Freedomain Radio

in
Latest post Thu, Feb 19 2009 6:35 PM by Captain Trips. 107 replies.
Page 5 of 8 (108 items) « First ... < Previous 3 4 5 6 7 Next > ... Last »
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • Fri, Feb 13 2009 7:15 AM In reply to

    Re: The FDR Determinism Debate...

    Stefan Molyneux:
    there is no possibility of preferred or alternative states.

    There's a plant.  It's sitting next to a river and thriving.  There's a drought and the river dries up, leaving the plant with no water source from which to survive.  Is there a preferred state for the plant?  The pre-drought state, perhaps?

    There are always preferred states, regardless of the mechanism of choice that you believe in.  When presented with choices A, B, C and D, we weigh the variables, we mentally model the possible outcomes, and we pick the best one (to the best of our ability to determine what is best, that is - doesn't alwaysturn out for the best, of course).

    _____
    "Why did they devise censorship? To show a world which doesn't exist, an ideal world, or what they envisaged as the ideal world. And we wanted to depict the world as it was." - Krzysztof KIESLOWSKI, Polish filmmaker (1941-1996)
    - trips -

  • Fri, Feb 13 2009 7:44 AM In reply to

    • GregG
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on Tue, Feb 21 2006
    • Brooklyn, NY
    • Posts 14,170
    • Philosopher King

    Re: The FDR Determinism Debate...

    Captain Trips:

    Stefan Molyneux:
    there is no possibility of preferred or alternative states.

    There's a plant.  It's sitting next to a river and thriving.  There's a drought and the river dries up, leaving the plant with no water source from which to survive.  Is there a preferred state for the plant?  The pre-drought state, perhaps?

    The plant itself has no preferences. It cannot, since they are a product of rational consciousness. The plant is simply an aggregation of chemical processes. As long as conditions are such that the processes can sustain the life within it, it will. As soon as conditions are such that they do not, it won't.

    The "preference" you refer to, is actually your own.

    Be careful not to anthropomorphise...

     

  • Fri, Feb 13 2009 8:12 AM In reply to

    Re: The FDR Determinism Debate...

    6pm tonight, oovoo, webcam Smile

    Please join the new Freedomain Radio Facebook page:

    Freedomain Radio - The Largest Philosophy Conversation in the World | Promote Your Page Too


    All Free! - Audio, PDF. Print starting @ $9.99+
    Freedomain Radio Needs Your Support!


    My status

  • Fri, Feb 13 2009 8:21 AM In reply to

    • pcrs
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on Sun, Apr 1 2007
    • Houten, The Netherlands
    • Posts 2,166
    • Philosopher King

    Re: The FDR Determinism Debate...

    nexalacer:
    Before I continue, would you agree with me up to this point?

    I'm not sure if I follow you. Sure, a window will 'experience' a brick different from a feather, but that is all still causal. The next time the window will not break on the feather and stay intact with the brick showing free will.

    I develop logical circuits for my profession, we use simple deterministic building blocks. They have a few inputs and 1 or more outputs. Given certain causes on the input, they give certain effects on the outputs. You have memories as well, these are also deterministic. No matter how you tie these simple blocks together, you will always end up with something deterministic. It can still behave different from what you want, that has a cause. No matter how much complexity you stick on top of each other, it will remain causal and deterministic. Memory makes it difficult to see what is going on, since the causes can lie in the past, but it remains causal. I basically see humans are build from the same matter and energy as everything else and their basic building blocks are deterministic, hence anything built from that has to behave causal as well. Their long history will make it difficult to find causes for their behavior, but nontheless they must be causal. What is more: if you ever wondered:"why did he or she do that?", you are implicitely a determinist.

    Violence has nothing with which to cover itself except the lie, and the lie has nothing to stand on other than violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his method must inexorably choose the lie as his principle. Solzhenitsyn, Alexander

  • Fri, Feb 13 2009 9:07 AM In reply to

    • a14
    • Top 500 Contributor
    • Joined on Tue, Mar 18 2008
    • Posts 217

    Re: The FDR Determinism Debate...

    Paul:

    ...

    Unless you can prove that free will exists by using the scientific method, I will assume that it does not exist. And talking about your decisions, preferences or choices is not the scientific method. If it was, well...

     

    Haha, that's a great clip...its nice to see 'Mike Seaver' still making sitcoms Big Smile

  • Fri, Feb 13 2009 9:54 AM In reply to

    • Everett
    • Top 500 Contributor
    • Joined on Wed, Apr 5 2006
    • Sarasota, FL
    • Posts 149

    Re: The FDR Determinism Debate...

    Captain Trips:
    If they're both non-falsifiable, then falsifiability is irrelevant.

    No, if they are both non-falsifiable, then it is a waste of time to try to falsify either of them, because it can't be done.  I think this is important information to know at the outset.

     

    The claim that free will is an illusion seems to me very similar to the claim that one's senses can't be trusted, or that all of reality exists only in one's mind, etc.  If my senses can't be trusted, then empirical methods are useless to test the question of whether my senses can't be trusted, because empiricism REQUIRES use of the senses.  If free will is an illusion, in other words, if I can't trust my perception that I deliberate and make choices, then I can't even know whether I have really "decided" which position to take on the question of free will/determinism.  Proving that free will is not an illusion seems as impossible a task as proving that my senses are valid and I am not a brain in a vat.

    What really bugs me about the question of free will/determinism is that I can't seem to find a satisfying way of examining them that doesn't at the beginning assume one of them to be correct.  I really want to be able to figure this out.  Just stating that I want to figure it out is an assertion that I have free will.  But what if I am wrong?  What if it is just an illusion that I "want" to understand the problem?  And how can I know?

  • Fri, Feb 13 2009 10:36 AM In reply to

    Re: The FDR Determinism Debate...

    How can I watch the debate? And/Or participate?

  • Fri, Feb 13 2009 10:58 AM In reply to

    Re: The FDR Determinism Debate...

    Everett:

    The claim that free will is an illusion seems to me very similar to the claim that one's senses can't be trusted, or that all of reality exists only in one's mind, etc.  If my senses can't be trusted, then empirical methods are useless to test the question of whether my senses can't be trusted, because empiricism REQUIRES use of the senses.  If free will is an illusion, in other words, if I can't trust my perception that I deliberate and make choices, then I can't even know whether I have really "decided" which position to take on the question of free will/determinism.  Proving that free will is not an illusion seems as impossible a task as proving that my senses are valid and I am not a brain in a vat.

    What really bugs me about the question of free will/determinism is that I can't seem to find a satisfying way of examining them that doesn't at the beginning assume one of them to be correct.  I really want to be able to figure this out.  Just stating that I want to figure it out is an assertion that I have free will.  But what if I am wrong?  What if it is just an illusion that I "want" to understand the problem?  And how can I know?

     

    I don't think it's the determinist viewpoint that people don't deliberate and make choices, Everett. It's not an illusion that you "want" to understand the problem. "Want" is a facet of the will. The determinist position is not one in which there is no mind, no thinker, no preference, no decision. Indeed, all of these things occur in the determinist worldview. The determinist simply holds that these mental capacities are constructs of biology and sensory input (experience), that there is no "spirit" within, that the mind does not break from the causal chain reaction that everything else in the universe appears subject to. Your mental capacities are not illusions... it's just that the human brain is so incredibly amazing it has developed a strong self-awareness. That self-awareness is just another brain function that is a construct of biology and sensory input.

    I apologize if this is all very redundant, but I can't help but notice that the determinist position seems to be continually misrepresented on the boards.

  • Fri, Feb 13 2009 10:59 AM In reply to

    • pcrs
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on Sun, Apr 1 2007
    • Houten, The Netherlands
    • Posts 2,166
    • Philosopher King

    Re: The FDR Determinism Debate...

    Everett:
    The claim that free will is an illusion seems to me very similar to the claim that one's senses can't be trusted,

    Free will is not something we directly experience through our senses (smell, touch, sight, hearing, taste, none of which tells us we have free will). Free will is a conclusion we draw probably because we are conscious of our actions, but not conscious of the causes for those actions. Certainly if the causes are in our childhood, we are unconscious of them. It is like the economics argument of Bastiat about the broken window fallacy. In economy we should not only look at the things that are seen, but also to those which are hidden. So if the government has a bridge built, we can show the wonderful bridge, but a good economist should also consider the hospital that was not built because of the taxation for the bridge. A good reporter would not put his camera on the bridge that was built, but on the empty field where a hospital was not built. The more you focus on the hidden and unconcious causes of behaviour, the more you will see actions as a result is my guess. Before my FDR days, I was much more:"throw the bastard criminals in jail, don't go soft on them, they asked for it, they made the bad choices, they are responsible". Since I realise many of them had a bad childhood and I understand how inconsistent moral examples from powerfull parents lead to corruption, I am much more soft.

    The complete trust of your senses can easily be falsified btw, they are pretty ok, but they can be tricked pretty easily.

    Violence has nothing with which to cover itself except the lie, and the lie has nothing to stand on other than violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his method must inexorably choose the lie as his principle. Solzhenitsyn, Alexander

  • Fri, Feb 13 2009 2:12 PM In reply to

    • KevinP
    • Top 500 Contributor
    • Joined on Fri, Jan 18 2008
    • Posts 83

    Re: The FDR Determinism Debate...

     

    pcrs:
    What is more: if you ever wondered:"why did he or she do that?", you are implicitely a determinist.

    I don't understand the logic behind this statement.  Choices have to have a reason, or else they wouldn't be choices.  If I inquire into a person's reason for making a choice, I am implicitly saying that they couldn't have made that choice any other way and it was caused all the way back to the "big bang" or whatever?  In fact, it seems like the opposite is true.  If I didn't think that a person could have chosen otherwise, then why would I ask them why they made a choice?  It would be like asking a rock why it landed over here instead of over there, wouldn't it?

    "What if man is not really a scoundrel, man in general, I mean, the whole race of mankind—then all the rest is prejudice, simply artificial terrors and there are no barriers and it's all as it should be." - Fyodor Dostoevsky, "Crime and Punishment"

  • Fri, Feb 13 2009 2:48 PM In reply to

    • pcrs
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on Sun, Apr 1 2007
    • Houten, The Netherlands
    • Posts 2,166
    • Philosopher King

    Re: The FDR Determinism Debate...

    KevinP:
    Choices have to have a reason, or else they wouldn't be choices.

    By using the word choice you already imply free will is true. To state the same thing neutrally would be:

    "actions have to have a reason, or else they would not be actions", because you only perceive their actions, not that it was a choice, that is a conclusion you can not draw from any observation. Only the action can be directly observed. I would indeed say that actions have a reason, that reason or reasons is/are the cause of the action.If you agree you are a determinist.

    Why would you ask why a person did an action? To get the right answer, although evidence shows that people are often incorrect about explaining the reasons for their actions. You make an estimation of their behavior for future use. You might ask:"why did you drive drunk?" (that is the action you observe, not that he made a choice to drive drunk). When he answers "I am really ashamed of that, my wife just left me, my house is taken by the bank, I have to sleep under a bridge, but I am on the right track now" you perceive that differently from:"I have airbags and I don't care who gets in front of my car". You think there is a certain amount of consistency in people's behavior, you size people up, can they mean something for you, do they have good character traits or bad ones, etc. etc.

    If you believe in free will and say there is no cause for people's actions, because they just chose it, there is no point in asking why they chose it. They could not give a cause (because there is none), so they could suddenly choose to do it again or refrain from it for a long time, without causes there is no way to tell and no reason to ask. Future behavior is not linked to passed behavior.

    In practice we give people whos actions show no obvious causal relationship with their perceptions the label of mentally ill.

    Violence has nothing with which to cover itself except the lie, and the lie has nothing to stand on other than violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his method must inexorably choose the lie as his principle. Solzhenitsyn, Alexander

  • Fri, Feb 13 2009 3:32 PM In reply to

    Re: The FDR Determinism Debate...

    KevinP:

     

    pcrs:
    What is more: if you ever wondered:"why did he or she do that?", you are implicitely a determinist.

    I don't understand the logic behind this statement.  Choices have to have a reason, or else they wouldn't be choices.  If I inquire into a person's reason for making a choice, I am implicitly saying that they couldn't have made that choice any other way and it was caused all the way back to the "big bang" or whatever? 

    I agree with you here, Kevin. The self-ascribed reasons as to why a person claims he/she chose to do something have no implicit acknowledgement of determinism. There is, however, an implicit acknowledgement of causality... and I think that was the point.

    KevinP:

    In fact, it seems like the opposite is true.  If I didn't think that a person could have chosen otherwise, then why would I ask them why they made a choice?  It would be like asking a rock why it landed over here instead of over there, wouldn't it?

    I disagree with you here, however. I am frankly a bit tired of the rock analogy. A rock and a human being are completely different physical structures. Rocks do not contemplate, they have no mechanisms for self-description or analysis or the communication thereof. It would be completely useless to attempt to find out why a rock landed somewhere by asking it. No knowledge would come from it. The way to find out why a rock landed where it did would be to study the rock's mass, shape, surrounding terrain, and any potential trail indicators. In other words, you study the features of the rock and its environment to find out why the rock landed where it did.

    By the same token, when you want to find out why a person did something, you study the features of that person and his/her environment. One of the ways to study the features of that person (assuming you already know enough about that person to determine that he/she is likely to respond with a proper awareness and truthfulness of the situation) would be to ask him/her why he/she did that. In essence, you are actually discovering  HOW he/she reasoned so as to execute the behavior, which is a major step in developing a foundation of knowledge for WHY a person did something.

    None of this has anything to do with free will or determinism. It has to do with whether or not you think there is a fundamental difference between the physical system called a "rock" and the physical system called a "human."  You wouldn't measure the weight of a rock with a ruler would you?

  • Fri, Feb 13 2009 6:54 PM In reply to

    • Paul C.
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on Sat, Sep 22 2007
    • Philadelphia, PA
    • Posts 1,669
    • Philosopher King

    Re: The FDR Determinism Debate...

    pcrs:
    I'm not sure if I follow you. Sure, a window will 'experience' a brick different from a feather, but that is all still causal. The next time the window will not break on the feather and stay intact with the brick showing free will.

    I'm not sure what this has to do with my post.  I never suggested that the window has free will.  I am actually pretty frustrated that you would even assume that was my suggestion.

    My point is simply that the action is absolutely completely dependent on the properties of that which acts.  The effect on the window is dependent on the properties of that which flies into it.  Without considering the properties of that which acts, we cannot understand the causal relationship.

    Do you agree?

    pcrs:

     

    I develop logical circuits for my profession, we use simple deterministic building blocks. They have a few inputs and 1 or more outputs. Given certain causes on the input, they give certain effects on the outputs.

    I'm with you here.  But even here, the properties of that which inputs is the critical factor in the effect that outputs, is it not?

    pcrs:
    You have memories as well, these are also deterministic. No matter how you tie these simple blocks together, you will always end up with something deterministic. It can still behave different from what you want, that has a cause. No matter how much complexity you stick on top of each other, it will remain causal and deterministic. Memory makes it difficult to see what is going on, since the causes can lie in the past, but it remains causal. I basically see humans are build from the same matter and energy as everything else and their basic building blocks are deterministic, hence anything built from that has to behave causal as well. Their long history will make it difficult to find causes for their behavior, but nontheless they must be causal. What is more: if you ever wondered:"why did he or she do that?", you are implicitely a determinist.

    I will come back to this after you answer my question.

    Democracy: The Newest Innovation in Livestock Management Techniques!

    When people kill for a lie, they also murder the truth. - Stefan Molyneux

    百聞は一見にしかず。- Japanese Proverb, "Hearing something 100 times can't beat seeing it once." The only way to spread philosophy.

    People who teach their kids conclusions are harming their kids ability to understand reality, and are thus abusers. Those who teach methods are not. This is a difference in kind. People who teach their kids the conclusion that Santa Claus exists are not inflicting a lifetime full of guilt or fear. Those who teach that Jesus Christ exists are. The latter are far more egregious. This is a difference in degree.

  • Fri, Feb 13 2009 9:04 PM In reply to

    Re: The FDR Determinism Debate...

    GregG:
    Captain Trips:
    Stefan Molyneux:
    there is no possibility of preferred or alternative states.
    There's a plant.  It's sitting next to a river and thriving.  There's a drought and the river dries up, leaving the plant with no water source from which to survive.  Is there a preferred state for the plant?  The pre-drought state, perhaps?
    The plant itself has no preferences. It cannot, since they are a product of rational consciousness. The plant is simply an aggregation of chemical processes. As long as conditions are such that the processes can sustain the life within it, it will. As soon as conditions are such that they do not, it won't.

    The "preference" you refer to, is actually your own.

    Be careful not to anthropomorphise...

    Gee Greg, thanks, I sure will.  Likewise, you be careful not to assume.  I'm not saying the plant has preferences, I'm saying it has a preferred state.  That is not at all the same thing.  Stef was talking about preferred states.  I had hoped we were not so entrenched in our biases that we could at least agree that existence is a preferable state to non-existence for all living things, conscious or otherwise.  But perhaps I'm being too optimistic.  Do you disagree with that idea?

    _____
    "Why did they devise censorship? To show a world which doesn't exist, an ideal world, or what they envisaged as the ideal world. And we wanted to depict the world as it was." - Krzysztof KIESLOWSKI, Polish filmmaker (1941-1996)
    - trips -

  • Fri, Feb 13 2009 9:46 PM In reply to

    • Allison
    • Top 500 Contributor
    • Joined on Thu, Feb 12 2009
    • Vancouver, BC
    • Posts 245
    • Diamond Donator

    Re: The FDR Determinism Debate...

    pcrs:

    I develop logical circuits for my profession, we use simple deterministic building blocks. They have a few inputs and 1 or more outputs. Given certain causes on the input, they give certain effects on the outputs. You have memories as well, these are also deterministic. No matter how you tie these simple blocks together, you will always end up with something deterministic. It can still behave different from what you want, that has a cause. No matter how much complexity you stick on top of each other, it will remain causal and deterministic. Memory makes it difficult to see what is going on, since the causes can lie in the past, but it remains causal. I basically see humans are build from the same matter and energy as everything else and their basic building blocks are deterministic, hence anything built from that has to behave causal as well. Their long history will make it difficult to find causes for their behavior, but nontheless they must be causal. What is more: if you ever wondered:"why did he or she do that?", you are implicitely a determinist.

    I found a post from a few years ago that has an interesting take on this.  Here's the link: http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/p/2115/19309.aspx#19309.  I'll quote it below as well:

    Tenderfoot:

    NoDeity:
    Tenderfoot:
    All my discussions of randomness have been to support the plausibility of the "non-deterministic" portion of this definition.   I think all the other portions are generally accepted.

    I think it would be helpful if you could show how wave-particle duality makes self-causal freewill plausible. 

    The fundamentally unpredictable nature of individual atoms makes it plausible that non-deterministic (i.e. random) events occur in the brain.  In fact, it makes it certain, since the brain is constructed of atoms.

    Computers are also constructed of atoms, of course, so random events occur within them as well, but the computer's circuits do not pay attention to individual events, only to large numbers of such events.   The behaviours of large numbers of objects (e.g. electrons) are statistically predictable.  Therefore the random behaviour of each individual electron within a computer chip does not matter.

    As computer chips are miniaturized, these random behaviours will become more and more important, eventually reaching a point where they cannot be ignored.   At that point, future miniaturization will become impossible.   A Cal Tech article on this topic says:

    ...in the next few decades, our ability to miniaturize circuits in silicon will hit bottom. “Information technologies for the most part treat electrons and photons like they were basketballs,”  says Preskill. “You bat electrons around in a circuit, or send photons down a fiber and count them.” But we’re approaching the size where classical physics falters and quantum effects take over."

    Brain components (e.g. the cellular components within each neuron) are much smaller than the components within a computer chip.   It therefore seems plausible that random quantum effects manifest themselves, at least occasionally, in ways that affect events within the brain.

    Extremely tiny events in a complex system can have profound effects on the outcome.   The popular illustration of this phenomenon involves a butterfly flapping its wings in China, thereby causing a hurricane to hit Florida.   Solid mathematics stand behind this.

    If a random, quantum event occurs within a single neuron, causing it to fire a fraction of a millisecond sooner or later than it otherwise would, this can plausibly have a profound effect on brain function.   Millions of neurons are always firing simultaneously in chain reactions.   It is probably very important whether the impulses from one group of neurons reach a particular brain area slightly sooner or slightly later than impulses from a different group.  Random quantum events that affect this timing could therefore be profoundly important. 

    When a brain needs to come up with a solution to a problem, it searches its storehouse of memories for patterns and recollections that might be relevant and useful.   It tries to piece together disparate items of information in order to invent new solutions to its current problem.   The choice of the memories it selects during this process would obviously be crucial.   The process of accessing memories involves firing neurons in sequence.   If the sequential order is disturbed by random quantum events, different memories will be accessed.    This means the brain has access to randomly-generated sets of information from which different potential answers can be extrapolated.   It allows the brain to engage in stochastic simulations (which require true randomness in order to be useful).

    The random, entirely unpredictable quantum events I have described occur entirely within the brain.   Nothing outside the brain causes the events to be random, or can prevent them from being random.   Therefore, they can only be described as self-causal.

    Putting these pieces together, we have a fairly plausible (albeit speculative) description of self-causal, non-deterministic brain activities.  This is only one portion of my definition of free will, but it's a crucial one.

Page 5 of 8 (108 items) « First ... < Previous 3 4 5 6 7 Next > ... Last »
Copyright 2005-2012 By Stefan Molyneux
Powered by Community Server (Non-Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems