have it so easy. But look at this. RooK has backed off all the way from "Dead guy on a stick" to "interesting." The next thing you know he'll be reading Ecclesiastes and Proverbs. Might be worth it just to hear an angel in Heaven say, "I'll be damned."
 
Posted by Freehand (# 144) on :
 
What's going on here? Everyone agrees with me. Fr. Gregory thinks I'm orthodox and people don't disagree with me on this thread (yet). Is it starting to happen? Is my identity expanding out into the world?

quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
And Mark, what did you think it was like when Unitarians witness to agnostics? It's not like you can just pull out John 3:16 and get them on their knees begging for Eternal Life. You Fundamentalists have it so easy. But look at this. RooK has backed off all the way from "Dead guy on a stick" to "interesting." The next thing you know he'll be reading Ecclesiastes and Proverbs. Might be worth it just to hear an angel in Heaven say, "I'll be damned."
JimT, you're a goofball. [Biased] Also, didn't some angel already say "I'll be damned?"

I will define freewill seeing as no one else wants to define it. I see freewill occurring when a choice is made that originates from within the self. If an animal chooses to go left or right on a trail and they are not compelled by an external force, they have freewill.

The existence of freewill depends upon where we draw the lines of our identity. Let's say that a particular decision is pre-determined by genetics. If a person considers their genetics to be a part of themselves, then their being has made a decision. However, if a person thinks, "no, my self cannot be pre-determined by genetics," then they push their genetics out of their identity and see their true identity in some other place. The spiritual solution is to say that our real selves exist as a spirit, relatively independent of the body, and that our true choices originate from this spirit. This can, in extreme cases, lead to a dichotomy where the spirit has no relationship to the physical at all.

The real problem lies in causality. If we assume that everything is caused by something else then there is no freewill aside from either:

(a) the arbitrary lines we draw around ourselves to distinguish the origin of our decisions, as I have described.

(b) the first cause as the ONLY agent of freewill.

At first (a) looks like a weaker concept of freewill than the idea of absolutely free spirits. However, I would ask, "what made the spirit choose?" If nothing made the spirit choose, then it is just randomness anyway. Alternately, if the spirit had motivation to make the choice, then was it really free? Was the spirit pre-determined by its' identity? It really comes down to the same thing. It's called freewill because the decision originates from within the identity.

The only way to have true freewill, I think, is to relax the conditions of causality. However, causality is an the underlying assumption of this whole discussion. Without causality, it is difficult to talk about much at all (though it would be fun to try). For the sake of argument, I'll stick to causality. It's an arbitrary choice on my part. [Biased]

The development of consciousness results in a distinction that we make between self and not-self. Not only does this result in dread of death and non-being, but it results in the appearance of freewill. There are seemingly arbitrary decisions that we (at least sometimes) make, originating from within ourselves, utterly immune to influence from external forces.

What happens when we push our identity outwards to embrace the world? Not only do we lose the distinction between us and them but all decisions become our decisions and all experiences are our experiences. All is one and one is all. The infinite diversity of life finds wholeness, and oneness is expressed through infinite variation. We reach a state of transcendence or perhaps it is just self-delusion. I'm still trying to tell the difference. Maybe there is no difference in that the concept of a distinct self has been obliterated. Transcendence = self-delusion. I like it.

Freehand [Smile]

[Edited for UBB.]

[ 01. November 2003, 12:18: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 
Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freehand:
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
And Mark, what did you think it was like when Unitarians witness to agnostics? It's not like you can just pull out John 3:16 and get them on their knees begging for Eternal Life. You Fundamentalists have it so easy. But look at this. RooK has backed off all the way from "Dead guy on a stick" to "interesting." The next thing you know he'll be reading Ecclesiastes and Proverbs. Might be worth it just to hear an angel in Heaven say, "I'll be damned."
JimT, you're a goofball. [Biased] Also, didn't some angel already say "I'll be damned?"
[Big Grin]

Unitarians witness?!? [Ultra confused]
I'll be damned.

[Edited for UBB.]

[ 01. November 2003, 13:09: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 
Posted by Timothy (# 292) on :
 
Boy--Go away for a couple of days and see what happens.

OK, Rook--I'm with you all the way on free will vs. determinism as a pseudo-problem. As I said before, subjectively, we have no choice but to regard ourselves as having free will, and it makes no sense to have a theory that applies to others but not to ourselves (a good psychological theory must be reflexive--it has to explain the act of theorizing).

Someone (I forget who, and now I'm in the post page and can't go back to check) defined free will as action that originates from within the self. I think there's something to this--the human ability to symbolize gives us the ability (something I doubt other species have) to imagine alternative outcomes, and so to construe stimuli in more than one way. This opens up the possibility of genuine choice--but we can't choose alternatives we can't imagine, and our imagination may be limited by our experience. If one defines the self as "that which construes the environment and makes choices," then you're in tautological territory.

The things we can say (almost)for sure is that the brain is designed to adapt to the environment in which it finds itself, and (IMHO) with only 30,000 genes, there is no way that most complex behaviors can be genetically hard-wired in humans. Genetic predispositions that may be activated or potentiated by environmental factors, sure. But overall, the nature/nurture distinction just hasn't panned out as a useful construct.

I'd go on, but I have a feeling that last shot of Tullamore Dew isn't helping...

Timothy
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Thinking about Freehand's comments on causality, it made me wonder in a weird direction. It seems to me that all that I know and can conceive of in terms of mental models are absolutely tied to causality. Perhaps, if there were some way to remove the causality from a particular being, what would emerge could be the nebulous "free will" aspect. Of course, that observation requires causality, so the irony of that definition is how it remains amusingly unknowable.

So, Timothy, do you think that symbolic visualization would be purely the domain of "free will"? How does this reflect on those animals that have shown capabilities for understanding symbolic logic?

I have to agree with Timothy about the limitations of the genome. There might be more specific determinations from the proteome, but I think that too is an insufficient explanation. Environmental factors and just plain random effects are too prominent to discount.
 
Posted by Freehand (# 144) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Perhaps, if there were some way to remove the causality from a particular being, what would emerge could be the nebulous "free will" aspect. Of course, that observation requires causality, so the irony of that definition is how it remains amusingly unknowable.
I agree. The concept of freewill is about a non-causal being. I think that your following statement is tremendously profound. We will not be able to interrogate the nature of freewill because freewill is non-causal and reasoning is causal. This is why I say that I am the sound of one hand clapping.

The only way out of this is to think in a non-causal manner. Perhaps this happens when we observe beauty and experience love. Both of these experiences are non-logical and beyond reason. Yes, I know that they can be dissected in a causal manner but I always get the feeling that something is lost, like slicing up a live baby. Reason is a knife that cuts life into smaller and smaller pieces. How many poems have been ruined through analysis? The truth is often found in seeing the whole, in seeing holistically. This manner of thinking has been an ideal of mine for a long time. Life can look so different when I do not judge and just embrace it. The fact that I am writing this shows that I am a slicer and dicer. I analyze but try not to lose sight of the whole. And when I embrace beauty, I maintain logical checks to ensure that I don't go loony. At other times I vacillate wildly between the two extremes.

What I really wanted to talk about was freewill. In my last post, I was attempting to suggest a different way to look at freewill. I wanted to discuss the interaction of freewill with our identity without having to definitively say whether we have freewill or not (how agnostic of me [Biased] ). As I see it, we live in the middle of many, interacting causal strings. We can only chase the strings a little bit each way. We cannot fully understand the causal events that brought us to our current identity. Heck, we are only aware of a fraction of our brain's computations. We are also unaware of the full future repercussions of our own actions. This is why I suggested drawing a line around ourselves and describing freewill as being that which originates from within ourselves. I don't know whether this is real freewill or not but it gives us a tool for examining conditions where real freewill can arise. So, my last post was really about understanding our capacity for freewill and it's interaction with our identity.

I do not think it is important to identify whether we have real freewill or not. It is more critical to answer the question of who we are. The size and nature of our capacity for freewill will then become more apparent as we learn more about ourselves.

Our identity is created by a combination of our mental construct and our life experiences. The line where we draw the line between "me" and "not-me" is somewhat arbitrary. As RooK suggested, if we have freewill, our own fundamental nature will remain impervious to full analysis. It is this mysterious aspect of myself that keeps me from thinking of myself as a machine and keeps me dreaming about God.

I had fun with the tangent of transcendence being synonymous with the obliteration of self. Everything became terribly ethereal and spiritualized. However, there is another kind of transcendence that GK Chesterton described quite well in one of his books. In Chesterton's sense, transcendence was not the case of a loss of identity and a smudging of all things into one, but a distinct and clear awareness of the specificity of life. Chesterton was often caught up in a rapture of wonder, not about an all pervading oneness, but in the form and beauty of every day things. I would say, in the embracing of all, don't lose sight of the individual and in the affirmation of the individual, don't lose sight of the whole.

Whew! That was fun,

Freehand [Smile]
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
It is interesting that causality has entered the picture. I have been thinking along the lines that Timothy offered:

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy:

I think there's something to this--the human ability to symbolize gives us the ability (something I doubt other species have) to imagine alternative outcomes, and so to construe stimuli in more than one way. This opens up the possibility of genuine choice--but we can't choose alternatives we can't imagine, and our imagination may be limited by our experience.
However, I was taking alternative outcomes in a different direction, consonant with RooK's problem solving. A brain that can imagine swimming, rafting, or bridging a stream and then choose from the alternatives is going to be ahead of one that cannot generate alternatives, analyze, and make a choice. Even if under the conditions, one alternative is clearly best and will be chosen every time, that doesn't really mean that there was no "choice." There was a best choice, and it was chosen from among worse alternatives. I think where I wound up was with Freehand: free will is the capacity for choice that arises within us.

Animals making choices can be imagined. Animals sensing their identity and deciding to make choices within the social context of a pack can also be imagined. Primitive criteria like fear of punishment or loyalty to primary caregivers who have fed and protected can be imagined. More noble criteria, requiring communication, like giving someone a second chance when they have apologized for wrong and made retribution are harder to imagine in animals. One would suspect that such things have to be learned by an advanced symbolic thinker.

Have we arrived at Original Sin being the hardwiring that solves social problems with threat, fear, deception, and force that are clearly seen throughout the animal kingdom and in young children? Do we think that perhaps salvation from this Original Sin requires someone who has progressed beyond it to show the uninitiated that unity in love is a way for humans to interact in a spiritual way? That unity is best achieved by extending the Self outward, beyond the backslidden Judeans, beyond the half-breed Samaritans, and outward to "the uttermost parts of the Earth?"

I thought of RooK's suggestion of extention of Self in terms of the Good Samaritan story. The lesson can be seen as much more than, "be nice to strangers" which is what the phrase has become. It was that there really is no such thing spiritually as a "stranger." Spiritually, we have the chance to pick our parent and become brothers and sisters with other children who have made the same choice. Coming from a culture that believed all inheritence came from the seed of the father, with mother as the passive location of development, he thought it was sufficient to pick a spiritual father only, his Father in Heaven. But we get the idea. People who will not make the choice are doomed to a transient, animal-like existence whereas the others can participate in the eternal realm of the spirit, which constantly grows and renews itself.
 
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, you introduced the quantum system of electrons going through holes. You refered to it as "random" where as it is indeterminate ... the best description is that the electron goes through both holes.
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Alan Cresswell:
you can't say in advance which hole the electron will go through, the best you can do is give a probability of it going through one particular hole
random : Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution. Dictionary.com
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Yes, random relates to probalistic events. But these can be determinate or indeterminate. The outcome of a throw of a die is random - but the die obeys classical laws of physics and is in principle deterministic (in practice, we can't actually measure initial conditions sufficiently to determine the outcome). With the electrons going through a pair of holes, even if we could measure the initial conditions precisely we can't determine in advance which hole it will be detected going through (assuming you set up an experiment to measure which hole it goes through and collapse the wave function).

A classical event may be random (probalistic) to all intents and purposes due to lack of knowledge. A quantum event is random (probalistic) due to the very nature of quantum particles.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Can't there be classical chaotic systems, AC? Are those deterministic? (not trying to be difficult but just trying to understand.)
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Can't there be classical chaotic systems, AC? Are those deterministic?
Even my zeppelin-like ego will bow before Doctor Cresswell, but I'm pretty sure that the fundamental beauty - and limitation - of classical physics is that all interactions thereof can be completely resolved.
...theoretically. In practical applications of things that are technically bound by classical physics there can be indeterminate, chaotic systems. This is because of the bogglingly-huge number of variables that can arise. Fluid mechanics is one such field.

Going back to the painfully abstract topic of free will:
JimT and Freehand, your fundamental instinct that there exists something not attributable to the purely problem-solving brain causes me to wonder. If we call this extra something "free will", and we don't give up and wave our hands and say "because God did it" - can we guess its origin? I mean, following an evolutionary model, was there some point in our evolutionary past that this free will entered? Could there be another type of organism alive today that might be on the cusp of obtaining it?

The reason I ask is because of my own interests in artificial intelligence. It's possible, with some clever coding, to make an autonomous robot approximately as intelligent as an insect. I've got the feeling that with some crude "problem-solving-self" mental abilities, a robot about as intelligent as a simple mammal could be made. If we keep extrapolating, do we eventually hit the invisible "free will" barrier?

If we eventually make a robotic being that passes the Turing test, would that be sufficient to dismiss your "free will" theories?
 
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A classical event may be random (probalistic) to all intents and purposes due to lack of knowledge. A quantum event is random (probalistic) due to the very nature of quantum particles.
There you go again with a dichotomy between classical and quantum.
Aren't "quantum concepts" like "The Heisenberg uncertainty principle" and "wavefunction collapse" part of the reason why
quote:
in practice, we can't actually measure initial conditions sufficiently to determine the outcome
quote:
Orignially posted by Rook
I know and can conceive of in terms of mental models are absolutely tied to causality. Perhaps, if there were some way to remove the causality from a particular being, what would emerge could be the nebulous "free will" aspect.
Let's see if Dr. Heisenberg can remove all causality
quote:
I believe that the existence of the classical "path" can be pregnantly formulated as follows: The "path" comes into existence only when we observe it.-- from Zeitschrift für Physik , 43, 1927
Quantum indeterminancy is NOT what causes free will, because otherwise electrons get free will as much as humans. But it is important that the universe is fundamentally indeterminate, and any determinism is a product of our observation.
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy:
a good psychological theory must be reflexive--it has to explain the act of theorizing
Free will assumes that others are not always determined by our crackpot theories, but that they can speak for themselves.
 
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
I would like to thank you all for an interesting discusssion.
I said things quite badly in the previous post.
All I meant to say was that the dichotomy between classical and quantum (microscopic and macroscopic) is not always easily maintained.
People have been debating this since Schrodinger's Cat
This link provides a good discussion of the uncertaintity principle etc. etc.
 
Posted by Freehand (# 144) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
JimT and Freehand, your fundamental instinct that there exists something not attributable to the purely problem-solving brain causes me to wonder.
All I am saying is that we cannot tell whether there is genuine freewill or not and that it's not useful (maybe?) to try chasing the causal string all the way back to the first causes. Chasing the string results in Ley Druid's perspective of particles with some kind of freedom that result in a macro phenomenon in humans called freewill. Chasing the causal string, chases our identity into the oblivion of complexity. It divorces our identity, as we commonly perceive it, from our experience of what it really feels like to have freewill. If I wasn't so abstractly convoluted, I would just say, "we may not have freewill, but it sure feels like we do, so we might as well act as though we have it."

Rather than arguing yes or no in the absolute sense, perhaps it would be more meaningful to think of freewill as a mechanism for making a choice. Perhaps our deterministic plus random Will can be honestly labeled free in the same way that we say that deterministic lottery balls are random. This attitude reminds me of Turing's attitude in the wikipedia link:

quote:
Turing originally proposed the test in order to replace the emotionally charged and for him meaningless question "Can machines think?" with a more well-defined one.
Rather than asking "do we have freewill?" I am proposing that we ask, "how does our freewill, apparent or real, meaningfully play itself out in our lives?"

quote:
RooK wrote:
If we call this extra something "free will", and we don't give up and wave our hands and say "because God did it" - can we guess its origin?
I'm guessing that we can't do it today, but who knows? I don't know if there is an extra something or not. I doubt it. I'm just saying that science, as of today, does not have an answer that satisfies me. I'm thinking on the level of day to day experience.

quote:
RooK wrote:
I mean, following an evolutionary model, was there some point in our evolutionary past that this free will entered? Could there be another type of organism alive today that might be on the cusp of obtaining it?
Sure, I suspect that many animals have a form of freewill. Maybe even electrons have freewill. I think that it's just our narrow minded pride as a species that makes us think that we are oh-so-much-better than the rest of the living organisms.

quote:
RooK wrote:
The reason I ask is because of my own interests in artificial intelligence. It's possible, with some clever coding, to make an autonomous robot approximately as intelligent as an insect. I've got the feeling that with some crude "problem-solving-self" mental abilities, a robot about as intelligent as a simple mammal could be made. If we keep extrapolating, do we eventually hit the invisible "free will" barrier?
I think that it is entirely possible to create a robot that looks like it has freewill. Perhaps that is the case for ourselves.

quote:
RooK wrote:
If we eventually make a robotic being that passes the Turing test, would that be sufficient to dismiss your "free will" theories?
No, because I'm not suggesting that we have or do not have genuine freewill. Even after freewill is disproven, it will still be a meaningful way to think about life. If we assume that everything is pre-determined and refuse to make decisions, we have just thrown away half of our intelligence along with a meaningful decision mechanism. Freewill is a label that can meaningfully be applied to this decision mechanism, even if it actually is deterministic. In the same way, I suspect that people will continue to believe in God for a long while yet.

BTW, I don't think that the Turing test is a good test for freewill but I look forward to more intelligent machines in the future. Can you create a machine that replicates the existential crisis within humanity? Now that would be something interesting!

I apologize for the abstractions. It is just that the real world is so painfully... well... um... real.

Freehand [Smile]
 
Posted by Freehand (# 144) on :
 
I am thinking, perhaps the reason I am here at Ship of Fools is not because of any meaningful content but just because my brain is a problem solving machine that enjoys complex philosophical challenges. [Biased] Compulsions are not reality!
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
There you go again with a dichotomy between classical and quantum.
Aren't "quantum concepts" like "The Heisenberg uncertainty principle" and "wavefunction collapse" part of the reason why
quote:
in practice, we can't actually measure initial conditions sufficiently to determine the outcome
Well, that's because it's so much easier to type than constantly restating that "classical" and "quantum" are short-hand for refering to explaining physical systems using either classical (eg: Newtonian Mechanics or Einsteinian Relativity) or quantum descriptions. The problem is that whether quantum indeterminacy affects classical descriptions is something which is undecided; basically the uncertainties on quantum scales effectively disappear when you have sufficiently large numbers of quantum particles involved. Even by the time you have objects as large as the transistors packed in enormous numbers onto the chips inside your computer the outcome is deterministic otherwise it would be impossible to use a computer as you could never be entirely sure that the same operation would do the same thing (hmmm, on second thoughts maybe computers aren't all that deterministic [Biased] ).

Quantum and classical descriptions of physics are radically different and incompatible. There are semi-classical approximations of large number of quantum particles (I used several of these during my PhD on nuclear structure), but these are more than anything attempts to simplify the maths by introducing classical concepts. But, this fundamental incompatibility with quantum and classical physics is a great embarrassment to theoretical physicists - which is why there is such a great interest in Grand Unified Theories. Until we have a good GUT I'm not sure there's anyway we can do more than speculate about whether quantum indeterminacy affects the outcome of events on larger scales such as neuron firing in the human brain.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Can't there be classical chaotic systems,
Yes.

Determined by initial conditions but final conditions perhaps not computable, and sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Until we have a good GUT I'm not sure there's anyway we can do more than speculate about whether quantum indeterminacy affects the outcome of events on larger scales such as neuron firing in the human brain.
But atomic-scale events can cause single point gene mutations which can have macroscopic effects.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Ken, the absolute truth is that I never feared death. I only feared Hell. I find oblivion completely relaxing. I find the prospect of eternal life ultimately unappealing.
You are, by definition, insane. Well, by my working definition anyway.
 
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Until we have a good GUT I'm not sure there's anyway we can do more than speculate about whether quantum indeterminacy affects the outcome of events on larger scales such as neuron firing in the human brain.
But atomic-scale events can cause single point gene mutations which can have macroscopic effects.
Exactly.
This is a genetic Schrodinger's Cat: the nuclide emits ionizing radiation which changes a base, which induces a mutation. The base is either changed or it isn't, but until you look, isn't it best to say that the status of the base is indeterminate? Why is it better to say that indeterminancy isn't relevant to the discussion? Why isn't it relevant to question our roles as observers in deterministic crackpot theories?
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Well-said, Freehand. I think most of us can understand what you mean.

But...
I'd still love to hear any random theories that percolate up from the depths, regardless of how unlikely they might be to actually describe simplified "free will".

Ley Druid, I think I might be calling you to Hell shortly - just for fun.
 
Posted by Freehand (# 144) on :
 
The opening post said that freewill is the result of:
This view points to a concept of self as being separate from our material body. As I see it, the two main views of self proposed on this thread are: self composed exclusively of our material being and self being something spiritual, distinct from our material body.

The view of self as being distinct from our bodies, I think, results in a self-of-the-gaps, where we attempt to chase our spiritual control mechanism throughout our bodies, essentially chasing ourselves into some non-deterministic electrons or hot-spots in our brains. When pushed to the limit, this results in a spiritualized perspective on life, akin to gnosticism, where the goal is to transcend the body.

The view of self as being exclusively deterministic and random can render the concept of freewill to be meaningless. This isn't desirable either in that freewill, real or apparent, is a meaningful existential reality.

I see neither of these approaches to be desirable. I am proposing a concept of self where we include our material being in our identity without precluding the possibility of some unpredictable mechanism by which we have genuine freewill. I would define self as being made up of:

Let's try to reproduce this mysterious factor without presuming that we have the answers. RooK, I appreciate that you have this perspective.

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I'd still love to hear any random theories that percolate up from the depths, regardless of how unlikely they might be to actually describe simplified "free will".
I said that I don't think it's meaningful to chase the causal string. What I really should have said is, "go ahead and chase the causal string but let's not forget to embrace our identity here in the now. Let's not place our identity in a self-of-the-gaps or in a simplified, deterministic model that renders our existential reality meaningless."

Let's hear random theories and see some intelligent machines. We can judge them based upon how well they match reality and not upon the faith that we have in theory.

Have fun,

Freehand [Smile]
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
If we eventually make a robotic being that passes the Turing test, would that be sufficient to dismiss your "free will" theories?
I am with those who say "no" on the basis of it proving simulation of conversation, not internal experience of perception, particularly perception of Self and Will. A machine can say, "Personally, I am moved more deeply by music than art so I go to more concerts than art shows," and they only sound human. True enough, humans can simply sound human but we think their perceptual world is similar to our own. I don't know how to solve the problem of measuring perception. A machine can discriminate colors by digital sampling. Giving it a feeling of beauty from the mental images of perceived color is another matter.

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
You are, by definition, insane. Well, by my working definition anyway.
Insanity is an adaptive response to unusual circumstances. I'm proud to say that I've adapted. As a result of therapy, I accept death as inevitable, natural, and nothing to be feared. I wouldn't say it with such conviction, but I was robbed at gunpoint a few years ago and at one point was concerned that I might be killed. I felt gratitude that my wife would be cared for financially, that I would simply get a quick bullet to the back of the head and not suffer, and grieved at the thought of the young man making the wrong choice by compounding robbery with murder and never getting off drugs. In therapy, I drew on the inspiration from the countless Bible stories I heard about facing death unafraid. It is unnatural, but recommended in the Bible, and required for those with a neurotic and repressed terror of death. That was my old kind of insanity.

Some see a "pathology" in "normalcy," rooted in a failure to accept the inevitability of a firm and final cessation of existence at death. Perhaps it is the kind of pathology that has positive adaptive value, like bacteria in the colon, but to the extent that it distorts reality, it is insane. It is refreshing to me that theology is emerging that is not based on what I believe to be the myth of conscious, willful life beyond physical death. Even our Ship's own Pentecostal Universalist is with me on that one and she's obviously not crazy.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
I've got the agree with you guys about the Turing Test. I know too many humans that would fail it.

What if we were to create a thinking machine that, without any instructions to do so, and based soley on its interaction with people, decided to become Christian?
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Oh dear! I didn't realise until today that this thread was so wonderful. Now I'm full of ideas and questions.

I want to ask RooK if you've read Julian Jayne's wonderfully weird 'The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind.' It's not a million miles from your explanation of the evolution of 'yummy brain' - though I think Jayne is lacking in clarity at basic levels. It doesn't matter on an artistic level as his book is a stupendous piece of work.

I wonder if anyone here has read and understood John Cobb, expounding A N Whitehead. He suggests that each particle, each electron, in each moment 'chooses' what to become, influenced by the bi-polar lure of God. Or something. It's a long time ago since I read it, but it fits with some thoughts on page 1 of this thread.

I also want to ask about a point I came across in John Macquarrie (though it's not his) that if the human mind is determined and not free, then our judgements are not to be trusted, and all science and philosophy falls. Is this right?

I've long agreed with the point that evolution can favour the competitive group, meaning the community minded genome. I also agree that to expand our circle of belonging, as the Bible encourages us to do, from the tribe to the nation, to all humanity (read Second Isaiah), to the neighbour-whoever (Good Samaritan), to the cross-cultural Body where Jew, slave, male mean nothing is the way God calls us.

And JimT's comments on death and eternity ... Yes!
 
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
Showing something isn't free will doesn't dismiss free will (showing that drugs affect choices no more dismisses the possibility of free choices than showing that snoopy isn't a dog dismisses the possibility of dogs)

If the program determines the choices of the thinking machine by an algorithm, then the choices aren't free. One could mistakenly think they were.

If the choice among possibilities is not determined by the program alone, but by the program's response to some other event (random, pseudorandom, or chaotic), then the choice will be ultimately caused by the event and not free. One could mistakenly think it was.

If the program generates truly random choices, because the program is truly random, then nothing causes the choices. If the program subsequently claims to have freely made the choice and the choice causes an action, that would be free will. I think it would be wiser to predict the program's future actions based on its choices than to assume such a choice was meaningless.

If a human designs a program, it will be designed and not random, therefore humans could never design a program with free will.
 
Posted by Timothy (# 292) on :
 
hatless wrote:

"I also want to ask about a point I came across in John Macquarrie (though it's not his) that if the human mind is determined and not free, then our judgements are not to be trusted, and all science and philosophy falls. Is this right?"

I'm not sure it completely falls, but it definitely begins to teeter a bit. Especially in my field, psychology, where academics and clinicians have a history of assuming that research subjects, clients, and the generic human beings of psychology textbooks are determined by their drives, contingent reinforcements, or what have you, while taking it for granted that they as certified scientific researchers or therapy practitioners are making free choices based on data and logic.... That's why reflexivity in theories is important (George Kelly had a lot to say about this nearly 50 years ago, but not enough people paid attention).

As for symbolism as the means to "free will" (a phrase I don't much like--I'd rather speak of agency or choice): I do think that's the critical point--because we can symbolize our environment, mapping patterns of symbols and their relationships onto the world around us (and within us), we can construct alternative models of the world and choose among them. A stimlulus, for us, is not simply what it is but whatever we can imagine it to be. This does not mean we are unconstrained, which to me is what "free will" implies, but it does mean that we have genuine alternatives. A few other species may be able to do this in a rudimentary way (apes that have been taught sign language might be pretty good at it), but I'm pretty sure it takes a well-developed prefrontal cortex to do it in a complex way.

Terence Deacon's book THE SYMBOLIC SPECIES lays this out in a fairly accessible way, and I recommend it highly.

Timothy
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
RooK, getting one machine to utter the words “I have decided to be a Christian” is a start. But we need much more I think to demonstrate the Self-evaluating and Self-modifying concepts embodied in Free Will. Perhaps two machines with the same exact program could be given access to a rabbi, a priest, an atheist, and an agnostic. After five minutes both machines say, “I am agnostic.” After three days, one says, “I have decided to become a Jew” while the other says, “I have decided to become a Christian.” The machines then discuss their beliefs with each other and the Jew becomes an evangelical Christian while the Christian modifies their beliefs to non-theist Christianity. That would be impressive, especially if in later discussions one of them tried to unplug the other.

Hatless, the “community-minded genome” is of course very interesting to me. You get a huge fuss from geneticists that selection can only act at the level of individuals, but it is indeed surprising how many times the individuals are better off cooperating. A new discovery for me is “quorum sensing” in bacteria: each individual puts out a tiny bit of chemical, all sense the concentration, and thus the community “behaves” differently depending on how many individuals there are. But I see this as a model of choice rather than a Free Will kind of choice. I can’t go with electron “choices” for the same reason. With respect to the consequences of a choiceless mind, it is ethics which falls apart it seems to me. Still, I find comfort in the mere perception of choice and am happy to live within that possible delusion. Hey, I’m already nuts, right?

Ley Druid, I don’t quite get you here:

quote:
If a human designs a program, it will be designed and not random, therefore humans could never design a program with free will.
I don’t get the insistence on randomness. I can see different outcomes being one way to show that perhaps choice might be happening, but I don’t see a need to demonstrate randomness in choices. In fact, randomness would seem equally likely to demonstrate no choice-making at all: pure “noise” with no structured analysis based on beliefs, values, and probable outcomes. Apart from that, randomness can be built into programs and they can be made self-modifying, even though they are designed.

Timothy I am right with you on symbolism and some day hope to get to the Deacon book. Your reference to other species making value choices reminds me of a PBS special I saw showing such things as an elephant appearing to decide whether to go with the herd or stay behind to help her mother care for a deformed infant that had trouble learning to walk. It also included a love-fight between two gorillas taught sign language where one called the other “devil.”

Too bad I have work to do.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
I slept on it and came up with this test for RooK.

A finite set of thinking, feeling machines are constructed with these characteristics: Terror, Greed, Compassion, and Rationality. The initial settings are infinite Terror and Greed, zero Compassion and Rationality. At regular intervals, a quantum increase in Rationality is made, up to a limit. The highest setting is that of the most intelligent human to model against. Different machines stop adding Rationality at different points.

The Terror component must be characterized by Rationality causing it to quickly alternate between Protection and Attack. The minimum sources of Terror are Loss of Existence, Withdrawal of Compassion, and Loss of Rationality. Greed must have at least one source of Pleasure. Compassion must consist of a desire to Understand Another and Be Understood as well as a need to Love and Be Loved. Rationality must be capable, via internal conversation, to modify levels of Terror, Greed, and Compassion.

The machines must replicate through multiple generations, under a limited set of resources, with the original machines disappearing. If along the way, one of the machines spontaneously comes up with the notion that the settings must be adjusted so that each machine loves other machines as much as it loves itself, then Christian Free Will has been demonstrated in an artificially conscious machine.

Embellishments welcome.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
hatless, I have not read Julian Jayne. It's added to "The List" now. Thank you.

As for science and philosophy falling if the human mind is determined, I fight to resist the pun. My reaction is that both science and philosophy are attempts at understanding, and so will stand regardless of the nature of those trying to do the understanding. However, I would suspect that much science and philosophy might be rendered moot for any being that can see a fixed deterministic design of the human mind (if that can even happen). I guess that means I'm largely in agreement with Timothy.

Ley Druid, you seem to have wandered off on your tangent again. We've started some tongue-in-cheek speculation on the nature of free will, NOT anything about trying to dismiss it. The word you randomly chose, "dismiss", was meant to be applied to the theories provided by others. As for your sad self-contradiction about design and randomness, I'll just see if JimT can drag something meaningful out of you.

JimT, that's just beautiful. I'm not sure I really understand what it means, I can't think of a way to implement it, and I'm pretty sure I disagree with the parameters you chose. Still, the fundamental method certainly bears some consideration. I hope to ponder it some more and come up with some thoughts and/or embellishmets.
 
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Ley Druid, I don’t quite get you here:


quote:

If a human designs a program, it will be designed and not random, therefore humans could never design a program with free will.


I don’t get the insistence on randomness. I can see different outcomes being one way to show that perhaps choice might be happening, but I don’t see a need to demonstrate randomness in choices. In fact, randomness would seem equally likely to demonstrate no choice-making at all: pure “noise” with no structured analysis based on beliefs, values, and probable outcomes. Apart from that, randomness can be built into programs and they can be made self-modifying, even though they are designed.
If I understood your OP, you were suggesting that investigations are continuously decreasing the freedom of the self, by providing explanations for behavior based on genetic and environmental factors.

As limit to this reduction in freedom I have argued for a "hard free will", whereby some choices are not determined by anything -- they are free. A human being also accepts ownership of them and acts upon them.

The only way to separate the "noise" from these free choices would be to ask the person.

Please explain the design of a program that wouldn't cause identical choices, given identical conditions when the choice is made.

[ 08. November 2003, 04:25: Message edited by: Ley Druid ]
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
If I understood your OP, you were suggesting that investigations are continuously decreasing the freedom of the self, by providing explanations for behavior based on genetic and environmental factors.
Yes, I was saying for the sake of argument let's accept Ted Peter's breakdown of the determinants of behavior being genes, environment, and self.

quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
As limit to this reduction in freedom I have argued for a "hard free will", whereby some choices are not determined by anything -- they are free.
I hear you saying that as a matter of opinion or belief there is a hard limit to what genes and environment can do in determining behavior, so there will always be room left over for free choice. I'm willing to grant it for the sake of argument, but personally I really don't know if it's true or not.

quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Please explain the design of a program that wouldn't cause identical choices, given identical conditions when the choice is made.
It is correct that identical conditions lead to the same outcome for computer programs. But people don't face the exact same choice twice, under the same exact conditions. The second time, at a bare minimum it is different because they have been through it before, learned, perhaps changed their beliefs and values, and things like that. I have heard of "self-modifying programs" that do the same.

Now let me turn it around and ask you: how is it possible for two genetically and environmentally identical organisms (assume parallel universes or time travel back to the same instant and state) to make different choices under identical conditions? What is the source of their "hard" free will? Perhaps, as I said above, you simply take it as a foundational belief?
 
Posted by Freehand (# 144) on :
 
Actually, there are computer programs that respond differently to identical conditions. All that is required is to add a random factor in the weighting of the decision. I've even heard of simulations without implicit randomness that diverged in their solution over time. I think that the divergence was due to small rounding "errors".

That being said, randomness isn't freewill.
 
Posted by Freehand (# 144) on :
 
I keep banging on the same issue, but I think that freewill has everything to do with consciousness. We have (or appear to have) freewill because we are aware of the decision process.

Stage 1:
The first stage of a simulation would be to generate a "being" that appears to have freewill. Perhaps we have already achieved this as there already are simulations that make complex decisions.

Stage 2:
The next stage would be to develop a consciousness within the "being" so that it can be aware of making decisions based upon values. For example, the "being" would have to have competing alternatives in different domains: concern for self preservation, preservation of the social group, and awareness of the suffering of others and a desire to alleviate it. This would involve some sort of symbolic or abstracted understanding of the world and an ability to map the values into concrete actions. Eventually, these symbols may take on value in and of themselves and may manifest themselves in a goal that does not appear to have any connection with basic survival such as aesthetics.

Stage 3:
In the last stage, there would be a need to communicate thoughts and feelings to other members of the social group and to us as the creators of the simulation. However, perhaps I have confused the order a bit. Perhaps the symbolic understanding arises out of the use of language and Stage 2 and 3 are concurrent. The Turing test is certainly a good start.

Another issue that comes out is how much the simulation is an extension of the identity of the programmer. How much intelligence is hardwired into the "being"? Is the "being" an entity in and of itself or is it an extension of the creator. There are some theological parallels here.
 
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
how is it possible for two genetically and environmentally identical organisms (assume parallel universes or time travel back to the same instant and state) to make different choices under identical conditions?
All observations are limited by inherent uncertainty in the universe. The variation may be smaller than our ability to measure it. If we can measure the variability, then even if we could re-establish the same conditions in a system, we could observe the same variability.

Writing a program (or thinking up a model) is not subject to the uncertainty of our observations. These can be defined arbitrarily as accurately as we want.
Even with a self modifying program, the program will define exactly what to do given a set of conditions.

Freehand,
If someone made a program trying to simulate free will, pointing out that the choices were due to a randomness factor or number rounding wouldn't show they were chosen freely. Furthermore, given the same input of the randomness factor or the number rounding, the program would always give the same choice.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
how is it possible for two genetically and environmentally identical organisms (assume parallel universes or time travel back to the same instant and state) to make different choices under identical conditions?
All observations are limited by inherent uncertainty in the universe. The variation may be smaller than our ability to measure it. If we can measure the variability, then even if we could re-establish the same conditions in a system, we could observe the same variability.
My question was about people, not electrons. There is uncertainty in measurement of position and momentum of electrons, yes. But there is no uncertainty in measurement of whether someone lied, did not lie, or evaded the question. Suppose you know your company was just successfully sued and your boss says to a prospective customer, "We've never been sued, isn't that right Ley Druid?" You will say something along the lines of, "That's right" or "Not counting the one in progress" or "The legal department could say for sure." Your only possible courses of action are to tell the whole truth, a partial truth, or a total falsehood. An objective and intelligent observer will be able to tell which you have done with 100% certainty.

Your genes provide you with fear, perhaps fear of loss of your job. The environment you grew up in may make you inordinately afraid of those in authority. If so, does your Self really have freedom to choose among full truth, partial truth, and no truth, or is it a foregone conclusion that you will lie because of your genes and environment?
 
Posted by Freehand (# 144) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Writing a program (or thinking up a model) is not subject to the uncertainty of our observations. These can be defined arbitrarily as accurately as we want.
Even with a self modifying program, the program will define exactly what to do given a set of conditions.
The model that I heard about was entirely deterministic, without radomness. They would start the simulation with exactly the same conditions but after a matter of time the models would diverge.

quote:
Furthermore, given the same input of the randomness factor or the number rounding, the program would always give the same choice.
The whole point of randomness is that it is never the same twice. But again, this is irrelevant to the discussion as randomness does not equal freewill.

If there is freewill, our choices our determined by our character, by our identity. So, in that sense, the choice is not free. The question is what our character is made of.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
I'm tempted to call bullshit. There seems indeed to be a specific deterministic response to things humans think, or at least there seems to be a perceived template for it. I think it's swept together under the labels of "common sense" and "morals", and given these two things most people seem to feel that most people would and should arrive at identical conclusions.

Despite these common expectations, I suspect that there are vastly complex algorithmic formulae we all have derived independantly and constantly modulate and refine to give us our primary responses to various things. Because of their independant origins, I think that there must inevitably be differences. These differences mean that very few of us agree on everything - if you discount the weak-willed and those especially able to lie to themselves.

I'm still thinking about your model, JimT. Hopefully I'll come up with something before this thread dies.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
Keep thinking about your model, RooK. One thing:

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
These differences mean that very few of us agree on everything
This is true, but it does not mean that there aren't some root things upon which we all agree, which I think you were getting at in your first paragraph.

Going back to models, as Freehand says, at some point there is both a Self and a Perception of Self. I believe that these are the Freudian Ego (Self) and Super Ego (Perceiver of Self). My Greed and Terror would be the realm of Id. The Super Ego does its best to sense needs from the Id and uses Rationality to explain them to the Ego. When things go right the satisfied Self has a Compassionate view of itself, rounding out the Freehand/JimT hybrid that models Freud. Except for the unconscious, which is so problematic we probably shouldn't go into it.

The big irony to me is that, in humans it is possible for the Self to hate itself and therein lies the root of evil in Freudian and Christian thinking. Is Man perhaps the only creature capable of Self-Hatred?
 
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
how is it possible for two genetically and environmentally identical organisms (assume parallel universes or time travel back to the same instant and state) to make different choices under identical conditions?
All observations are limited by inherent uncertainty in the universe. The variation may be smaller than our ability to measure it. If we can measure the variability, then even if we could re-establish the same conditions in a system, we could observe the same variability.
My question was about people, not electrons. There is uncertainty in measurement of position and momentum of electrons, yes. But there is no uncertainty in measurement of whether someone lied, did not lie, or evaded the question.
If this were true, then adjudicating perjury would be trivial. It isn't.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not restricted only to electrons. This may be unimportant for observations of macroscopic systems, but it remains a limit. You asked me to explain the variability of choices given identical conditions -- the uncertainty principle requires at least a minimum amount of variability in any measurement.

Variability is a salient feature of measurements in neuroscience. Free will is completely compatible with this variability.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
OK. The Heisenburg Uncertainty principle remains the ultimate limit for free will: we will always have at least as much free will as an electron, no matter how much science can explain our metaphysical behavior with genes and environment, because our electrons can do whatever Heisenburg allows. I'll accept that as a "hard" limit to human free will. No one can take that away.

But I'm going back to the macroscopic scale and assert that 0% uncertain measurement can be made for some moral questions. You are asked to either sign a legal deposition as is or not at all. By signing, you indicate that it is true. But not signing, you indicate unwillingness to assert that it is true. Once you make your choice, the witness is 100% certain of your decision. Otherwise, there would be no job for notary publics. Moral choice, 0% certainty in measurement.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
OK. The Heisenburg Uncertainty principle remains the ultimate limit for free will: we will always have at least as much free will as an electron
You are confusing unpredictablilty with freedom.

"Uncertainty" is not the same as freedom. Arguably it acts against freedom because it randomises the outcome of freely chosen actions.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
You are confusing unpredictablilty with freedom.
I suspect that you are confusing irony with retort. About a hundred posts ago on this thread, we flayed the idea of predictability in connection with "free will" and determined it to be fruitless. Reading JimT's other posts, he shows a clear understanding of uncertainty versus unpredictability, and I interpret his last post as being a loss of patience with Ley Druid.

With respect to the nebulous concept of "freedom", let me say this:
For any observed system, there is no perceptual difference between a lack of constraints and constraints that are not recognized.

JimT, with regards to the model, I think the part I have difficulty with is the vagueness in definitions of the parameters. Perhaps some better descriptions would be arrays of the following:

Whatcha think?
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
OK. The Heisenburg Uncertainty principle remains the ultimate limit for free will: we will always have at least as much free will as an electron
You are confusing unpredictablilty with freedom.

"Uncertainty" is not the same as freedom. Arguably it acts against freedom because it randomises the outcome of freely chosen actions.
Not exactly, ken. I was, with very mild irony, conceding a minor point that I consider largely irrelevant in order to try and get Ley Druid to address the more metaphysical question of how much moral latitude we have when our genes and environment are done with us. I suppose if I had not been going out of my way to avoid being antagonistic I would have added a [Roll Eyes] to my concession.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
What a cross post!

I will definitely get back to you on the model, RooK. Just have a few minutes now. You wouldn't believe the seminar I went to this morning: Genetic Determination of Sexual Behavior in Drosophila. A woman at Oregon State has mapped every single nerve cell and every gene coding for the development, maintenance, and interaction of each nerve with with every hormonal and neurotransmitter gene that causes sexual behavior in fruit flys. A single gene, with three different ways of splicing its RNA, exerts hierarchical control of "following" (where males locate and follow females), "singing" (where males and female strum wings at varying pitch and rhythm to announce their species and readiness to mate), "attempted copulation," and "completed copulation." She closed with studies on mice and speculated about human control of sexual behavior. The individual cell mapping was incredible--she used green fluorescent protein to locate individual cells affected by individual gene expression.

I asked her if she was at the Ted Peters lecture and she said no, but she had wanted to go. I asked her about the notion of an emergent "self" in humans that makes a final choice based on its genes and environment and she seemed fine with it. But she agreed that there will be rapid advancement in the future over how much "influence" and "control" genes have on human behavior.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
I promised RooK a response and as it appears that this is dwindling to a private conversation I will have to triple post to do so.

In a nutshell, RooK’s model seems to conceptualize human choice of action as a matter of estimating the time it would take to think up how to best balance individual gains and harms against social gains and harms. Presumably, the path most likely to produce the optimum result is refined until an implementable optimum is perceived, and this optimum plan is then implemented. Do I have that right?

If so, I confess it has a bit of a sterile taste to me; I suppose the richness of RooKian human experience would emerge from the specific “gains” and “harms” that are “sought” and “measured.” I use the more vivid language of “greed” and “terror” instead of “gain” and “harm,” perhaps because the Pentecostal Appalachian hills I inhabited as a child were on average much warmer than the chilly forests and icy lakes that suckled my agnostic Canadian cousin. However, I will grant that “gain” and “harm” are more general words with greater utility in implementing a machine simulation of humanity.

I note that in RooKian human reality, one “measures” preservation but “seeks” gain. This is a bit of a puzzle. One could as well “seek” preservation while “measuring” gain. My assumption is that the primary RooKian motivation is action toward gain, while keeping an eye out for individual and group harm. This reflects the personality of a risk-taking person with self-assurance and confidence, whose basic physical and emotional needs have been met. I believe that other personalities deficient in physical and emotional needs would act in an opposite manner. That is, their primary motivation would be action toward preservation while forgoing gain beyond what is required for preservation itself, or simply keeping an eye out for possible gain.

I am left with this curiosity: the Heart of RooKianity seems centered on “seeking” and “gaining.” How does the RooKian Robot “seek” and what does it wish to “gain?”
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
JimT, your proclivity for Myers-Briggs is shining through.

I confess that the model attributes I proposed focussed more on ambition than survival. This is because what I'm interested in having the model accomplish is seeing if it sustains some manner for planning ahead and contemplating consequences. This is the realm of "self" that I feel is worth exploring. The issue of survival is usually addressed in times of stress by motivations of instinct, and I speculate that these are less a matter of consciousness or choice.

With a certain amount of tongue-in-cheek, if such an experiment would show a clear trend towards developing a unified and peaceful group throughout a range of initial conditions and permutations, I'd feel even more content to dismiss religion as merely an evolved means for humans to attempt this.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
You wouldn't believe the seminar I went to this morning: Genetic Determination of Sexual Behavior in Drosophila. A woman at Oregon State has mapped every single nerve cell and every gene coding for the development, maintenance, and interaction of each nerve with with every hormonal and neurotransmitter gene that causes sexual behavior in fruit flys.
You will no doubt be well aware, but some of the others reading this might not, that the layout of insect nervous systems - in fact their whole body - is determined genetically in a way that is not the case with mammals.

For mammals its a case of "use it or lose it". Whatever we excercise gets stronger - and that applies to the brain as well as the muscles. If you think a lot about maps the bit of your brain that thinks about maps gets bigger. And if you lost that bit of your brain when you were a kid, but are more or less functional, then another bit takes over and that gets bigger.

Insects are "hard-wired" in a way that we aren't. It you take an insect embryo at the 256-cell stage and cut it in half you get two half insects. If you do that to a mammal you get two smaller mammals. Our cells have much more capability to be reprogrammed than theirs do.

Similarly you can draw a "fate map" of the insect cells, showing which one becomes the ancestor of which tissues and organs. If you remove one of them at that stage then that tissue or organ will not develop. If you transplant one then it can develop in the wrong place - files with legs growing out of their heads. In mammals nothing like that goes on.

In C. elegans (not an insect!) the genes determine the exact number and position of all adult cells. In humans the final number can vary by a few billion either way!
 
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
In C. elegans (not an insect!) the genes determine the exact number and position of all adult cells.
If you grew two C. elegans, one in a medium containing something that inhibits a gene product (an anti-apoptotic factor, for example) and the other in a medium without the inhibitor, it would be possible to have two C. elegans with identical genes with different numbers and positions of adult cells. What would it mean then to say that
quote:
the genes determine the exact number and position of all adult cells.
In this case, did the genes determine the number and position, or something else?
From the beginning of this thread we never have got a great definition of what "to determine" means.

[ 13. November 2003, 00:04: Message edited by: Ley Druid ]
 
Posted by Freehand (# 144) on :
 
I've been wanting to add more posts to this thread but I'm getting too busy. One small clarification.

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I'm tempted to call bullshit.
I don't know what you are referring to. That post was as obscure as some others on this thread. It was terribly unRooKian to be so vague. If, by any chance, it was from when I said:

quote:
Originally posted by Freehand:
The model that I heard about was entirely deterministic, without radomness. They would start the simulation with exactly the same conditions but after a matter of time the models would diverge.
I should have said that it was programmed with entirely deterministic intent. Small inconsistencies in rounding errors lead to gradual divergences in the model.

Later,

Freehand [Smile]
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I'm interested in having the model accomplish is seeing if it sustains some manner for planning ahead and contemplating consequences. This is the realm of "self" that I feel is worth exploring.
Yes, well, do keep exploring. But I would think you would be interested in this: the same person who is interested only in planning, consequences, and problem solving, posted that what life is all about is "pain." Intelligent creatures with excellent skills in planning, forseeing consequences, and successfully solving problems should experience nothing more than temporary pain and the primary theme of life would be the joy of success, would it not? This is why my "NF" leaning self posits that the primary needs are in the metaphysical realm and not the physical. Not that there's anything wrong with that, as Seinfeld would likely add.

Yes ken, I was aware that insects are very hardwired and that work had already been done to knock out single components of behavior, map cell fates in development, and deduce "wiring." I didn't know that it is now a pretty trivial task and that they are starting on mice. I had also forgotten that fruit flys have all the same neurotransmitters we do and that most of the differences between them and us are simply structural. Still, we obviously have another whole realm of existence that they don't. One thing is sure: research and knowledge will continue to explode, as it has for the last few decades.

[ 13. November 2003, 19:01: Message edited by: JimT ]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Well Freehand, the "bullshit" wasn't directed at any specific post, but rather our whole rejection of determinism in this thread. I'll readily agree that I doubt human minds are likely to ever have a deterministic description applied... but it feels like there is indeed the perception among many humans that there are "correct" answers to moral questions. I only wondered if that didn't imply a certain amount of determinism.

JimT, now you're trying to cross threads. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
It seems most likely (to me, anyway) that contemplation of the nature of "self" and sentience might be most fruitful if started in the realms of planning, consequences, and problem solving. I think it might be narrow-minded to leap directly to "what life is all about". My view about "pain" is merely an observation about how I perceive the most common overlap of the physical and the metaphysical - for I don't believe us to be beings of purely one realm or the other. Nevertheless, I don't see it as a key for understanding the mechanics of all thought.

Perhaps one of us needs to make up a crackpot theory about instincts and emotions, because that might help cast the "self" into some sort of metaphorical contrast.
 
Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
In C. elegans (not an insect!) the genes determine the exact number and position of all adult cells. In humans the final number can vary by a few billion either way!
...which variation must come completely from the environment, mustn't it? After all, humans do not consciously choose and will the final number, do they?

Despite the fact that it was proven in the movie Ghostbusters that crossing the threads is actually the only way to triumph over evil even though it's very dangerous, I'll take a pass on developing any more crackpot theories for the moment. I have too many (supposedly) serious ones to learn!

[humor]
My wife has been following this thread and left this Foxtrot cartoon on my desk Tuesday.
[/humor]
 
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
In C. elegans (not an insect!) the genes determine the exact number and position of all adult cells. In humans the final number can vary by a few billion either way!
...which variation must come completely from the environment, mustn't it? After all, humans do not consciously choose and will the final number, do they?
The fact that some neurons aren't the result of a choice, doesn't mean that no neurons are a result of choice. Nor does it mean all neurons are the result of a choice.

The external environment that I choose (school, relationships etc.) and the internal environment that I choose (health, nutrition, drugs etc.) can affect neuron number and plasticity.

The uncertainty as to which choice I will make may only be resolved after I make the choice. To suggest that choice "A" was "caused", "determined" or "comes from" my genes and environment would curiously be exactly the same argument if I had made choice "B".
The observation of the choice is necessary to deduce what the genes and environment are doing. If I make the choice, but you are unable to observe it, then you remain uncertain as to what my genes and environment are doing.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0