|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Ted Peters On Genetic Determinism & Free Will
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
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:
- A tantalizing glimpse into dimensions beyound the three common ones
- The possibility that time is not linear, but multi-demensional
- An understanding that ancient man knew more (even if in an unscientific manner) than most of our scientifically-biased people today acknowledge
- An introduction to the idea that we don't know what we actually know, but we can work from what we think we know
has made it possible for me to accept a much more conservative Christianity than pure Liberal Arts people tend to accept.
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
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..."
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
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...
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
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]](biggrin.gif) ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
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.
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
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]](graemlins/confused2.gif) ].
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
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]](smile.gif) 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.]
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
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
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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
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.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
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
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
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)?
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
