|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Ted Peters On Genetic Determinism & Free Will
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
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]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Puts down hostly Bible
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
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
--------------------
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
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
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"?
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Guys, I thought I should warn you that the hosts are closings threads at random that they deem boring. Just an FYI.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
(crusading)
Tags JimT for the Dances of Universal Peace!
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
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
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
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
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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]](smile.gif)
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.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276
|
Posted
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
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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!)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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".
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally babbled by MarkthePunk:
wakes up from hostly snoring
O.K. I'm bored. Plus there's not enough Bible in here. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) Let's see if a trip to Hell livens this thread up.
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.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
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™.
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 burn someone at the stake, you actually bring them to that Moment of Decision™. It is something like doing an intervention on an alcoholic. When faced with such a choice, there is a chance the person will Repent and Be Saved, especially as the flames start to lick their arse.
- If you brand a person as a Liberal™, that person can continue in their errors without being brought to that Moment of Decision™. In fact, they may find others of the Liberal™ perversion. Then they will stregnthen their Liberal™ ways (just like "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." Proverbs xxvii.17).
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?
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
Zzzzzz......
Sorry, back atcha, Mr. Punk.
Hold on as we fly through time and space with Uncle Al...
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally babbled by MarkthePunk:
Heyyyyyyy!
Sine, you back-stabbing bastard!
Mark the Punk. Do your duty. Put us out of our misery.
Please.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
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
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
welsh dragon
Shipmate
# 3249
|
Posted
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!
Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
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]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
welsh dragon
Shipmate
# 3249
|
Posted
But we could predict another ERIN DAY™ next year with reasonable accuracy...and we could gvie the man some chocolate...
Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
PS I'm not talking about an electron in a hydrogen atom either, I'm talking multi-body problem, relativistic, heavy metal electrons.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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]
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
How this thread survived the past three days I will never know.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
It proves that bad things can happen to good people.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Can this be made Ted Danson On Genetic Determinism & Free Will?
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
I bet you are all a scream at cocktail parties.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
