 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jetson
The Map Maker
Joined: Feb 23, 2005
Posts: 1219
Location: Vancouver, Canada
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:37 am Post subject: Re: Determinism |
 |
|
| Anton wrote: | | But even if a 100% scientific determinism isn't possible, I must say that some form of determinism is still likely. Ie, that things are, to a certain degree, predetermined. |
I don't think "predetermined" is the word I would use, as that implies foresight and evokes "Intelligent Design". I'd rather state the idea as "a flow of inevitability is evident when looking at long periods of time."
We attach a lot of significance to events only because they are recent, and therefore think that a change of circumstances would have a significant impact on civilization. For example, what if the wind had been blowing a different way at Kittyhawk? It's easy to think of Orville and Wilbur as having changed the course of history and may even be able to imagine a world without airplanes, but in reality there were a lot of people making independent discoveries for more than 500 years so human flight was inevitable in the long run. Orville's actions weren't predetermined, but the presence of free will wouldn't have changed the outcome significantly because even if he didn't do it, someone else would have, eventually.
Virtually any "significant" historical event loses that sense of importance over time. More significant events take longer to fade from memory, but eventually everything becomes a matter of purely academic interest.
_________________
What would Flying Spaghetti Monster do? |
|
| Back to top |
|
IgorStop
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: Jan 15, 2006
Posts: 63
Location: UK Midlands
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anton wrote: | | Igorstop - Fascinating. That thing about not being "reducible to any of the preceeding stages" was most interesting. This would mean that the "uber-computer" would fail since it cannot compute all factors, since the number of factors are, in effect, endless. |
It might sound nit-picky but I said 'not completely' reducible to the preceding stages. Consciousness is dependent on the functioning of the brain, but psychology is an emergent property that you will never be able to account for entirely by the firing of synapses in the brain. Psychological states can also infuluence brain states.
Science is deterministic and reductive in its methodology because it has to be. It looks for causes and seeks to predict effects. The success of the scientific method, I think, leads logically minded people to believe that everything in the universe works along the same lines, but this isn't necessarily the case. Science looks for solvable problems and has realy only recently tried to tackle complexity.
Popper first makes the argument against determinism by saying that he does not believe that the creation of a new work, such as Mozarts G minor symphony, can be predicted in all its details by a physicist, or a physiologist who study Mozarts body and his brain and his environment. To believe that it can seems intuitively absurd, he says, and then takes the arguments on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tim_p
Phoenix
![]()
Joined: Dec 29, 2004
Posts: 511
Location: Alberta, Canada.
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| IgorStop wrote: | | ...psychology is an emergent property that you will never be able to account for entirely by the firing of synapses in the brain. |
You have presented no valid argument, you continually present arguments petitio principii. Your premises include your proposition. Why do you say psychology is unpredictable. The only two reasons we cannot predict such things with certainty are Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and limited computing ability.
| IgorStop wrote: | | The success of the scientific method, I think, leads logically minded people to believe that everything in the universe works along the same lines, but this isn't necessarily the case. |
Exactly, if everything observable follows cause and effect to the limits of observable accuracy, it is only reasonable to assume that which cannot be also follows cause and effect.
| IgorStop wrote: | | Popper first makes the argument against determinism by saying that he does not believe that the creation of a new work, such as Mozarts G minor symphony, can be predicted in all its details by a physicist, or a physiologist who study Mozarts body and his brain and his environment. |
He goes on gut feeling to make a limited argument, no one disagrees that a physicist could never predict a Mozart symphony, but that's because no physicist has any relevant data and no physicist has any where near enough computational ability.
| IgorStop wrote: | | To believe that it can seems intuitively absurd, he says, and then takes the arguments on. |
So does entanglment and a thousand other more well proved theories. Intuition proves nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
IgorStop
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: Jan 15, 2006
Posts: 63
Location: UK Midlands
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 5:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tim_p, you are missing the point here, I am making statements, not proposing arguments. Since I am convinced by Popper's reasoning I am more often stating conclusions rather than reproducing passages where he argues in great detail against determinism, scientific, religious and metaphysical. I have assumed that anyone who finds these statements sufficiently interesting will read up on the detail of his arguments
http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/ (The Karl Popper Web, might be a good place to start)
rather than expecting me to reproduce them verbatim here. However, I will have a go at using his reasoning against your statments since you are obviously as keen to continue the debate as I am. I will get back to you on this. One thing, don't make the mistake of thinking that Popper is somehow anti-science. He is arguably the twentieth centuries greatest scientific philosopher, who debated with Einstein, among others. His theory of scientific progress, Evolutionary Epistemology, has had a profound influence. I hope not to misrepresent or misunderstand his arguments.
First off though, you could also be accused of arguing 'petitio principii' (I had to look that one up),
especially here:
| Quote: | | If you are hungry and I offer you food and you take and eat it, my actions determined your's (not entirely, but for the sake of argument), if it were not for me giving you said food you would not have eaten it, yet it was still your choice to eat it. |
This proves nothing, and has no definition of determinism to back it up. You have restated this position
| Quote: | | Determinism takes nothing away from free will, just because your actions were decided before hand does not make your actions any less your own. |
many times without justification. It is an oxymoron. Perhaps we shall have to define stricter terms to carry the argument on.
Jetson wrote:
| Quote: | | I don't think "predetermined" is the word I would use, as that implies foresight and evokes "Intelligent Design". I'd rather state the idea as "a flow of inevitability is evident when looking at long periods of time." |
I agree, and this could be something you might say is 'loosely deterministic' as opposed to 'scientificaly deterministic.' Obviously historical events have causes, but when we are dealing with large amounts of people, each with their own theory of mind, the factors are uncountable and history can only, in practise, discover so many. So it continually revises its perspectives. This is not an argument against a more strictly defined determinism, I know, but I will have to go into that some other time.
For now, perhaps we could agree on a definition of 'scientific determinism'? This is what I propose:
That the entire history of the universe is strictly governed by its initial conditions. Each subsequent event is a direct result of this intial cause or set of causes or condtions, and can - in principle if not in practise - be reduced to them.
I think this closely follows what you have argued before. One thing, can we keep God out of this part of the debate? I only say this because we have cross threaded and in the other thread I already said words to the effect that with an omnipotent god, all bets are off, since he can have it any which way he likes, being omnipotent. Yes that is an argument petitio pricipii.
One last thing, many well founded scientific theories start out with hunches and intuition. The important thing is not how they begin, but how they are subsequently defined and what evidence can be found in their favour. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tim_p
Phoenix
![]()
Joined: Dec 29, 2004
Posts: 511
Location: Alberta, Canada.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| IgorStop wrote: | First off though, you could also be accused of arguing 'petitio principii' (I had to look that one up),
especially here:
| Quote: | | If you are hungry and I offer you food and you take and eat it, my actions determined your's (not entirely, but for the sake of argument), if it were not for me giving you said food you would not have eaten it, yet it was still your choice to eat it. |
|
That was not a valid formal argument, nor was it intended to be, I meant to give an example of the coexsistance of determinism and free-will to make an intuitive grasp easier.
| IgorStop wrote: | This proves nothing, and has no definition of determinism to back it up. You have restated this position
| Quote: | | Determinism takes nothing away from free will, just because your actions were decided before hand does not make your actions any less your own. |
|
Just because I did not define determinism does not invalidate my argument, it is a normal english word and does not demand a definition, though it would perhaps be useful.
| IgorStop wrote: | many times without justification. It is an oxymoron. Perhaps we shall have to define stricter terms to carry the argument on.
...
That the entire history of the universe is strictly governed by its initial conditions. Each subsequent event is a direct result of this intial cause or set of causes or condtions, and can - in principle if not in practise - be reduced to them. |
Very good, I accept your definition. I wonder if you would be willing to take a stab at defining free-will? I'm having trouble writing a complete definition without being too verbose.
| IgorStop wrote: | | One last thing, many well founded scientific theories start out with hunches and intuition. The important thing is not how they begin, but how they are subsequently defined and what evidence can be found in their favour. |
That was exactly my point, I did not say intuition was usless, I said intuition proves nothing |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tim_p
Phoenix
![]()
Joined: Dec 29, 2004
Posts: 511
Location: Alberta, Canada.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
P.S.
| IgorStop wrote: |
One thing, can we keep God out of this part of the debate? I only say this because we have cross threaded and in the other thread I already said words to the effect that with an omnipotent god, all bets are off, since he can have it any which way he likes, being omnipotent. Yes that is an argument petitio pricipii. |
After this one post I will refrain from mentioning God again.
I do not agree that my argument was flawed petito principii. In this case I definitely should have defined the terms.
By omniscience I mean the knowledge of all that is (in my argument, all that was at the beginning of time), not the knowledge of all the is, was and will be.
And by omnipotence I mean infinite power withing the bounds of logic to create the universe, after creation also limited to the laws of physics, whether that limit is inherent or voluntary.[/i] |
|
| Back to top |
|
hyperion
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 507
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 9:01 pm Post subject: Quantum physics prove free will. |
|
|
| Experiments prove indepedant intelligence/will really does operate in the world. just by thinking about a particle will influence its actions before you do anything to it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
IgorStop
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: Jan 15, 2006
Posts: 63
Location: UK Midlands
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tim_p,
| Quote: | | Very good, I accept your definition. I wonder if you would be willing to take a stab at defining free-will? I'm having trouble writing a complete definition without being too verbose. |
The New Oxford Dictionary of English definitions of: (please note that bold in these quotes belong to the dictionary, not me)
| Quote: | Determinism: Philosophy the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.
Free will the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate: the ability to act at ones own discretion. |
The Collins English Dictionary actually calls on a comparison of the two to help in their definition:
| Quote: | Determinism the philosophical doctrine that all acts, choices, and events are the inevitable consequence of antecedant sufficient causes. Compare free will
Free will (a) the apparent human ability to make choices that are not externally determined. (b) the doctrine that human being have such freedom of choice compare determinsm |
Following the first definition of free will above, the version of 'scientific determinsm' you have accepted means that all human actions are of necessity constrained by the intitial conditions of our system (the universe).
In the second defintion, I note that the dictionary says ' ....the apparent human abitlity to make decisions that are not externally determined.'
If you accept our definition of 'scientific determinism' as reality, free will is indeed an illusion. All human actions are externally determined since they can be reduced to causes - including those in the environment and those inside the brain of the actor at the time of his apparent 'choice event' - which existed long before he did.
Since I agree would agree with the Collins dictionary definition it is incumbent upon you to define a 'free will' that can co-exist alongside 'scientific determinsm,' without contradicting or negating it, or simply saying that the illusion of free will is as good as the thing itself. Feel free to quote anyone you like. |
|
| Back to top |
|
hyperion
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 27, 2006
Posts: 507
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 5:04 pm Post subject: look at it this way, |
|
|
| look at it this way, there is not one timeline but an infinite number of variations, everthing that can happen does. every possible choice does occur, but where you end up is up to you . this make its so that free will and destiny are not contricitory. God would know everything that would ever happen and you could still chose what would happen to you |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tim_p
Phoenix
![]()
Joined: Dec 29, 2004
Posts: 511
Location: Alberta, Canada.
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| IgorStop wrote: | The Collins English Dictionary actually calls on a comparison of the two to help in their definition:
| Quote: | Determinism the philosophical doctrine that all acts, choices, and events are the inevitable consequence of antecedent sufficient causes. Compare free will
Free will (a) the apparent human ability to make choices that are not externally determined. (b) the doctrine that human being have such freedom of choice compare determinism |
Following the first definition of free will above, the version of 'scientific determinism' you have accepted means that all human actions are of necessity constrained by the initial conditions of our system (the universe).
In the second definition, I note that the dictionary says ' ....the apparent human ability to make decisions that are not externally determined.'
If you accept our definition of 'scientific determinism' as reality, free will is indeed an illusion. All human actions are externally determined since they can be reduced to causes - including those in the environment and those inside the brain of the actor at the time of his apparent 'choice event' - which existed long before he did.
Since I agree would agree with the Collins dictionary definition it is incumbent upon you to define a 'free will' that can co-exist alongside 'scientific determinism,' without contradicting or negating it, or simply saying that the illusion of free will is as good as the thing itself. Feel free to quote anyone you like. |
And now we reach the crux of my argument.
In the strictest reading of the Collins definition free-will cannot possibly produce anything other than random data with no connection to the outside world, it takes the influence of the outside world to produce any data correlated with it.
In the looser (and I think intended) form, Collins' definition of free-will does not exclude determinism. If one accepts scientific determinism as you defined earlier, one must agree that as it is a physical structure, determinism applies to the human brain. One's brain, and it follows one's mind, are determined by the initial conditions of the universe. Yet one's thoughts are still one's own, created entirely in one's mind with no external control, by Collins definition one has free-will. There is no contradiction, I beg you to try and find one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
jonathan79
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 02, 2006
Posts: 518
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Daniel Dennet has a book out call "Feedom Evolves". I've read about half of it, and it has been an interesting read so far if any of you want to check it out. It deals very thoroughly with the topics being discussed here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
IgorStop
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: Jan 15, 2006
Posts: 63
Location: UK Midlands
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 5:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tim_p,
| Quote: | | If one accepts scientific determinism as you defined earlier, one must agree that as it is a physical structure, determinism applies to the human brain. |
agreed...
| Quote: | | One's brain, and it follows one's mind, are determined by the initial conditions of the universe. |
in the version of determinism we agreed to debate, agreed.....
| Quote: | | Yet one's thoughts are still one's own, created entirely in one's mind with no external control, by Collins definition one has free-will. There is no contradiction, I beg you to try and find one. |
....'created entirely in ones own mind with no external control' ? But you have agreed that the internal conditions of the actors brain have been externally determined - or controlled, if you like - by conditions that existed long before, at the very beginning of the universe.
Igor wrote:
| Quote: | | All human actions are externally determined since they can be reduced to causes - including those in the environment and those inside the brain of the actor at the time of his apparent 'choice event' - which existed long before he did. |
There is your contradiction. You cannot be said to have - or to be able to excercise - free will, if your thoughts, states of mind and decisions were determined before you existed.
_________________
'Languages are theories. In their vocabulary and grammar, they embody substantial assertions about the world.' David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mithrandir
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 19, 2004
Age: 22
Posts: 608
Location: Victoria, BC Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I remember hearing a Duelistic theory that "I exist but no-one else exists"
How about this, Fate rules my life but does not rule anyone elses lives.
_________________
Music is the language of the world.
Math is the language of the universe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tim_p
Phoenix
![]()
Joined: Dec 29, 2004
Posts: 511
Location: Alberta, Canada.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, so we agree up until this point.
| IgorStop wrote: | | Quote: | | Yet one's thoughts are still one's own, created entirely in one's mind with no external control, by Collins definition one has free-will. There is no contradiction, I beg you to try and find one. |
....'created entirely in ones own mind with no external control' ? But you have agreed that the internal conditions of the actors brain have been externally determined - or controlled, if you like - by conditions that existed long before, at the very beginning of the universe.
Igor wrote:
| Quote: | | All human actions are externally determined since they can be reduced to causes - including those in the environment and those inside the brain of the actor at the time of his apparent 'choice event' - which existed long before he did. |
There is your contradiction. You cannot be said to have - or to be able to exercise - free will, if your thoughts, states of mind and decisions were determined before you existed. |
The mind is formed by what came before it, but at any one point what came before it was an earlier state of that same mind, once created the mind controls itself, though it is heavily influenced by the information it receives (sight, hearing, etcetera).
Either you must accept a looser definition of free-will or none at all. For free-will to exist as Collins' defined it, one's thoughts (and therefore one's actions) must have no correlation with the world, for correlation to exist there must be influence and where there is influence there is some level of determination. All thoughts and actions should appear totally random. Clearly they are not, if they were I would not be speaking to you right now; but your words influenced my mind, they caused me to think, and now prompted by this external influence I am replying.
If you accept a looser definition there is no contradiction.
The "illusion" of free-will is not only as good as the thing it self, it is the thing itself. Our wills are as free as anything ever can be. Do you think that minds controlled by utterly random systems with no connection to anything outside the mind are freer than minds with a predetermined structure able to produce useful information and not just irregular unpredictable noise? |
|
| Back to top |
|
IgorStop
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: Jan 15, 2006
Posts: 63
Location: UK Midlands
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tim_p
you seem to have forgotten which side of the debate I am on, so I will remind you. It is my contention that:
1. Free will as defined by Collins cannot exist in a system as rigidly determined as the one we agreed to debate.
2. This rigidly defined 'scientific determinism' does not describe the real universe.
It is you that believes in this rigidly deterministic system, not me. And it is you that must accept a less rigidly defined idea of determinism if any kind of 'free will' worth the name can be said to exist in reality. You have not answered the contradiction. You wrote:
| Quote: | | One's brain, and it follows one's mind, are determined by the initial conditions of the universe. |
...which contradicts your latest statement that:
| Quote: | | once created the mind controls itself |
...and your earlier:
| Quote: | | Yet one's thoughts are still one's own, created entirely in one's mind with no external control, |
....here you accord a special status to the mind, 'ones own thoughts,' which is meaningless. Are you saying that they exist independantly of the rest of the universe? How so?
Within the terms of 'scientific determinism' your thoughts are nothing more than the firing of synapses in the brain, and this, being a physical system, is predetermined, not by any earlier state of mind, which can only be one link in the chain of causation, but - at the risk of repeating myself, and as you have already agreed - by the initial conditions of the universe. Any earlier state of mind was also predetermined and so on.
You have done here what I have seen you do with other people who have pointed out the contradiction in your argument: you defend a rigidly defined determinism until someone challenges you to show how free will can exist within it. At this point you move to a much less rigidly defined definition
...as here:
| Quote: | | for correlation to exist there must be influence and where there is influence there is some level of determination. |
....and claim that it is the same thing. It is not.
On this side of the pond we call that 'moving the goal posts.'
_________________
'Languages are theories. In their vocabulary and grammar, they embody substantial assertions about the world.' David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
